Genetically Modified Animals - Personal Statement Example

Genetically Modified Animals Biological basis The genetically modified animals belong to the universal category of genetically modified organisms (GMO). Genetic engineering method or technique is vital to the process of altering the genetic material of the organism. Mammals, fish, plants, and insects as well as microorganisms, which include yeast and bacteria, are examples of organisms that have been modified genetically (Starr, Evers, & Starr, 2013). For several decades, scientists have used experimental animals for biomedical research as well as scientific investigations. It is imperative to modify the DNA of the germ line cells during the process of creating genetically modified animals. By modifying the DNA of germline cells, it becomes easier for the modified DNA to be inheritable (Starr, Evers, & Starr, 2013). While introducing the foreign DNA, it is necessary to consider only those that have the capacity to differentiate into different cells of an adult animal. Besides, the embryonic stem (ES) cells and cells of embryos at very early stages might also be considered for the process of creating genetically modified animals. Even though such cells are post-zygotic, they clearly represent a development phase characterized by incomplete separation of the germline and the soma (Starr, Evers, & Starr, 2013). In essence, such cells usually have the capacity to give rise to both the germline and somatic cells. Apparently, a transgenic animal is normally produced when a foreign DNA molecule is introduced into the cell of an animal through artificial means. The transgene (the foreign DNA molecule) may contain just one or several genes. The transgenic animal produced upon inserting a transgene into the already fertilized cells or oocyte from the early embryo, will be able to transmit the foreign DNA in its germline (Starr, Evers, & Starr, 2013). Genetic engineering pundits have created different types of transgenic animals, including transgenic fish, transgenic frogs, transgenic Drosophila, and a wide variety of transgenic mammals such as rats, mice, and livestock. Gene targeting has been crucial to the process of genetic engineering considering that it is powerful and can influence the construction of an animal in which nearly all nucleated cells comprise a form of mutation, usually at the desired locus. Incidentally, gene targeting has only been possible in mice while efforts to employ it in other mammals have proven futile (Forman, 2010). The design of several new animal of human disease has been necessitated by the ability of the transgenic mice to perform specific changes in a prearranged or predetermined gene via gene targeting. In addition, other experimental approach that involves genetic manipulation of various animal species has highly influenced the genetic engineering procedure (Forman, 2010). The somatic cell nuclear transfer procedure has ushered in a new era in mammalian genetics. For the first time in history, the procedure approved the cloning of an adult mammal. Social and Ethical Implications Various social groups have come out as the strongest opponents of the efforts to adopt the genetically modified animals. For example, different religious groups consider GMOs as a gross violation of the fundamental tenets that have kept society moving (Nelson 2001). Incidentally, many of the religious faiths believe in creation. However, a scenario where man seems to have the powers to create or even modify an animal generally violates the values, ethics, and morals associated with the society. Today, most scientists are finding it much easier to interbreed and genetically manipulate the organism following the discovery of DNA. In essence, biomedical scientists can now build animals at the microscopic level (Nelson 2001). This scenario goes against Christian or even the Islamic faith as they always believe the power to create organisms is a reserve of the Supreme Being. On social grounds, vets now find it easier and even economical to treat hereditary diseases ahead of time (Nelson 2001). In addition, certain genes inserted in animals have the ability to provide firm defense against infections as well as viruses. Overall, the issue of science, ethics, and morality remains one controversial debate that has hampered full adoption of genetically modified animals in many countries around the world. Apparently, science hold the argument that nature is always in a state of very delicate balance thus initiating new species may have disastrous outcomes (Nelson 2001). From religious and philosophical viewpoint, controversy surrounds the capacity and morality of genetic engineering to play with nature. Personal viewpoint The technology of genetic engineering has been vital to the emergence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), genetically modified animals, and even genetically modified foods. From personal assessment of past researches on genetically modified animals, I believe that the procedure is beneficial because animals that are genetically modified tend to grow faster (Forman, 2010). Thus, farmers no longer have to wait for several months or years for particular livestock to attain maturity. This will obviously cut the cost of keeping an animal particularly the feeding costs and treatment before it reaches maturity stage (Forman, 2010). For example,genetically modified poultry (in the case of broilers) will take fewer months to mature so that the farmer sells it to prospective buyers. Since animals require less food when modified, it would be highly economical on the part of the farmer especially those keeping livestock in large scale. In addition, animals develop new attributes or traits once they have been modified. Some traits would be desirable to the farmer while others could be unattractive. Resistance to disease and infection is a particular trait which could make most farmers rear modified livestock rather than go for natural breeds that could perhaps be highly vulnerable to diseases (Forman, 2010). Through modification, it will be much easier to prevent it from developing complex illnesses. In general, people would tend to go for breeds that cut the production cost. Therefore, I believe it is time societies embraced the modified forms of animals and even plants to improve yields. Nevertheless, genetically modified animals also have limitations that could make the technology undesirable to many. For instance, few people will be willing to embrace the modified animals if the traits are generally undesirable (Forman, 2010). Besides, the situation becomes even worse when the process manipulates the general traits for the offspring. In others, the procedure might end causing certain harmful effects to the animal. Similarly, many of the animal right activists consider the technology as a gross abuse of animals. Apparently, the animal rights activists believe that all organisms should be accorded the freedom to grow naturally and attain maturity. For example, the activists consider the ability of an animal to take half or less the ordinary period to grow and attain maturity as impractical and against the social norms of society (Starr, Evers, & Starr, 2013). In some quarters, there have been allegations that people get sick from eating the products of genetically modified animals. I believe the biomedical departments of every country or state should come up with a universal framework and analysis to avoid instances where GMOs probably cause harm to civilians either through constant interaction or consumption of such products. Furthermore, I suppose the procedure has been in conflict with the norms, morals and values of different communities (Starr, Evers, & Starr, 2013). Much religious institutions and organization also do not approve of gene modification because it allegedly infringes the teaching or philosophy of such groups. It is incumbent upon the state through its lawmaking bodies to initiate a comprehensive consultation with scholars, biomedical and genetic engineering experts, religious institutions, and livestock keepers to ensure the process does not meet opposition. Such consultative meetings before passing the legislation would enable stakeholders and interest groups to make a crucial decision on whether to adopt or abandon the technology altogether (Starr, Evers, & Starr, 2013). However, it is necessary that all parties get to understand the pros and cons of genetically modified animals. References Andow, D. A., Fontes, E., & Hilbeck, A. (2005). Methodologies for assessing Bt cotton in Brazil. Wallingford, Oxfordshire [u.a.: CABI Publ. Belmont, CA: Brooks / Cole Publishing Co. (Cengage Learning) Beneski/Waber Virtual Biology Laboratory 4.0 Condé Nast. (2012). Ars Technica Scientific Method/Science & Exploration. Retrieved from Forman, L. E. (2010). Genetically modified foods. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub. http://arstechnica.com/science/ National Academy of Sciences. (2012). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Nelson, Gerald C. Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press, 2001. Internet resource. ScienceBlogs, LLC. (2012). ScienceBlogs. Retrieved from http://scienceblogs.com/ Starr, C., Evers, C.A., & Starr, L. (2013). Biology today and tomorrow without physiology (4th ed.). States of America (PNAS). Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/ Read More