AFF Alex Chou MV

Before this century, medicine consisted mainly of amputation saws, morphine, and other crude remedies. Since then, vaccines and antibiotics have allowed us to vanquish entire classes of diseases. The next scientific miracle will help us conquer disease and prolong life, because genetic engineering has the potential to subjugate cancer, grow new blood vessels, block the growth of tumors, and perhaps even slow down the aging process. Because of the benefits genetic engineering can provide, I affirm today’s resolution that "Human genetic engineering is morally justified."

For today’s round, I offer the following definitions:

Human genetic engineering: the scientific alteration of genes or genetic material to produce desirable new traits or to eliminate undesirable ones –American Dictionary of Science, 1986

Moral: conforming to the standard of right behavior (Webster’s Dictionary)

Justified: judgement that is rightful, warranted or sanctioned (Black’s Law Dictionary)

My value for this debate is that of morality. Since human genetic engineering is beneficial to all, the use of it is morally justified. My criterion for achieving morality is that of better health and societal good. By acting in a way that we are increasing both the general health of an individual, and their societal good, we are acting in a moral manner. With this in mind, I offer you

Contention 1: Human genetic engineering is a scientific advancement that must not be intervened. Thoughout history, unbounded scientific advancement has benefited humans far beyond our most optimistic expectations. By affirming this resolution, we are not "forcing" genetic engineering on anyone; we are merely giving society a choice. As Brett Paragow stated, "An abundance of choices makes for a successful society."

Contention 2: Human genetic engineering increases the health of the individual. People dream of a life without disease and sickness, without suffering and pain, and being able to have a healthy, normal child, and now it may very well come true with genetic engineering.

(Sub-point A) Gene therapy is essential to the development of making a sick child healthy. The curing of genetic diseases is definitely a positive account of human genetic engineering. As Dr. Regina Manger once said, "Genetic disease were long a source of parent’s nightmares. They were incurable and deadly, but now with genetic engineering, there is definitely a torch of hope shining at the end of the."

(Sub-point B) Genetic engineering is a therapeutic tool of incredible power. Have you ever been to a hospital and seen the conditions of people who lay dying and out of hope? They can barely talk or hear, walk or move. They wish to get better, and all we can do to help is to wait and hope for the best. Human genetic engineering has already cured 400 cases of genetic ailments! (Hemophilia, Huntington’s disease, cardiac arrest) This, so far, is the only hope for patients to become well. With becoming well, is the increase of happiness in one’s life, as well as the doctors and of the family. By the use of genetic engineering, we can save lives, perfect bodies, and instill happiness into all. And of course, HGE, like all other tools and technology, will be limited to prevent any misuse or abuse. Take liberty, freedom, they are limited, but we still want them, need them, and use them.

Contention 3: Human genetic engineering would be used to improve the overall quality of life in ways other than medicine. If we were able to improve the way of overage citizens’ lives, we should seize the opportunity. Human nature is to make advancements in the way we live. That’s why our society has become as advanced and superior as it is. One very crucial example of this is the ability to deter crime. As scientist Mark Philpott’s earlier research papers, based on a study done in California in 1997, have shown, the gene that is most likely to cause a child to commit a crime. By removing a gene and replacing it with another one, Mr. Philpott has shown that there is a more than 70% chance that this child will not commit a terrible crime. My opponent cannot possibly prove that the prevention of crime is not an improvement over the society in which we live today. This gives even more validity to genetic engineering being moral, as it will allow a safer society. Besides, wouldn’t it be nice for once, to see evening news reports on the economy, rather than a tragic murder?

Contention 4: To be morally justified, the intent, the means and the ends need to be moral. This is the most important aspect of today’s round. We can always argue the benefits and the consequences of a tool, in this case HGE, but that does not make something moral, or immoral. For example, take that table. If I’m using it as a place to sit and write, it is perfectly acceptable, however, what happens if I decide to use it to hit my opponent in the head? This would definitely be an immoral act. As you can see HGE has its benefits and consequences, but that does not determine its morality! However, what does is the intent behind this tool, the means of applying it and the ends we are trying to arrive at, that is what makes something moral or immoral.

(Sub-point A) As we can see, the intent of human genetic engineering is moral. We are utilizing it for the good of society, purely for medical purposes. We are using it to save lives and to increase the qol of people, what can be immoral about that?

(Sub-point B) The means is clearly harming nobody. We are researching in labs and with single cells. We shed millions upon millions of dead cells each day; the use of one of those is definitely not immoral. Therefore, the means of human genetic engineering is moral. When scientific advancements is achieved through moral means, then there is no morally sound reason to impede the process.

(Sub-point C) The ends is to benefit humans, to increase the qol, to save people from death, and to increase societal good, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this end. How can someone say that these attributes are not moral? Evidently the intent, the means, and the ends of human genetic engineering are moral.

As I have demonstrated, it is quite apparent that human genetic engineering will not only benefit society, but will also uphold my value premise of morality upon which I’ve based my case. Also, as I have shown, we certainly cannot overlook what makes something moral or immoral. Lastly, the improvement of the overall quality of life is definitely something that has to be looked at very closely in this debate. Because of these reasons, I stand affirmed "That human genetic engineering is morally justified."

************************************************EXTRA STUFF**************************************************

Most of us can’t remember our first vaccination, but chances are, it was filled with crippled microbe, just enough to produce a mild infection. Immunizing in this way has worked reasonably well, but geneticists say they can do better. Using DNA, as opposed to microbe, will incite a more vigorous, aggressive response from the immune system. While the current vaccines do a good job of gathering antibiotics, they do not coax the body to produce the killer T-cells, the "smart bombs" of our immune system. In earlier tests, gene therapy triggered both responses. Not only can gene therapy destroy viruses and disease, but also it has the potential to cure cancer and tumors in humans. Dr. Eli Gilboa says, "It (gene therapy) is very promising." Current day vaccines cannot quell many diseases, but genetic engineering has the potential to conquer all. This will decrease suffering from the effects of such diseases like the common cold, and better the health of the billions of citizens of the world. An increase the health, will be followed by an increase the happiness of the individual and all those caring for him.

It is the individuals’ liberty to decide whether they will take part in human genetic engineering. What would make people happier than to have the liberty to make their own choices, and chose the way they want to live their lives? Nothing.

Society should not have the right to discourage science. Instead, they should use science to their own benefits, as a tool. Who are we to discourage a scientist from making the breakthrough of a lifetime, simply because we falsely believe that it may be detrimental to society? (Even if an individual objects to something, we should not, as a society, condemn it as being immoral.)