Journal 9/23-29

Gattaca is a sobering reality. Today, we already have a Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), we don't have to wait until the child is born to know their pre-dispositions. The boundaries between public and private life have been breached; now employers can own their employee's facebook passwords, and view their lives online as well as their legal records. Although we don't give blood to enter our work, we do sign in, whether that be with a physical presence, card, or online credentials. Our progress can be monitored, and if questioned, employee's must provide urine samples for drug tests, or breathalyzers for alcohol abuse.

Caste systems exist today based upon the state of family and finance, however, genomic status would be just as derogatory. You cannot choose your family or your genome, but when the day comes where I can purchase a "smart gene", I would do so immediately to ensure my child had the requirements to work at Gattaca.

Reflection on "Smart Gene"

The "smart gene" is a genetic luxury. It will reiterate the disparity between classes, and, when perfected, will leave families unable to afford  the "extra intelligence" in the dust. It is immoral, but if I could afford it, I would purchase it, and implant it into the developing embryo, my pride and joy. All of the points raised in discussion are valid, including the degradation of work ethic, money, and parenting. Points were also raised that countered these notions, stating that teenagers by nature as lazy procrastinators, why wouldn't slightly more intelligent teens that perhaps didn't have to work as hard be more lazy?  

Your "smart gene" child is going to be every bit as useless for some part of his/her life than every other child. They each have the possibility to become greedy, envious, or evil. Their intelligence would be used for their own agenda's, which would be dictated by their environment. Looking at a child's life as an overall experience, the smart gene begins to mean less and less. As Anna pointed out, the brightest child could always be the most abused. Potential would come to be, or differentiate into skills, if it is nurtured. Unfortunately, we can't let our children differentiate through life with electrical pulses, only their own life experience.

Just as being a skinny doesn't guarantee popularity, or any social life, I would pay for a gene that would ensure they were not pre-disposed to obesity, for their physical and mental health. 

Short Writing Assignment #3

Rebecca Cupp                                                                                                                        

Biotechnology

Mr. Fantz

September 10, 2013

            With the recent technological breakthroughs of the Human Genome Project, In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), and Nuclear Translation, reproduction has strayed from a private act in the bedroom to a multimillion dollar industry (Silver 81). New reproductive techniques such as Cyrogenesis, the Pre-Genetic Determination Test (PGD), and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), have created safe alternatives for infertile couples, and in some cases, a preferred alternative to natural reproduction (“18 Ways to Make a Baby”).

            Reproduction is defined by Robert Brooker, Professor of Genetics at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, as “the generation of offspring by sexual or asexual means”, however, this definition must be more distinct to apply to today’s technologies (Brooker 414). Human reproduction, which is inherently sexual, should only be considered natural if the offspring is the result of sexual intercourse, without extraction, implantation, or injection; where the oogoctye (egg cell), blastosphere, embryo, and fetus remain in the mother’s body until birth. Many reproductive techniques, such as IVF, would therefore be considered unnatural on account of oogacytes being extracted and implanted. ICSI would also be considered unnatural because of the injection of sperm. IVF, PGD, ISCI, and many other reproductive methods would all be considered unnatural, yet that should not affect their legality, availability, or usage.

            Although many of these technologies have been defined as unnatural, they should be accepted as legitimate alternatives to natural reproduction and continue to provide couples all around the world with the gift of a lifetime: a child. Unnatural conceptions utilizing reproductive techniques such as ICSI or IVF yield the same happy, healthy babies as natural reproductions, and as such, research and access of these methods should be upheld by law (“18 Ways to Make a Baby”). 

Many unnatural reproduction techniques are already perfected, with the same probability of achieving a live birth as a natural pregnancy. As Lee Silver, author of Remaking Eden, explains, the natural chance of having a child; even if a fertilized, divided, and differentiated embryo develop naturally, “there is still a 50% chance it will pass right though her uterus without her even knowing it…” (61).  And as of 2013, The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, SART,  found that 46.2% of donor embryo’s (IVF) resulted in pregnancies, and 40.1% in live births (“2013 Clinical Summary Report”). As more and more methods are perfected, they should each become increasing available, affordable, and acceptable to the public, simply because these techniques work.

Works Cited

"18 Ways to Make a Baby." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Sept. 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2811baby.html>.

"2013 SART Clinical Summary." Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2013. <https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0>.

Brooker, Robert J., Eric P. Widmaier, Linda E. Graham, and Peter D. Stiling. Biology. 3 ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013. Print.

Silver, Lee M.. Remaking Eden: how genetic engineering and cloning will transform the American family. New York: Avon Books, 1998. Print.