Why isn't there government regulation in the United States for genetic engineering on human embryos in order to insure that this technology is being used for medical benefits and not for personal gains? This question interests me because genetic engineering is a field that I am highly considering looking into for a future job, specifically fertility nursing, which is the type of job that would be directly affected by this topic. This topic also affects my values because although I find it very fascinating that technology has advanced to the point that we may pick some of our children's characteristics, I do not believe it is ethical to manipulate an embryo for personal reasons. I do, however, believe it is ethical for medical reasons such as using IVF technology to help infertile couples have a child of their own. My sister and her husband are among the millions of couples who cannot have children on their own, but with the help of this technology, they can. 

The Library of Congress provides specific up to date information on where the United States stands on the topic of genetic engineering. In the introduction of the article, it states that the United States does not currently have any sort of federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The US chooses to focus "on the nature of the products, rather than the process in which they were produced" ("Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States"). The article then goes on to provide a public opinion and a scholarly opinion. The public opinion in the US is said to be very mixed whereas the scholarly opinion says that there is not yet evidence that it produces any safety risks. This source is directly from the United States government, giving this source a lot of credibility. It also shows that there is no regulation on genetic engineering as of mid 2015. 

In the article, "We are Not Ready to Edit Human Embryos Yet", the author, Craig Venter, argues that if human enhancement is introduced, it could take away our humanity. He backs up his argument with three main points: Insufficient knowledge, the slippery slope argument, and the global ban on experimentation. He believes that we do not have enough knowledge yet to truly trust the process of enhancing humans. He also brings up the slippery slope argument, which says that "if we allow editing of disease genes, it will open the door to all gene editing for human enhancement", which will cause for a lot of "designer babies" (Venter). Venter is a credible author for this topic because he is a geneticist known for being one of the first to sequence the human genome.

"Genetically Modified Humans? Seven Reasons to Say 'No'", an article from the Center for Genetics and Society (CGS), came out following the first use of the "gene editing" technology, named CRISPR, in human embryos in China in the spring of 2015. Following this technological advance came a 'global media firestorm' about the "irresponsibility of attempting to create genetically modified humans" ("Genetically Modified Humans? Seven Reasons to Say 'No'"). The article addresses seven reasons why it is time for the United States to place legal prohibitions on 'gene editing'. The reasons include, profound health risks to future children, thin medical justification, violating the common heritage of humanity and eroding public trust in responsible science. The Center for Genetics and Society is well known for being "a nonprofit information and public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies and other emerging technologies"("CGS : About Us").

As you can see, this research exigence is highly arguable due to its variety of "issues" and fight for governmental regulation. This issue has been brought up numerous times in congress, but fails every time. Throughout the sources, you can see many agreements and disagreements such as how Venter and CGS both believe there should be governmental interference, although, CGS just wants some parameters set while Venter argues that opening any doors of genetic engineering to the public is dangerous. These perspectives influence my personal context because it gives me many different angles of the subject to consider when arguing my point for needing government regulation. Due to this, in addressing my issue, I may have to consider being more specific on exactly what parameters I will be arguing for. 

