04 April 2008 Questions about Some Uses of Genetic Engineering Do you think there is a morally significant difference between positive and negative gene therapy
The unacceptability of genetic engineering the society is often linked to the question of its morality. The article written by Jonathan Glover aimed to take a closer look at the issue by distinguishing from negative and positive gene therapy. According to the author, negative gene therapy involves the elimination of defects (4) while positive gene therapy aims to bring about improvements in normal people (4). It should be noted that both of these processes involve interfering with natural selection as they both alter the characteristics and situations of individual. This paper argues that there is a morally significant difference between the two with negative therapy more morally acceptable than the other.
Negative gene therapy can be justified by the fact that it is used in order to ensure the well being of an individual. This situation can be compared with the case of using medicine in order to cure diseases and promote health. Even though this means interfering with natural selection, it cannot be justifiably called playing God. This paper asserts that God has given man knowledge and skills in order for an individual to utilize it for his good and other people’s. Thus, gene therapy should not be restricted to correct abnormalities in order for someone to live a normal life.
On the other hand, positive gene therapy is immoral as it makes man more than what he is intended to be. If a person is living a normal life, gene therapy should not be used to make him abnormal.
Glover, John. Questions About Some Uses of Genetic Engineering