As I continue my studies in Biomedical Engineering seeing the material, experimenting with the processes, etc. I start to realize that today's news stories in science are often times ethically conflicting more so than ideologically conflicting. The principles in science remain true over centuries; they are tested and repeated to expand upon, but the fundamentals behind the basics of human life remain relatively static. Now it is often a question as to whether these new tests and solutions are ethically sound enough to be put into daily lives of patients that will be directly affected. Should a new medication be used to treat a patient when the long-term effects are unknown? Should it be legal for individuals to buy organs for transplant? Questions like these remain and are much beyond a black and white answer. An example of this, the up and coming topic of genetic manipulation of embryos affects the population on a large scale. Human reproduction is a life process that the majority of individuals have the choice to take part in in their lifetime. It goes hand in hand with the scientific process of evolution from generation from generation, naturally selecting the traits in offspring that will best suit their environment. This allows for the adaptation, which is ultimately essential for survival. However, the key factor to evolution and the selection of these traits is that it is a natural process. Imagine being able to choose which traits your child will be born with. That idea is no longer hypothetical, but now a definitive truth of the scientific world. It is in fact possible to choose the traits of your child just as you would choose the components of your sandwich. Instead of turkey, cheese, and tomatoes, anyone could be choosing blue eyes, brown hair, and the athleticism capacity of Kobe Bryant.  The important issue of this discovery is the ethical concern, which is stopping it from being pronounced as an option for soon-to-be parents. As soon as the debacle is settled, it will be determined whether genetic manipulation of babies is practiced globally. 

In an article by Renuka Sivapatham, a research associate for Buck Institute for Research on Aging, a program with the capabilities of actually carrying out this genetic engineering is explored. This system, the CRISPR/CaS9, has the capability to manipulate DNA by changing the sequences of the linkages. It has been successful on several organisms; however, is it ethically sound to be tried on the large scale? The real ethical debate lies in the division between gene manipulation used for medicine or cosmetic changes. According to this article, majority of people would agree to tamper with nature if we are eradicating a life long disease, thus increasing the longevity of their lifetime. Contrarily, people do not agree with the idea of messing with nature and the natural evolution just to change a child's eye color. Renuka believes that is it important for every country to develop guidelines that will reflect their ideas on the processes of genomic engineering on humans. The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine along with the scientists who discovered CRISPR/CaS9 will be working together to create these guidelines for our country. They believe it will prompt other countries to do the same, creating a worldwide awareness. This is a very credible source as it is a research agency with many well reknowned projects. The authors are unbiased and are looking more so for guidelines to be made than pushing for one side or the other. 

Dr. Francis Collins announced the policies of the US National Institute of Health as far as giving out funding for research involving this genetic engineering. According to this recent statement of April 2015, NIH will not fund any practices of the manipulation of genes on humans or the technologies needed to do so. They claim that after taking many perspectives into account, genetic engineering is very collectively seen as a practice that should not be allowed for several reasons, including safety, ethics, and no consent of the next generation that will be directly affected. Additionally, there are legislative exclusions as well that are already in place. The Dickey-Wicker amendment, added to a bill passed by President Clinton in 1995 forbids the Department of Health and Human Services from funding for research purposes in which the human embryo is created or destroyed. As far as these outputs, it is easy to see the stance taken on the issue, and the fact that these organizations believe it to be a very universal stance. Given that the NIH is a US National institute, it is a very credible source and represents the entirety of the US in its decisions. The amendments stated also add to its credibility as they are official documents. There is no bias due to the fact that the program is looking out for each individual equally. 

In contrast to the NIH's lack of funding, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) in the FDA, does grant funding for human gene therapy and its technologies. The CBER uses the Public Health Service Act and Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to as a basis for their principles and supervision. However, the funding allowed by the CBER is strictly for medical gene engineering, including no cosmetic procedures. It allows for funding for treating a condition in which there is no cure, by altering the patient's DNA to substitute in for defective genetic material. Although they allow funding for these procedures to be done, they do not approve of any therapy products to be sold for the general population. Overall, it is important to note their funding is strictly for medical purposes and no cosmetic procedures may be altered genetically so their viewpoint encourages general health but not aesthetic enhancement. Since the FDA controls a lot of US policies, this is definitely a credible source. There is a common similarity between the government programs that take a stance on the issue of genetic engineering in that they all have no bias and are looking to improve the nation.

Overall, it is clear to see that the general consensus on genetic engineering of embryos is favorable for curing diseases but unfavorable for cosmetics. By looking at the regulations of the federal agencies that look out for the best of our nation, I can see that we share a common viewpoint, and that it must be widely accepted as these rules continue to stay in place nationally.

