Science has evolved through the years up to this time.

It is now dominating our world and

it has been the greatest weapon and very applicable in all kinds of field. As we are now exposed

to technologies, it is expected that most of the products are made and produce using different

technologies. Not only on the products but also it could be applied to animals and plants

especially in agricultural field. One example is genetic engineering also called genetic

modification or genetic manipulation. It is also a process of using technology to change the

genetic makeup- be it an animal, plant, or a bacterium. There are many scientists that are using

genetic engineering in research, medicine, food, and agriculture. And our group says yes to

genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering was thought to be a real problem just a few short years ago. People

feared that soon we would be interfering with nature, trying to play God and cheat Him out of

His chance to decide whether we were blonde or dark haired, whether we had blue or bright

green eyes or even how intelligent we were. The queries and concerns that we have regarding

such an intriguing part of science are still alive and well, although they are less talked about

nowadays than they were those few years ago. If you take a closer look at the arguments

against genetic engineering, most of them are not anti-genetic engineering. Rather, they are

against certain uses of genetic engineering that can pose serious threats to nature by altering life

forms to manufacture genetically tailored robots instead of allowing life to take its natural

course. That being said, let's go through some of the most significant points put forward by

detractors of genetic engineering, justifying why genetic engineering should not be allowed to

take a free course and this are the following. Arguments against genetic engineering genetic

engineering is among the top three most controversial issues of the modern world that always

sparks off heated debates upon the issue of its ethicalness. Here are some arguments against

genetic engineering that establish why it is wrong for humans to interfere with the original

blueprints of Creation. According to the research of David Koepsell, that arguments based upon

life’s sacredness suggest that altering life forms violates the will of a creator (Ramsey 1966,

p.168), but they fail for want of internal theoretical consistency or because they rest on question-
begging assumptions. If a creator does exist, most philosophers and theologians agree that either

the creator’s will is expressed in every facet of its creation, or that consistent with the creator’s

will mankind has free will, which includes the ability to create technologies (for a contrary view,

see Prather 1988, pp.138–42). Thus, genetic engineering can be seen as an expression of the

creator’s will—since it forms part of creation—or it is the result of our having been imbued with

free will. Granted, there are those who would claim that genetic engineering constitutes a misuse

of our free will. Of course, determining what constitutes a misuse of our free will in defiance of

divine directives depends on interpretation of those supposed divine directives. This is a problem

with all moral theories premised on God’s commands: what anyone believes to be commanded

always depends on some human’s interpretation of those commands. “Defying God’s will”

always means defying some person’s interpretation of God’s will. The difficulty of discerning a

deity’s wishes in the context of genetic engineering is compounded by the fact that none of the

major religions’ sacred writings speak to this issue. The Bible, for example, is silent on

recombinant DNA. Furthermore, those who suggest that genetic engineering violates God’s will

must also view selective breeding of agricultural products, both plants and animals, as similarly

contrary to God’s will. If they do not view selective breeding as violating life’s sacredness, then

they must explain how it is qualitatively different from genetic engineering, which is in many

ways only a quantitative or methodologically distinct process. The speed and predictability of the

changes brought about by genetic engineering do surpass the speed and predictability of changes

accomplished by selective breeding techniques, but that seems a poor argument for saying the

former is contrary to God’s will, while the latter is acceptable. Is it God’s will that modifying

nature is acceptable, but only provided we proceed slowly and haphazardly? Our entire culture

exists by virtue of human inventiveness and our modification of nature. Even religious sects that

reject modern technologies nonetheless embrace some technologies; the essence of technology is

to alter the human relationship to nature. (Amended September 2007)

Clothing, agriculture, and weaponry have existed since before the dawn of civilizations,

and each alters our relationship with nature. These technologies express a rejection of the

“natural” order of things, and result from human consciousness and intentionality. In fact,

embracing these technologies has altered human evolution, enabling us to venture outside of the
savannah, and live in a variety of climates, defending ourselves from inclement environments

and dangerous predators. Without these technologies, it is likely that humans would look very

different, with different strengths and weaknesses from those we see now, and would have

remained in relatively restricted environments instead of populating six out of the seven

continents (and the seventh to a limited extent). As such, the history of our tinkering with the

natural is long, and its results generally lauded by religious and secular alike.

In contrast to the opposing argument, our group agrees to genetic engineering. Despite of

the many counterclaims they give, we say yes for it can help us in many ways in different fields.

The first one is that it can help us in the agricultural field. Through the use of genetic engineering

transferring a certain gene to another gene of an organism, the farmers can produce plenty of

crops, vegetables, and fruits; and it can prevent the crops from dying due the pests and insects.

Plants can have specific traits developed through genetic engineering that can make them more

attractive to use or consumption. Different colors can be created to produce a wider range of

produce. Based from the NewLeaf™ potato, a GM food developed using naturally-occurring

bacteria found in the soil known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), was made to provide in-plant

protection from the yield-robbing Colorado potato beetle. This was brought to market by

Monsanto in the late 1990s, developed for the fast food market. This was forced to withdraw

from the market in 2001as the fast food retailers did not pick it up and thereby the food

processors ran into export problems. Reports say that currently no transgenic potatoes are

marketed for the purpose of human consumption. However, BASF, one of the leading suppliers

of plant biotechnology solutions for agriculture requested for the approval for cultivation and

marketing as a food and feed for its ‘Fortuna potato’. This GM potato was made resistant to late

blight by adding two resistance genes, blb1 and blb2, which was originated from the Mexican

wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum. As of 2005, about 13 % of the zucchini grown in the USA

is genetically modified to resist three viruses; the zucchini is also grown in Canada

(Johnson 2008). Genetic engineering could also apply to the animals. Genetic engineering

allows animals to be modified so their maturity can occur at a quicker pace. Engineering can

allow this maturity to occur outside of the normal growth conditions that are favorable without

genetic changes as well. Even if there are higher levels of heat or lower levels of light, it
becomes possible to expand what can be grown in those conditions. Animals can be modified to

produce more milk, grow more muscle tissue, or produce different coats so that a wider range of

fabrics can be created. Another branch of animal modification is molecular farming, also known

as ‘pharming’, in which biopharmaceuticals are manufactured in transgenic animals (Kind &

Schnieke, 2008). More than recombinant cell cultures, animals are attractive bioreactors: they

have the correct metabolic pathways, are reproducible, easily maintained, and do not require

expensive infrastructure (Dyck, Lacroix, Pothier, & Sirard, 2003). Production of these

recombinant proteins usually happens in mammalian milk, since it offers flexible production and

relatively straightforward purification, but also egg white and seminal plasma are being used

(Dyck et al., 2003). Blood, on the other hand, is usually not able to store high concentrations of

recombinant proteins (Houdebine, 2009b). Another medical application of genetic modification

aims to improve the suitability of animal organs for xenotransplantation, e.g. in pigs (Luo, Lin,

Bolund, Jensen, & Sorensen, 2012). Lastly, animals have also been modified to improve, or

rather, add ‘aesthetic’ qualities (Gong et al., 2003, Wan et al., 2002). The third one and the last

one is that with genetic engineering, new products can be created by adding or combining

different profiles together and produce new medicines for rare diseases. One example of this is to

take a specific product, such as a potato, and alter its profile so that it can produce more nutrients

per kcal than without the genetic engineering. This makes it possible for more people to get what

they need nutritionally, even if their food access is limited, and this could potentially reduce

global food insecurity People seem to have forgotten there are many ways aside from “science”

to describe the world around us, and that there are other highly effective tools out there to solve

hunger and malnutrition besides genetic engineering. The first successful products of genetic

engineering were protein drugs like insulin, which is used to treat diabetes, and growth hormone

somatotropin. These proteins are made in large quantities by genetically engineered bacteria or

yeast in large “bioreactors.” Some drugs are also made in transgenic plants, such as tobacco.

Other human proteins that are used as drugs require biological modifications that only the cells

of mammals, such as cows, goats, and sheep, can provide. For these drugs, production in

transgenic animals is a good option. Using farm animals for drug production has many

advantages because they are reproducible, have flexible production, are easily maintained, and
have a great delivery method (e.g. milk). However, this does not mean that they are any less

relevant. In fact, they are as relevant today as they ever were. There are a number of very real

and very troubling concerns surrounding genetic engineering, although there are also some very

real benefits to further genetic engineering and genetic research, too. It seems, therefore, as

though genetic engineering is both a blessing and a curse, as though we stand to benefit as well

as lose from developing this area of science even further. With Genetic Engineering, we will be

able to increase the complexity of our DNA and improve the human race. But it will be a slow

process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the Genetic

Code (Stephen Hawking).

Genetic engineering has the potential to transform our lives in many positive ways.

Rejection of this new technology on the ground that it is unnatural or inherently immoral is

unwarranted and seems to be based on little more than an instinctive adverse reaction. Genetic

engineering can provide immense benefits provided it is used prudently and carefully regulated

and controlled. Genetic engineering is a key for our future’s improvement. With the help of

genetic engineering, plants and animals can have a healthier growth. Also medicine can be

developed to have a more effective and rapid recovery. Starting a research group to work on

genetic engineering and other issues can be the first step of making genetic engineering

favorable. Before starting a new research group, though, it is helpful to find existing groups with

similar purpose. To start a local group to resist genetic engineering, you may want to arrange a

meeting for a small group of people you know who share your interests and concerns. The goal

of this initial meeting could be to plan a more public meeting or event to launch the group in the

community. Because genetic engineering is a relatively new issue, hold a public education

event, which you can follow up with the first organizational meeting for the new group. Since

there are so many reasons to be concerned about genetic engineering, a well-planned educational

event can be a great motivator to bring people into the movement. In planning the event, think

about potential members for your group. With your members in mind, begin planning for the

event. Decide on who will facilitate the event, who will bring a sign-in sheet, who will arrive

early to open and set up the room, who will bring refreshments, etc. Divide responsibility for

these jobs among the members. Determine the date and location of a follow-up planning
meeting before you hold the public event. Inform people of the public event at least two weeks in

advance, through letters, postcards, email notices, newspaper and radio announcements, or

flyers. Genetic engineering can provide immense benefits provided it is used prudently and

carefully regulated and controlled.