Neg. Case Alex Chou MV

As John F. Kennedy once said, "I look forward to a future in which our country will limit its scientific advancements to its moral restrictions, its wealth to its wisdom, its power to its purpose." Mr. Kennedy is chastising scientists who think it is more important to improve scientifically and then face all the severe consequences. Because I agree with this quote by President Kennedy, I negate 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 –American Dictionary of Science, 1986

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

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

My value for this debate is that of morality. My criterion for achieving morality is societal good. Only when we are acting in a way that benefits society, are we acting in a moral manner.

Contention 1: Human genetic engineering contains too much power. According to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, "Power is the great aphrodisiac." So, as Mr. Kissinger says, genetic engineering places too much power in the hands of man, who is more than capable of committing horrific abuses. Human genetic engineering is too powerful for human to comprehend, let alone control! The human genome contains 3 billion genes and we only partially understand 1 million. That less than 1/3 of 1 percent! The power we are unleashing is unknown and needs to be stopped before it destroys all of humanity.

Contention 2: Human genetic engineering causes discrimination.

(Sub-point A) By getting rid of a so-called "bad" gene, we may be ridding ourselves of a "good" gene. Our lack of knowledge of the 3 billion genes adds to this uncertainty. Furthermore, genes are almost all intricately connected and one gene most likely controls more than one trait.

(Sub-point B) "Creating a new class in a society, which such a great disparity will most certainly create great social problems which we have never seen" says Bioethicist Marc Ling. If we use genetic engineering to create more intelligent, faster, people. Those people will have a clear role, as the dominant, more desirable people in the society. No one would favor the use a genetically inferior person. It would hard to discredit this type of genetic discrimination, because they, by all means would be genetically superior, having more attractive qualities. Because my opponent has not drawn the line of where to stop, human genetic engineering will continue inevitably. This will ultimately lead to discrimination.

Contention 3: There are many alternatives of fewer consequences that human genetic engineering.

(Sub-point A) One such alternative, which is in current use and development, is Lac Operon theory. It is a biological alternative, which does not require genetic engineering. It is fully reversible, and cannot be passed down by birth. By altering genetic pathways, just as the body does we can effect a cure even for genetically based diseases. Lets say you want to want to turn off a light. Using human genetic engineering is like ripping off the entire fuse box. However, you could simply not turn off the light switch, which other alternatives offer.

(Sub-point B) The use of genetic engineering is simply the use of people as a means to an end. It presents such great risk, that the alternative, which is available through our current technology, is what is morally justified in the situation. When taking into account the fact that genetic engineering has the greatest potential for the destruction of the human race, we must not justify it based on the fact that it may be able to accomplish some good, when alternatives can accomplish the same goals without the morbid risk, and moral violations.

In conclusion, we can see that there are problems, risks and doubts that have persuaded many scientists that the time is not yet right to carry out these procedures on human beings. The main reason: MORALITY. Science has reached points that, we as humans, are not prepared to understand. Are we prepared for the power to create life and alter life in a previously unimagined ways? I think not, and until we do, I strongly negate the resolution that human genetic engineering is morally justified.

**********************************************************************************************************

1.Genetic Engineering Has Benefits

I will not hesitate to admit that there have been some benefits from GE. However, these benefits do not outweigh the risks associated with GE. For example, in agriculture, an area where GE has been taking place for years, there are enormous risks. The GE can bring new Allergies into the food supply, or an antibiotic resistance, or even the production of new toxins. The list goes on and on. The point is, Every benefit that my opponent can name is outnumbered by at least three or four risks. This is not a justification that can be acceptable

2.Somatic Gene Therapy Is Justified.

Being that nowhere in the resolution is Somatic Gene Therapy mentioned, it would be an incorrect defense of the resolution for my opponent to base his case solely on this one portion of it. He is leaving out a very large part of it in Germ line Therapy. Germ line deals with the genes that are involved in reproduction, and would consequently be passed on to off- spring. The only possible excuse for leaving this out would be that my opponent agrees that this part of GE is immoral, and this refuses to debate that part of it, which limits the resolution to a point of less than he has to defend, thus he is not doing his job correctly.

**********************************************************************************************************

A real and shocking example of this is the French AIDS researcher who tested genetically altered AIDS vaccines on human, and cause three participants, three innocent children to die! These definitely IMMORAL experiments, the human race cannot be trusted when it comes to human genetic engineering. (Incurable cancer, new diseases, mutated genes). We cannot ignore the past and start human genetic engineering when we already know that the consequences will be huge. This will be immoral. We have always looked back and learned from history, not to make the same mistakes, and to use genetic engineering will be wrong and IMMORAL.

***********************************************QUOTES***************************************************

"Genetic engineering represents the power of authorship. Never before in history has such complete power over life been a possibility." Jeremy Rifkin

"In the face of the infinite complexity of natural systems, the idea that we could improve on the design of nature is not only hubris, it is frightening." Liebe Cavalieri

"From Auschwitz to Hiroshima to Love Canal, humanity has decisively demonstrated that its technological powers overwhelm its capacities moral judgment. The genetic engineering of human life, if allowed to proceed, will quickly trespass any well-intentioned boundaries and guidelines." Wes Granberg-Michaelson

"The ability to manipulate the genetic code is as dangerous as nuclear weapons, if not more" Al Stone

"Continued advancements in science and technology are beginning to provide choices that strain human value systems in areas where previously no choice was possible." Bernard D. Davis