views on genetic engineering

Different views within Christianity.

Roman Catholics- life is sacred, Benedict XVI said embryo research is wrong and immoral which could lead to a new form of eugenics. Playing God is a dangerous and immoral business, especially since the consequences are unknown. 

However, God is loving and does not want humans to suffer, if this research will help preserve lives may be most compassionate thing to do. God has made us stewards of the earth, so our job to protect us and the earth. 

As embryo research leads to the destruction of it, may be seen as wrong because may be seen as murder, sanctity of live...

Some belive the law of double effect should be applied, a good moral act has the secondary consequence of killing the embryo, however genetic research does not wish to kill embryos, it's a by-product of the research.

Situation ethics- God has given us the ability to develop medicine to eradicate suffering and disease so genetic engineering allowed if it enhaces agape.

Roman Catholic view is based on Natural Law, so opposed to genetic engineering if it involves the destruction of an embryo, as some theorists claim there are other ways to carry out the research (adult stem cells, or cells from an umbllical cord).

Wrong for scientists to reconstruct human life as each embryo is created as a unique human being and is sacred. Pope John Paul II put forward the idea that there is something inherently wrong in science creating designer babies, imperfection is built into human nature and to use genetic engineering to drive out what is regarded as not normal would be wrong, as each human life is valued in itself

Long term consequences unknown, cure might be worse than disease? John O'Neil argued there is an arrogance in the principle that science knows best and that genetic engineering is part of that best, has to be limits on what science does for the sake of the world and the world of science.

Wildman- limits need to be controlled by general principles of Natural Law, bioethical compass, 'playing God in an appropriate way'

However one of Aquinas' primary precepts was preservation of life so genetic engineering may help do this

Non-consepuentialist approach so outcome of genetic engineering is not taken into consideration. What Kant thought was important was whether or not an action would fit into the categorical imperative or not, especially universalization, so universal law principle is most important. If you can think of a specific case where genetic engineering is wrong, then it's always wrong. No value is put on an embryo so they are not taken into consideration. Aldo human beings have a duty to preserve life, so in that case genetic engineering can be seen as acceptable.

Mostly views genetic engineering in a positive way. 

The prevention of disease is seen as a social good in regards to greatest good for the greatest number, also maximisation of welfare equals minimisation of pain. No intrinsic value is placed upon embryos so there is no problems with using embryos in research.

Karl Popper argues that genetic engineering will create desire for 'super people' therefore maing the majority of people without 'super' characteristics feel inadequate.

Singer takes into account animals preferences, so if disease were eradicated there would be no need to test on animals, therefore making genetic engineering a positive thing