Some forms of biotechnology are not justified because they interfere with the natural process of creation. Biotechnology was invented to make human life more comfortable, not to eliminate or interfere with natural processes ( Volarevic et al., 2108) . Taking an example of embryonic stem cell technology, biotechnology is contradicting what science initially taught about conception. Conception takes place immediately after fertilization. Various countries have chosen to regulate embryonic stem cell research since it brings division between alleviating human suffering and respecting human life, but that has not eliminated ethical concerns. Forms of biotechnology are not justified because they predispose individuals to manipulation, pose risk to human life, and contravene ethical and religious practices.
In research involving germ and stem cells, the embryo has to be destroyed, which goes against the principle of natural conception. Although the resulting cells are meant to provide solutions, the termination of potential human life is unethical. Suppose a couple wanted a child, and opt for in-vitro fertilization. Just before the implantation, they change their minds, and the embryo has to be destroyed. The destruction of embryonic stem cells is abortion as life begins immediately after conception. According to Caulfield et al., (2015), p arties in support of stem cell research have argued that the 2-7 days embryos destruction cannot be considered as abortion, yet the embryo has the power to develop into a human being. The embryo has already combined the father's and mother's DNA, which makes it an independent entity able to develop and add value in the future.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The research also gives the patient the liberty to donate their germ cells as long as the doctor has promised to use it for medical purposes. However, this is an avenue for exploitation, especially among desperate women. Desperation could impair the patients’ rational judgment, which makes them an easy target for unethical scientists. Scientists who care more about their praise for discovering new medical interventions are likely to exploit patients by using their germ cells without their consent. For instance, a couple who has had failed in-vitro fertilization could be unwilling to repeat the process, so opt to donate the stem cells for use in research. Unethical scientists could use the frozen embryos against their will or before giving their consent since they are left in the custody of the healthcare facility until the couple decides what they will do with the embryos.
Cloning has also raised a significant ethical debate. From and ethical and religious perspective, cloning is playing God. God is the giver of life and decides what humans should look like when they should be born, their genetic makeup, character, and psychological functioning. Cloning gives scientists to "manufacture" life forms in the lab. Scientists can choose what their creatures will look like and possess by planting some genes while knocking out others (Zheng, 2016). Besides contravening God’s commands, cloning may result in the development of life forms with defective genes thereby posing a threat to humans. There are strict regulations on cloning, but this has not prevented genetic engineering from going the wrong way. For instance, He Jiankui, a Chinese scientist, edited the genes of two children using Crispr-Cas9 technique to prevent them from getting HIV, which is against the regulations on genetic engineering ( Cyranoski & Ledford, 2018) . Genetic engineering and cloning that goes against rules like in the case above could lead to creations of "abnormal" humans who will not be able to survive on the existing resources.
In conclusion, the potential harm of some biotechnology techniques is not worth the moral risk. Allowing scientists to manipulate human genes freely is likely to result in more damage than good. Biotechnology, although regulated by a code of conduct, is likely to be misused, resulting in unanticipated results. No amount of regulation can make biotechnology totally safe; some forms such as stem cell research and cloning should not be allowed to proceed further. Besides the potential harm, biotechnology research subverts religious assertions of God as the sole provider of life.
References
Caulfield, T., Kamenova, K., Ogbogu, U., Zarzeczny, A., Baltz, J., Benjamin, S., & Knowles, L. (2015). Research ethics and stem cells: Is it time to re‐think current approaches to oversight? EMBO reports 16 (1), 2-6.
Cyranoski, D., & Ledford, H. (2018). Genome-edited baby claim provokes an international outcry. Nature , 563 (7733), 607-608.
Volarevic, V., Markovic, B. S., Gazdic, M., Volarevic, A., Jovicic, N., Arsenijevic, N., & Stojkovic, M. (2018). Ethical and safety issues of stem cell-based therapy. International journal of medical sciences , 15 (1), 36.
Zheng, Y. L. (2016). Some ethical concerns about human induced pluripotent stem cells. Science and engineering ethics , 22 (5), 1277-1284.
