Question

Germ-Line Therapy The HGP produced a functionally complete map and sequencing of the he nome. The map identifies the constituent genes of human beings and som organisms, and sequencing identifies the nucleotide base pairs that mal genes. Even before these features were functionally complete, considerable tion surrounded the future of genetic interventions. One debate that have mering since the early twentieth century concerns germ-line intervention tvould not only modify the genetic endowment of somatic cells, but spould alt cells and be carried into future generations. This debate has become more as the prospect of meaningful genetic interventions grows closer of the human ge- ines and several other sirs that make up those ste considerable specula debate that has been som cations. These In somatic genetic interventions, only a given person's genetic function would be altered, not heritable traits in the person's gametes. For example, if a man's diabetes were controlled through a somatic genetic intervention, he would still be capable of passing along a genetic disposition to diabetes to his children. Germ-line interventions would control the genetic trait not only in the individual but also in his or her gametes. Some consider this objectionable in the extreme on the grounds that if something were to go wrong in the person, that same damage would be inflicted on future generations. For example, control of a genetic disposition toward diabetes might contribute to an increased susceptibility to cancer. Critics see no need whatsoever for this sort of intervention, because prenatal diagnostics and treatments could meet all the needs of germ-line therapy. In the case of diabetes, a physician could diagnose a genetic susceptibility to the disease at birth and begin to treat the child. Another objection to germ-line therapy is that it would widen an already broad divide between rich and poor. If the therapy is expensive, and it would likely be, its benefits would not be available in an equitable way. In addition, it would likely be used to enhance people rather than merely to prevent disease. For example, if genes related to superior cognitive abilities are discovered, rich people might use germ-line interventions to ensure having bright children, which is not the same thing as pro- tecting them from disease or disability. Germ-line therapy could also aggravate the debate about research on human em- bryos. Study of the safety and efficacy of these interventions in humans would no doubt require considerable numbers of human embryos. The prospect of controlling the fate of future human beings raises questions and fear. It seems better to leave the fate of people to chance rather than concentrate in the hands of one person or group. In other words, there are boundaries to interven tion that no human should cross. A more concentrated version of this view sugges that germ lines could be controlled for malevolent purposes, comparable with racial hygiene programs. A final argument is that children have the right to receive a genome that has been tampered with by anyone.

Answer 1

Answer 2.

According the following paragraph there is more factor that
Aus do chrEF WORRIES AROur Germ LINE INTERVENTION → If the germ the ecoy intervention goes wrong - it may be inflicted to future generation, > It may also devide the riches dass - a pour class peopean As auch people I can afford this therapy a proses can't fjord this > 't superior quality found a can be - bansfer by gene therapy rich people a an Dausfer these qualities to theis. .. next generation → Gene thecary research also require neuma embryos to research the effect of its intervention → By the genethecapy if some person con uomet do something wrong to the genad that s gone transpos to next geneant it may be • nery baut hassiful, the if germ live the capy should be controlled to benefit of the peope of sociely. If it. scenary by some one who want to desboy a socodiy could be very dangeroun Scanned with ' CamScanner

ANSWER 3. GERM eine theocapy internents et costies or expensive. The use of germ live therapy can't be of fosed by poor class of people. A easily afford by thich class person, which canze harmfeel to society as future general of tuch class people are somartest brighes t by the use of this therapy, that may device long gap between miche poorer, Eg = A riches person have diabetes may treat gene of him a can preprend diabel in his future generation, a But poor people who have é diabetes con afford this therapy & may palufar. diabetes or othare disease, tole h his next generaton & If one person who home sickle cell arena can reat heimself 4 can prevent trousher of sickle cell amenian to his next general but want peor person who have this comh dothan
shows that there should no gene therapy and that are convincing also.

Because as mentioned in paragraph

1. It affects the future generations of a person, that may be beneficiary or may be harmful depends on who done the gene therapy intervention.

2. As gene therapy may be costier so the rich class of society can afford this and poor people cant ger benefits of this.

3. For the gene therapy research there is requirement of human embryo, who will provide these embryo on which research can be done. And if something goes wrong in research what is the fate of this embryo? And who is responsible for that?

4. If gene therapy goes in wriwr hand, thet can misuse this and can transfer disease to a complete society.

ANSWER 4

Children have the right not to expect a genome that is not planned by therapist.

Because in this therapy some faulty gene can be transferred that can be harmful to children. So the children have the right that he should not received the gene therapy.