Being a biochemistry and molecular biology major pursuing a career in genetic engineering the subject of genetic enhancement is extremely controversial and related to my career goals. Genetic engineering is the modification of an organism's genome by adding or removing genetic material. It is in dispute among professionals in the field of biochemistry as well as anyone who has taken a position on their beliefs of genetic engineering. This is of interest to me because this is the field of study I want to work in. If genetic engineering is considered morally wrong among the scientific community and is banned as a result, then I would have to change career paths. It also holds endless possibilities from curing genetic disorders to creating organisms better suited for human needs, such as plants with more nutrients or resistant to extreme temperatures. As a pragmatic person, I believe if altering a genetic sequence of an organism could enhance its chances at survival then it should be done. This is the same for saving, bettering, or enhancing a person's life. I have some knowledge of basic genetic mutation, variation, and engineering. Gene therapy and genetic engineering are becoming increasingly popular in the field biochemistry because of its potential and recent breakthroughs. One of the most influential discoveries in genetic engineering is the use of CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR-Cas9 is a genetic engineering tool which allows DNA to be edited with extreme precision and ease. The founding of the this new technology has exponentially increased our knowledge of genetic engineering, which makes is why rules need to be set now. I believe the legal, ethical, and safety guidelines of genetic engineering and genome modification need to be determined, so they can be used to cure diseases, fight famine, and creating new medical procedures. The research I have done on genome modification and genetic engineering has allowed me to form an educated opinion on this topic, and thus write about it.

Henry Miller a research fellow at the Hoover Institute argues that human genetic enhancement is nothing more than plastic surgery in his essay "Gene Enhancement Not so Different from a Nose Job." He says that gene therapy has dangers like any new drug or procedure, and it must go through test and trials before being released to the public. There are social issues of who will receive these enhancements. It should be up to the person after they are fully informed to decide if they want to proceed gene therapy. Also, genetic enhancement wouldn't affect further generations if only somatic cells were enhanced. Miller's values in which he bases his argument is on the possibility for cures to genetic diseases and giving humans control over themselves. He even agrees with the opposing argument that genetic enhancement could be considered dangerous because it is possibly irreversible. Miller suggests though the same technology used to activate a dormant gene can inactivate it. Miller has a bias towards gene therapy because he knows how thorough the FDA is about releasing new procedures, especially one that would be altering the human genome. He knows this because he used to work as an analyst for the FDA.

Enhancing Human Capacities, by Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Meulen, and Guy Kahane, describes the social and individual issues of genetic enhancement. All these men have backgrounds at high standing universities in ethics or bioethics. Making them extremely qualified to discuss the topic of genetic engineering and the ethics related. They categorize genetic enhancements as: cognitive, physical, mood, moral, or life extending. The book acknowledges the benefits and drawbacks of each enhancement and their possible effects on humanity. The basis of their argument is around how to choose who is given these genetic enhancements, or the possibility of creating a greater gap between the rich and poor. Their backgrounds give the bias towards the ethical concerns of genetic enhancement: this bias is seen throughout most of the chapters.  

"Human Development or Human Enhancement" by Mark Coeckelbergh suggests that human enhancement is inevitable. Mark Coeckelbergh is a professor of philosophy of technology at the University of Vienna. He argues not that enhancement is unethical, but how as a society we should address what modifications to the human genome would be beneficial for all humanity. Creating humans with greater abilities without losing what is natural or destroying humanity is Cockelbergh's main argument in this paper. He suggest an approach for choosing enhancements that would be beneficial, while deterring selfishness and greed. His argument is based on the idea of how the human species should be shaped. The idea of shaping the human species is supported by creating equality and making genetic enhancement optional.

In respect to genetic engineering some people believe that it is not the place of someone to alter their DNA in an attempt to achieve a higher goal. In my research some say that people are trying to play God by altering themselves. Most sources agree with the endless possibilities that genetic engineering can have on society as well as the ability for gene therapy to cure diseases and disabilities. Some of the sources believe that it is unethical to create organisms with specific gene expressions, while some believe it is crucial to survival of species or further development. It supports my belief for further research into genetic engineering and all the possibilities it can create for the future, but makes me question where we draw the line of changing ourselves. I've realized my original research question was too specific, so I will be changing the question from the possibility of human genetic engineering to continuing the research of genetic engineering.

