Engineering The Better Baby Arthur Caplan Analysis
We all are scared of change and find the worst attributes of everything. So naturally we become scared of gene editing and the possible outcomes like safety issues, unfair accessibility, eugenics and many more. We focus on the bad instead of the good. We don’t stop to think of the good it can bring us. So in response Arthur Caplan in his article, “Engineering the Better Baby,” he talks about why the good outweighs the bad and how there are too many benefits to be worrying about possible dangers that can be fixed with safeguards. He tries to persuade the readers that genetic engineering and the progress to heal the sick should not be stopped because people are afraid.
In his article, “Engineering the Better Baby,” Arthur Caplan debuffs the main arguments against genetic modification of human embryos and explains why the benefits out weight the disadvantages. He believes that “It is far more …show more content…
The way he does this is by appealing to the argument against gene-editing. He understands the fear of CRISPR and what could come of editing genes such as eugenics. So he addresses those fears and how they are incomparable to the benefits. He first points out the concerns of safety. He says that safety is an important element, but not a definitive one. The new gene-editing seem very accurate and have little risk. He brings up the example of animal tests and experiments on human embryos to prove this point. The purpose of this is to negate the fear of unsafe application
Second he mentions “the ethical concern of fairness” and how “the rich will have far better access to the technology than the poor.” He explains that the world is unfair and the rich aren’t going to wait for equal opportunity. Genetic engineering will follow the same dynamic. The reason he does this is to point out that nothing is fair and genetic engineering shouldn’t be inhibited because of
In his article, “Engineering the Better Baby,” Arthur Caplan debuffs the main arguments against genetic modification of human embryos and explains why the benefits out weight the disadvantages. He believes that “It is far more …show more content…
The way he does this is by appealing to the argument against gene-editing. He understands the fear of CRISPR and what could come of editing genes such as eugenics. So he addresses those fears and how they are incomparable to the benefits. He first points out the concerns of safety. He says that safety is an important element, but not a definitive one. The new gene-editing seem very accurate and have little risk. He brings up the example of animal tests and experiments on human embryos to prove this point. The purpose of this is to negate the fear of unsafe application
Second he mentions “the ethical concern of fairness” and how “the rich will have far better access to the technology than the poor.” He explains that the world is unfair and the rich aren’t going to wait for equal opportunity. Genetic engineering will follow the same dynamic. The reason he does this is to point out that nothing is fair and genetic engineering shouldn’t be inhibited because of