Introduction
In the 2012 London Olympics, history was made as far of healthcare technology is concerned when double amputee Oscar Pistorius was allowed to compete with ordinary athletes. Whereas the procedure carried out on Pistorius did not involve genetic engineering, it does present a credible and worthy blueprint on the ethics of healthcare technology that can readily be applied to genetic engineering. According to the Olympic committee, Pistorius would only be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games if his prosthetic blades were designed to act exactly as the normal human foot does, without giving him an undue advantage or inordinate disadvantage (Rushgrove, 2012) . It is on this principle that the ethics of genetic engineering should be based. The ordinary human being should be used as the yardstick of what humans should be like. Genetic engineering should then only be used to assist those with generic abnormities attain a semblance of normalcies (Mandal & Bach, 2018) . Conversely, genetic engineering should not be used to confer either an advantage or disadvantage when compared to the rational human being. From an ethical perspective, therefore, genetic engineering must only be used to eliminate abnormities in humans who suffer genetic defect and not to alter any form of normalcy in ordinary humans.
Background
Genetic engineering can be defined as the process of changing the characteristics of an organism through the alteration of its genetic markers. All organisms grow and develop depending on an organic blueprint known as DNA upon which genes come from. The ability to modify genes amounts to changing the blueprint upon which the organism will develop and grow and by extension changing the organism itself (Mandal & Bach, 2018) . For example, human genes determined how cells will replicate from the single cell formed during fertilization to the billions of cells that make a baby. Genetic engineering can change how cells will replicate thus changing how the eventual human will look like and function. In recent years, genetic engineering has advanced exponentially thus expanding how much a human being can be altered. Among the extreme example is the creation of genetically modified pig that glows in the dark (Opam, 2013) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical Analysis
Creating a pig that glows in the dark shows that if laws, rules, and regulations allowed, humans can be transformed into many variations through genetic engineering. This capability, however, creates the ethical question of how much change to a human being is too much change and how these genetic changes can affect humanity as a whole (Mandal & Bach, 2018) . Among the important ethical issues involve the concept of Frankenstein, based on the ability to fit in socially for genetically modified humans. There is also the issue of the effects of the capabilities of the modified humans and how it will change society. Issues such as stigmatization of genetically modified humans or discrimination of ordinary humans in a future dominated by genetically modified humans should also be canvassed (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017) . Whereas genetic engineering technology keeps on growing, it is important to evaluate whether or not it is right to use that technology on humans.
Ethical Argument
Genetic Engineering of Humans in Itself is Right
Genetic engineering in itself ought to be considered as right even when it is undertaken on humans since it is necessary, in the very least for clinical purposes (Baltimore et al., 2015) . Natural forms of genetic engineering have been happening a lot in humans lately, leading inter alia to over a hundred types of cancer and other related ailments. The best way to cure a genetic anomaly is through genetic engineering (Mandal & Bach, 2018) . If something is necessary to save human life or reduce human suffering, the same must be considered as ethically right. From an ethical perspective, therefore, the undertaking of some form of genetic engineering must be considered as right.
Limiting Genetic Engineering for the Right Uses
Once it is established that genetic engineering should not be blanket banned, the next step is to ethically limit any and all genetic engineering to positive purposes. History has proven that technology that has been developed for noble purposes can also be used for negative purposes (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017) . For example, atomic energy technology can be used to provide power to a hospital and also make a nuclear bomb that will vaporize millions of people. While answering the question of how far genetic engineering on humans should go, the answer must be only as far as it is for good and not for evil (Ormond et al., 2017) . For example, using genetic engineering to limit the reproductive capabilities of a segment of the population would be evil.
Elimination not Creation of Abnormities
Using genetic engineering for good and not for evil also includes not using genetic engineering to create some form of superhumans who are physically, biologically, emotionally or intellectually superior to other humans (Lanphier et al., 2015) . Instead, genetic engineering should be used to assist humans who either suffer from or stand the risk of suffering from genetic weaknesses or abnormities to live a normal life. The human genetic engineering can, therefore, be used to heal cancer and other diseases or to help children who have a genetic predisposition for some diseases to eliminate chances of developing it (Ormond et al., 2017) . However, using genetic engineering to create humans who are better than others in any way whatsoever, such as better runners, footballers or academicians must be considered as wrong as it will create a propensity for stigmatization and discrimination (Lanphier et al., 2015) .
Contrary Argument and Rebuttal
The most prominent contrary argument for use of genetic engineering is based on monotheistic religions, which argue that any genetic engineering is an act of blasphemy as it is playing God (McFadden, 2016) . The contrary argument is held by some segments of the most prominent monotheistic religions in the world, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The contrary argument as outlined herein would thus negate the entire argument above as it entails an argument that any form of genetic engineering is wrong and evil, thus unethical. It must, however, be noted that the concept of monotheism is mainly predicated on a kind and benign God who always seeks to help those who are in need. Genetic engineering can be an invaluable tool for assisting the needy, including terminally ill children to have a future (Ormond et al., 2017) . An ethical argument based on godliness that negates kindness to the neediest must be wrong when evaluated from an ethical perspective (McFadden, 2016) .
Conclusion
It is definitively clear that genetic engineering is ethical but only to some extent. The ethical question on to what extent human genetic engineering should go has a valid answer that it should only be allowed to go as far as it is necessary for curing abnormities. Conversely, the limit to human genetic engineering should also be the extent to which any abnormity will be created by the act of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering should be a tool for assisting the genetically disadvantaged get over their limitations so as to live a normal a life. However, no genetic engineering should be carried out on normal humans to create any form of abnormities whether positive or negative. The monotheistic religion-based argument that all genetic engineering is evil as it amounts to playing God must fail as God is kind and generous; hence He would support alleviating suffering. From an ethical perspective, therefore, genetic engineering must only be used to eliminate abnormities in humans who suffer genetic defect and not to alter any form of normalcy in ordinary humans.
References
Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., ... & Greely, H. T. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science , 348 (6230), 36-38
Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M., & Smolenski, J. (2015). Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature News , 519 (7544), 410
Mandal, S., & Bach, C. (2018). Genetic engineering-tool for mankind. European Journal of Engineering Research and Science , 3 (3), 58-62
McFadden, J. (2016, February 02). Genetic editing is like playing God – and what's wrong with that? | Johnjoe McFadden. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/02/genetic-editing-playing-god-children-british-scientists-embryos-dna-diseases
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
Opam, K. (2013, December 30). Scientists create glow-in-the-dark pigs using jellyfish DNA. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/30/5256732/scientists-create-glow-in-the-dark-pigs-using-jellyfish-dna
Ormond, K. E., Mortlock, D. P., Scholes, D. T., Bombard, Y., Brody, L. C., Faucett, W. A., ... & Musunuru, K. (2017). Human germline genome editing. The American Journal of Human Genetics , 101 (2), 167-176
Rushgrove, B. (2012, September 04). Oscar Pistorius shouldn't have run in the Olympics – blades are an advantage. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/sep/04/pistorius-blades-advantage-in-olympics
