Journal Review for Genetic Modification and Genetic Determinism

[pic 1]

SCHOOL OF FOUNDATION STUDIES

FCC 3041 CRITICAL AND ANALYTICAL THINKING SKILLS

ASSIGNMENT 2 – JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW

Title of Paper

Name

FIA Group 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary

The "Genetic Modification and Genetic Determinism" (2006) journal article written by David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus examines four objections to the genetic modification (GM for short) of human beings and asserts that arguments to genetic modification should be driven by its consequences, not by misleading biological assumptions.

The background consists of two propositions. The former stating that genetic modification should be regulated by the government; the latter supporting genetic modification be freely controlled by market forces. Another underlying dispute lies between those wishing to have genetic modification being regulated and have society properly educated on its usage; and those aiming to ban genetic modification completely because of its (so-called) morality issues. There are also two terms which need definitions. The first is genetic modification, which according to Frankel and Chapman (2000) is to intentionally change someone's genes to produce seeds bearing those genetic changes. The second is genetic determinism: the "assumption that genes (genotypes) cause traits (phenotypes) in an individual" (Kitcher, 1997). It is proven however that genes often do naught except merely increasing the (occasionally substantial) probability of outcomes. Strong genetic determinism is rare, and there exists more influential factors including a person's environment and development, as well as genes being epistatic in nature.

Having established the basic groundwork of this journal, we shall now present the four main arguments of genetic modification. The first is the freedom argument, an allegation stating that genetic modification will interfere with free will. Three subtopics are listed under this including i. the puppet critique - genes will unavoidably influence the development of trait(s), ii. the open future critique - genes will narrow life choices, and iii. the parental expectations critique - genetically modified children will be burdened by unreasonable expectations of their parents. The second is the giftedness argument - children should not be considered as products for free alteration. The third is the authenticity argument - inherent abilities and achievements might not be the result of hard work, but are rather the after-effects of genetic modification. The fourth and final argument is the uniqueness argument - which is to infringe upon the personalities of modified subjects.

In conclusion, these assumptions which mainly lack evidence are undeniably false. Instead of preying on the public's fears, we should instead focus on addressing real concerns such as the implicated risks and economic consequences of genetic modification. Likewise, a scientific approach that is unfettered with common misconceptions should be adopted in other to achieve more milestones in the future.

Evaluation & Critiques

The main purpose of the entire journal, which is to determine the four objections against genetic modifications in human beings and then debunk the common deterministic assumptions associated with these objections, is soundly stated in the abstract of the journal. Despite it seeming to be slightly biased in nature, it is safe to say there is hardly any situation where confirmation bias exists in the making of this paper. The authors manage to provide ample scientific evidence, an example being Sickle Cell Disease displaying a rare case of genetic determinism due to Sickle Cell genes, and use similar evidence effectively throughout the paper. However, it would seem that the title "Genetic Modification and Genetic Determinism" seems a bit simplistic in view of the heavy subject at hand. In fact, the terms "genetic modification" and "genetic determinism" consists of just two sections in the whole article. A bulk of it actually consists of the arguments against the existing objections towards genetic modification, which in my opinion should be stressed more in the title of this paper.

The key objective to examine and disapprove of the four objections to genetic modification of humans is constantly reinforced by evidence, citations, and information provided by the authors. Several key examples provided as supporting content include an explanation of the varying probabilities of genetic determinism, and claims that the environmental upbringing of a person also has significantly greater impacts on the individual (Resnik & Vorhaus, 2006). Ultimately, it can be summarised as the question of nature versus nurture, which from their point of view seems that the alteration of one's nature does not overshadow the nurture the same person receives. One aspect which deserves accreditation is that several key concepts do seem to be well (albeit slightly lengthily) explained, showing that the author attempts in building a solid informational bedrock for the reader before progressing on to the following sections.

To support the main ideas being brought up, Resnik and Vorhaus (the authors of this article), actually factor in plenty of scientific and mathematical terms and evidences, especially in the case of genetic determinism with jargons such as penetrance - the percentage of members of a population that will have a particular phenotype (Watson, Baker, Bell, Gann, Levine & Losick, 2003), and epigenesis - how organisms convert genetic information into traits (Robert, 2004) appearing throughout the article. Several brief ideas can be continually identified throughout the journal, including the environment playing an equal (if not more) role over genetics, the fact that genetic changes are not usually dependent on just one gene, and finally, that genetic modification actually has limitations which will not give humans power resembling total mastery of genes. That being said, reading this article is no simple task for one unfamiliar with the world of biology and may seem rather hefty.