Plant Gene Breading and Human Gene Editing Paper Example

Introduction

Gene editing also called genome editing is a type of genetic engineering and technology that gives scientists the ability to insert, modify, replace or delete selected DNA sequence of a cell in an organism. Usually molecular scissors and engineered nucleases scientific methods are used to carry out these processes. Many genome-editing techniques have been established, and the recent ones are Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats CRISPR and CRISPR- associated protein 9, TALENs and. CRISPR- case 9 schemes are very faster, and it has greeted many improvements in science (HUMANA, 23). Based on the regulatory perspective genome editing has become less novel and most of their developments a failed into the stipulated regulations of genetic engineering. Therefore, there is a need to emphasis on ensuring that the extent of regulatory categories is proportional to the dangers involved.
This article argues on the extent to which genome editing need to be regulated.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Genome editing is currently an important and useful aspect of life, and it could be used to edit genes of any living organism except for embryo that can be prompted to grow up to 14 days. Also, it can be used for research to manipulate the DNA of cells in various organisms in order to establish their biological being and how they work. In treating different diseases, genome editing is of significant input and also in biotechnology and agricultural sector. Despite genome editing being significant scientific progress, there is a need to establish administrative boundaries to stop the inconveniences caused by it. Crossing boundaries in species are immoral, unnatural and violation of God's laws and this presumes that boundaries between species are fixed. However, this progress is rendered no problematic if stipulated regulations are adhered to (Parrington,15). Several known dangers have been encountered as a result of biotechnology associated with replacement of cells from animals to human. For instance, there is a significant danger of the spread of deadly zoonotic infections such as encephalopathy, profile spongiform and porfine endogenous retroviruses. Introduction of these diseases to a human being may lead to a devastating effect. Therefore, it essential for administrative agencies responsible for such occurrences to ban xenotransplantation until the protocols have been sufficiently confirmed to be safe and ethical issues have been adequately and publicly discussed. Also, it vital to consider other issues before large-scale usage and acceptance of genetic generating research and implementations. These includes:

• The hazards of generating new diseases in the process of developing treatments to particular infections for which there may be no cure available by manipulating or combining human DNA, plant DNA and animal DNA
• Risks and positive impacts of the experimental use of animals
• The possibility of long-term hazards to the surrounding

Increased potentials in the suffering of the transgenic living things, various environmentalists, bioethicists and animal rights have to strongly sting against the creation of wrong organisms as a result of genome editing that would suffer the consequences of genetic alterations (Crew, 24)

Bioethicists have to call for an end and establishment of strict regulatory services on species alteration programs and should be enforced by the legal bodies. Gene editing has shown potential in creating sub-race (sub-human) or a slave race that could be exploited. If as a result of genetic engineering an organism is created with the ability to speak, walk and reason to the same capacity as we do but looks different from human, for example, looks like a dog or chimpanzee; should that creature be given equal rights and protection as humans? Human being tops most important, and controller of most things on earth has to be defined more expansive and defensive way rather than in a more restrictive manner (Chonievich, 14)

Medical associates have expressed that that most of the athletes have adopted the use of genetic engineering materials in order to emerge winners in their competitions. If some people can genetically alter their abilities, then it is likely to create good looking genetically or any creature with a particular ability. By allowing these acts, the world is running risks of creating superhumans, and in this case, we will have changed what it means to be normal and increasing the gap that exists between the haves-not and haves. Parents do take advantage of biotechnology by giving their children growth hormones generated from gene editing technology. It would be wrong for them to argue that their children are deprived right to liberty when genetic manipulation programs are banned. Genetic engineering continues to impose more problematic challenges on victims for the 21st century; ethicists, scientists, education centers are the beginning of what is needed to tackle difficult ethical issues. (Isik, 25).

Plant Gene Breading

There is significant progress in breading of plants since the last few decades, as a result of the introduction of new molecular methods. Using genome editing there has been an increased precession in plant breeding, this represents a great change of from traditional breeding approaches which relied on random and uncontrolled radiation and chemical-induced mutagenesis. Research has advanced in, and the translated plant is breading to new crops which involves the use of CRISPR-Case9, (Irus, 18). These scientific advances have accentuated a challenge to regulatory authorities that is to what extent should food or plant products generated from gene editing come into the purview of the other regulatory and legislative services which governed the genetically modified organism? In my opinion, the regulators should and must confirm that the products of gene editing do not contain the DNA of unrelated living thing and do not fall onto the doctrines of GMOs regulations. It is also advisable that there should be transparency in exposing the process used. The goal should be to regulate plant breeding and agricultural products rather than focusing on the new methods and technology used in the production process (Gurbachan, 17). The main problem s that genetically edited crops could turn out to be indistinguishable from crops that occur naturally because the similar changes in crops gene could also give rise through random mutation. It is of high for all government agencies to fight this paradox and establish a strict regulatory status for genome editing of organisms. The primary regulatory step that has to be taken for subjecting organisms to the evolving scientific developments has to 'safety.' There have several debates about regulating genome edited crops, and less have been resolved. It is critical to dig deeper into the concerns that make up the basis for legal and regulatory oversights in different countries.

Human Gene Editing

The potential of human gene editing has become a challenge and triggered discussions in every country. Law and regulations aim biotechnology is of great concern, and this comes from the public, the government, public and private industries which engage in the production of items based on scientific research (Jaenisch, 13). Legal regulations need o determined which products are to be produced as a result of many scientific discoveries and what the public need or should have. Human germline editing poses a risk of passing the changes that arise to the next generations, and this is a clear indication of a change in humankind shortly. Genome editing for reproductive purposes has to be restricted within some lines and government have to continue deliberating to the public and debating in order to decide on germline dieting. It is right to say that genome editing is of extreme worry and the emergence of classes of people defined by the possession of abilities of engineered genes.

Safety

As a result of the possibility of miss targeted effects or edits in the incorrect place or mosaicism (situation when edited cells carry the edit, and others fail) safety should be prioritized. Some of the medical researchers and ethics have written and spoke of genome editing. They suggested that not until genome editing is confirmed safe first through research can be for clinical procreative purposes since the dangers involved cannot be justified or confirmed through potential benefits. In some cases, genome may not be the best alternative for reproductive purposes rather than the current medical technologies, for example, PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis) and IVF (In-Vitro Fertilization). Bioethicists and scientists, however, have acknowledged that in most cases can address significant achievements not met by PGD for instance when parents are homozygous for a disease that causes variant that is they both have two duplicates of variant, and hence all of the children they sire will have the disease (Sternberg, S. H, 19). Also, in the cases of polygenic disorders and people who object to aspects PGD.

Genome editing meant therapeutic purposes would make users start diverting it to none-therapeutic and purposes of enhancements which is viewed as controversial and for this reason genome editing has to be regulated. It will be of a moral imperative if genome editing is restricted from curing genetic diseases until it is proven safe and convenience (Matthew Hirsch, 17). The victims who are affected by genome editing are the embryos and the future, and this means it is upon the current generation to save by establishing relevant and useful regulations.

Animal Gene Editing

Dramatic advances are evident in the dairy sector as a result of genome editing, for instance, Holsteins breed naturally grow horns, but establishments have made to produce hornless Holsteins through the insertion of a gene from hornless Angus to Holsteins. This progress is of significant benefits even though genome editing is yet to be confirmed the safe way. It is illegal to sell unsafe food products regarding the genome editing method used to produce. Most of the applications of these methods of genetic manipulations do not fit to the first regulations of the genetic engineering, and hence genome editing in such sectors has to be strictly restricted. Genetically engineered animal products through DNA modification techniques have to be subjected to regulatory systems (Bing Yang, 21). Many of the genetically modified animals have modifications that could occur by natural means, and this makes it unnecessary.

Conclusion

From a personal perspective, gene editing regulations have to work to the seamless integration of genome edits methods in human editing, animal gene editing, and plant gene editing programs. The best and effective regulatory programs are one that prompts new technologies and techniques to be used while avoiding unacceptable and intolerable hazards involved in an animal, human health and the environment. In cases where genome editing is essential, it is vital to ensure that regulatory frameworks appropriately consider the benefits of using gene edited products and on the other hand prevent their risks. It is essential to learn from the Genetically Modified Organisms debates; public concerns are vital and the environment as well.

Works Cited

Braverman, Irus. Gene Editing, Law, and the Environment: Life Beyond the Hu...