Bioengineering: an Issue that Can Benefit More Lives than It Could Possibly Harm

Thousands of people lose their lives due to genetic inferiority. There are countless life-threatening diseases and disorders that are contracted solely through heredity. It appears that there is nothing the afflicted can do to prevent this, as it is predetermined by their DNA. However, recent advances in biomedical sciences have given hope to those stricken by these genetic complications. Biologically engineered treatments for many insufferable inherited diseases have been identified. Along with biological self-improvement, certain genetic modifications could improve the lives of the poverty-stricken and starving as well. The production of biological engineered meat holds great promise in ending world hunger and saving additional lives. Though bioengineering is seen to be an immensely productive and life-saving scientific advancement, there are some who think the practice is immoral. This is untrue for several reasons. As a whole, bioengineering could vastly increase the lifespan of the afflicted and the malnourished, ultimately benefiting the entire human race. This makes bioengineering an ethical practice because it improves the lives of thousands in many different ways.

The most obvious improvement would be the production of biomedical treatments for genetic maladies. Infamous diseases that drastically devastate the human population can easily be treated, or even cured, as a result of further biomedical research. Such illnesses like cancer could be contained and Alzheimer’s Disease could be completely cured in time (Donahue & S. J., 2017). Going further, the regulation of bioengineering in medicine could heal those affected by painful neuromuscular disorders, such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s Disease, as well as other biological complications that effect an individual’s day-to-day life such as Down Syndrome (Donahue, 2017). Even further, biomedical engineering could be used for spinal cord regeneration, granting a paraplegic the ability to walk (Donahue, 2017). It is evident that bioengineering is ethical because it improves the health and lives of so many otherwise hopeless individuals. The possibilities of bioengineering do not stop with the sick; biological modifications could end world hunger and livestock depletion as well.

Just as fatal genetic diseases hinder human survival, drastic malnourishment is an additional problem that effects the population, but on a much larger scale. Starvation is a worldwide problem that kills more humans than any inherited disorder ever could. Fortunately, world hunger could also effectively be solved with the regulation of biological and genetic engineering. Embryotic cells retrieved from preexisting livestock can be modified to produce genetically engineered meat that is safe for human consumption (Bartholet, 2017). Thus, the mass-production of biologically engineered foods could successfully tackle the immense problem of world hunger. This idea is not a theory or possibility; growing edible meat in a laboratory has already successfully been accomplished, making laboratory-grown meat a readily available solution (Bartholet, 2017). There are many more positive outcomes from genetically engineered food worth mentioning. Normalizing the consumption of laboratory-grown meat would also decrease the number of slaughtered livestock and the extinction rate for most species. The dependency on farm animals for high-protein foods is causing an unhealthy balance in the eco-system. With the global consumption of meat skyrocketing, an additional source of meat is needed. Abundantly-grown laboratory meat would solve both world hunger and animal endangerment and dependency (Bartholet, 2017). Though genetically engineered meat could greatly benefit the human and livestock population, there are opposers to the futuristic advancement.

Despite the copious amount of good bioengineering could do for the world, some question if the discovery is virtuous. Opposers to biological engineering and its many uses argue that it is nefarious or morally wrong to tamper with the genetic makeup of animals because it is disrupting fate and natural properties (Crichton, 2017). They also feel that there is still a lot bioengineering researchers do not yet know about these modifications, specifically the long-term effects of such biological progressions. Opposers claim that research should continue before we modify a human organ or allow people to eat unnaturally-grown foods (Crichton, 2017). These are valid assertions; however, it is apparent that bioengineering has more pros than cons. The only thing stopping the widespread use of genetic engineering is the beliefs of those with strong moral principles, and that is simply unfair. The option to genetically modify oneself or to consume laboratory meat should be offered to those who desperately need it. The only way to determine if it will benefit the human race in the long run is to allow experimentation, which appears promising. So far, biological engineering is a scientific advancement that has proven to generate more good than bad.

There is no doubt that bioengineering is ethical because it could potentially improve the health and lives of so many innocent human beings and more. Variations of biological engineering, both in medicine and in meat labs, may be the only solution to preventing the illnesses and deaths of so many. It can heal the sick, feed the starving, and save the environment. Though there are some that deem it unethical because of personal opinions, it is clear that bioengineering is in fact ethical because it has the capability to benefit more lives than it could possibly harm.