Sunday, June 6, 2010

Designer Babies..Good or Bad?


A Designer Baby is defined as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.” This is a term made its entry into the Oxford English Dictionary in 2004. This term is ONLY used by journalists, NOT scientist. Now, what I like to do is, state the pros and cons of “designer babies” and express my thoughts on it!

Pros!

“Designer Babies” have given doctors and parents the ability to genetically screen embryos for any genetic disorders. Genetic screening has made it possible to eliminate genes connected with several genetic defects and terminal illness. Genetic screening can reduce the baby's chances of being born with serious diseases like Down syndrome, Facial hypercholesterolemia, and rare blood disorders such as Diamond Black fan Anaemia. This is a huge advantage to our society! It gives scientists an advantage at finding an illness or defect in a child and giving them a second chance at life before they are even born!

Adam Nash was the world's first known designer baby born by the revolutionary pre-implantation process in the year 2000. Scientists genetically selected his embryo so that he would possess the right cells to save his dying sister's life. His sister suffered from Franconia’s anaemia (blood disorder), and the chances of Adam getting that disorder was also very high. An embryo was chosen, which did not have Franconia’s anaemia. Adam became a donor to his sister, which doubled her chances of survival, and eventually saved her life.



Cons!

During the process, a technique that is used to screen embryos for any genetic diseases called ‘Pre-implantation process’ is not limited to screening for genetic and hereditary disorders, but is also used for cosmetic reasons. What this means is, basically CREATING an embryo that will turn out EXACTLY the way you want it. This happens to tie in with the struggle with the media constantly controlling our physical image.

Dr Jeff Steinburg, Director of the Los Angeles Fertility Institute, who played a major role in the world's first test tube baby in 1978, stated that, “by using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), parents can choose the gender, eye, and skin and hair color of the baby. Various other physical traits such as intelligence, beauty, height, stopping a propensity towards obesity, freedom from mental illnesses, athletic ability, etc. can be also determined.”


In conclusion...

When I first began to read about Designer babies, I realized how the root of this idea was strongly influenced by the pressure from the media. Thanks to magazines, celebrities, movies, TV shows, the latest fashions and brand names, etc, we as humans feel that to look or act as certain way that would at the least bit contrast with the latest “human” is plain out not acceptable. I felt that the amount of pressure and negativity spit out from the media was bad enough to influence many young teens and children, but I didn’t think it would have gone far enough to affecting an embryo in a mother’s womb. Coming from a childhood where I was brought up, as a Christian, to respect myself for who I am and not judging those around me by their physical features, I find it very outrageous that parents and doctors feel it’s necessary to choose their child’s eye and hair colour. We shouldn’t be fiddling with the miracle of God. Although, scientists and doctors have used this technique towards disorders and illnesses, I don’t feel that it should be taken to the next level by rearranging ones physical appearance!

Where I got the help:

http://singularityhub.com/2009/02/25/designer-babies-like-it-or-not-here-they-come/

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-designer-babies.html

Friday, January 15, 2010

How Global Warming is Affecting Polar Bears

Many scientists consider humans as the most invasive species, as humans can greatly change an environment and impact living things that reside there. Are we being stewards of the world? Take a look at an issue in which human intervention has positively or negatively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems.


Which leads to my blog...



Us humans are NOT being good stewards of the world. As a result of our actions and the way we use the earth’s resources biodiversity is dramatically decreasing, and many species are still in danger, even us humans. Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If we continue on this path, life on earth will be extinct because of the amount of pollution we create, habitats we destroy, and natural resources we seem to quickly consume all without thinking about the future and the consequences of our actions as a people, as a population, as a nation, as a world.

Over the past 100 years, earth has been heating up, the ozone layer has been getting thinner, and do people care? No! With global warming increasing, and species and their habitats decreasing, chances for ecosystems to adapt and evolve are failing because the changes are happening far too rapidly.

A species that is greatly affected by global warming is the Coca Cola drinking Ursus maritimus, also known as the polar bear. According to Polar Bears International (2010), of these cute snugly white giants, about 60 percent of the 20,000 to 25,000 living today are located in Canada. However, this doesn’t mean that you see them strolling around Dundas Square, they live up in the Arctic! Being the largest carnivores on land, their habitat is greatly at risk. Although they are immune to the cold of the Arctic, and have adapted to live in water, they can’t survive without food and adequate hunting grounds. Polar bears depend on the ice for hunting, breeding, and to den. Also, the summer’s ice loss in the Arctic is now equal to an area the size of Alaska, Texas, and Washington combined. They need the ice of the Arctic to survive. Unfortunately, the northern Arctic Ocean has little food for the polar bears, from the cause of global warming, therefore, there are polar bears living up to 82 degrees north latitude (WWF Polar Bear status) in the North Pole. The ice is MELTING, which is resulting in annual polar bear decrease and at this rate becoming an endangered species is very likely and close approaching.

“Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. In this case, [in] 45 years,” Kempthorne said. (CBC News)

This quote seems to unfortunate to be true, but sadly, it is believable. Six out of eight members of the bear family are now considered endangered (David Suzuki). As I mentioned before, it has to do with the Arctic sea level rising which already has been a significant problem in our world today.

“This is something like decadal variability. Sea level goes up and down, up and down - but in general, it rises. the principal investigator from WHOI's Investigation of Sea Level Rise in the Arctic project explained. (BBC News)

The temperature of the Arctic is rapidly increasing since 1978. This is over 30 years ago. The Arctic ice layer has thinned out 9% per DECADE (David Suzuki), and 0.2 to 0.4 mm per year averaged over the 20th century. According to the Climate Change Synthesis Report, it is estimated that Antarctica, if fully melted, would contribute more than 60 metres of sea level rise, and Greenland would contribute more than 7 metres. This will lead to massive flooding and extinction of polar bears, and many species living on earth today; including humans.



It is OUR time to change this catastrophe. It is either NOW or never. We can do simple things such as, carpooling, recycling, turning off the lights, turning off the tap when brushing our teeth. Even though these are small things that might not seem like it will affect the whole WORLD, but it will. If everyone does at least one of these easy tasks a day, it will dramatically change the horrible path we’re heading to, and hopefully change the near future of lives.





http://www.fern.org/pages/cbd/bioloss.html

http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions (Dec. 2009)

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/14/polar-bear.html

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/ (2010)

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Conservation/Endangered_Species/Canada/polar_bear_facts.asp?gclid=CJDa7qvQpp8CFYdd5Qod8nyA0g (2009)

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bear-status-report/ (2010)