Genetic Engineering: The Upside of Down (or Visa Versa.)

Genetic engineering is a wide and varied topic. To confine it to one small aspect of popular interest would be unfair to the whole prospect. There are certainly up sides and down sides to the entire field, though often a pro would be a particular area of interest, as would be a con. So let’s look at a few flash points of interest.
Recombinant DNA technology is a process of genetic introduction into an organism. This is often used on plasmids in bacteria because of the ease of independent reproduction. A good amount of DNA can be produced from this method. This is great for obtaining useful genes in deficient people. For example, insulin can be cloned in bacteria plasmids and may actually be used for treatment of Diabetes. I think this is great! We can use plasmids, which replicate independently of the host bacteria and can hold a fairly good amount of foreign DNA. Only studies will bring about treatments. Yet as in anything, I think it would take a long time and countless experiments before any such genes could be proven to be effective as well as safe.
Another hot issue is that of GMOs as food. GMOs, of genetically modified organisms, are already a part of most people’s diet. A significant amount of plants and animals consumed are GMOs. Because GMOs are fairly new to human consumption it is bothersome to think that they have not been tried and true before being sent to the public’s stomachs. They have made production efficient and have been able to produce bigger animals and plants. But what about the long term effects on: a. the human body b. the ecosystem? They have passed rodent testing, but rodents don’t live nearly as long as humans. This is a plus in one manner. The generations are shorter for longevity testing. The down side is that a mass amount of these products can’t really have an effect that we can be certain of. There is also the possibility that GMOs will overstep their physical bounds and affect the natural population. This is a dangerous game that we have begun to play on open land.
Lastly and expectedly, there is the highly controversial issue of stem-cell research. It is so controversial because of obtainment methods. They are extracted from human eggs five days after division has begun. This, of course, implies that the egg has been inseminated and life is generated. Some would say that life has not truly begun at this point. I would argue that cellular activity is a clear indication of life. We cannot be separated from it. We are, because of cellular activity. Cellular activity is because we are. Now there is the probability that this is all done with donor gametes that would be useless otherwise. This is true. However, I am with the older school that thinks it not wise to play God. This is not simply a conservative idea, but the idea of radicals the world over. Some who believe in a higher power or God think it not wise to mess with what that power has put in play. I agree. I also think that it is a highly un-Darwinian Evolutionistic to want to tamper with what natural selection has regulated. Who knows what would become of a world where all are strong, none are weak and all survive. There is a delicate balance of life and death, and though some may think this is divine and others think it chance, it is balanced because it works. It is delicate and who knows what unbalance may come of such alterations.