Controversial Paper 6: Genetic Screening

Timothy Wong

Matthew Wood

April 3, 2015

On the Burden of Knowledge and Genetic Screening for the Purpose of Informed Abortion

            There are many types of genetic screening for many purposes. Some have screenings performed for detection of specific diseases as adults. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I will be speaking specifically about fetal screening. I believe that this type of screening, while possibly beneficial, is wrong for one significant reason, or rather one significant choice to be made: if a child will be born with a disability then the parents must choose to either abort the fetus based on the information, or to bring it into the world with the burden of knowledge the screening provided, knowing that the child will be disabled.

            From a Christian perspective, there is nothing wrong with giving birth to and raising a disabled child, one with Down syndrome for example. It is an opportunity for us to be thankful for God’s blessing, and to glorify him. However, for those without this confidence, it can be seen as unkind and unfair to give birth to a child with a disability. Thus, the knowledge can be burdensome to the parents. However, to counteract this, many view abortion as an option. This by itself is a controversial topic, and an action that I believe is immoral.

            But, what is genetic screening; what tests can be performed? “Some of the techniques that researchers use are RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) analysis and DNA probes. RFLP analysis utilizes enzymes from bacteria that are thought to be used as defense mechanisms against invading viral DNA…[and] A DNA probe is a piece of DNA that binds to certain sequences of the hosts DNA” (1). In addition, there is also the concept of in vitro fertilization. “Parents now have the ability to have multiple eggs fertilized and have each one screened for abnormalities” (1). This, again, is a separate moral dilemma.

            These tests, if accepted and performed, all can place a heavy burden of knowledge on the mother. It is a hard moral dilemma, to choose whether to abort a disabled child or to bring it into the world, and sadly many parents do choose to abort based on the knowledge gained (2). I encourage parents then to very carefully consider whether or not to have genetic screens performed on their unborn children. If the screen is performed, and the child is in fact going to be born with a disability, then the burden of knowledge is almost too great to bear, and the parents are faced with a terrible choice. I believe that it is better to not have the screen performed, to not have to bear that burden of knowledge.

(1)   Christenson, S. (n.d.). The Ethical Considerations of Genetic Screening. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students98/christenson.htm

(2)   Sagredo, B. (n.d.). Genetic Screening. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students/boris.htm

Controversial Paper 5: Abortion

Before you read this, I want to say something. I hardly did this topic justice; there is so much passion and emotion in this debate that I can never portray. Abortion is such a heinous sin, and there are so many giants who fight every day to stop it. This paper barely scratches the surface, and I hope we can all pray that God would continue to guide those who are considering abortions, and that he would see fit to bring his Word to them.

Timothy Wong

Matthew Wood

April 3, 2015

On the Inhumanity and Legality of Abortion

            Abortion has been and is one of the most discussed, most hotly debated, and most zealously defended topics in today’s society. Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice defendants have strong opinions and powerful evidences for their sides, causing the debate to rage on. However, at this point in American society, abortion is legal in most areas. Many support this decision, advocating for such benefits as a woman’s freedom over her own body, or the valuable research that can be gained from aborted fetuses. However, I believe that abortion is wrong and inhumane, not only from a religious standpoint but from a moral and ethical one.

            The most common argument from Pro-Choice advocates is that a mother has a right to life, and a right to choose what happens to the life inside her. She has a right to her own body. And, in many cases, she has a right to abortion especially if her own life is threatened by the fetus, “when the fetus is seriously in danger to the life of the mother herself” (1). In this case, it is a dilemma of whether the mother or the fetus has a greater right to life. I would consider it an issue of the lesser of two evils. Legally, however, the mother has the greater right to life. “The common law rule is that a fetus is not considered a living human being until it has been born alive” (2). However, I would argue that it is the right and responsibility of the mother not only to protect her own life, but to protect the life of her unborn child. The fetus has no will or ability to defend itself; should not its mother then be concerned with its well-being and right to life?

            This argument, I believe, is supported scientifically by a study performed at Princeton University. “..scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a ‘potential’ or ‘possible’ human being. It’s an actual human being with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities” (3). As a living human being with the potential for life, I believe a mother ought to have the same responsibility to this child as she would her born children, or any other person. Furthermore, if a child is to be aborted because of a genetic deficiency, this poses an even greater moral issue. If we choose to abort a fetus because it is or would be mentally or physically disabled, what stops us from doing the same to other adults or children who are disabled? “…it is [as] morally wrong to kill [a] disabled fetus as it is to kill disabled adults; thus shows no more respect or hostility to disabled people and gradually discriminate against them” (1).

            From a scientific standpoint, unborn children, even at the earliest stages, have unique genetic material and are considered human beings. From a legal standpoint, while many still uphold the “born-again” rule in regards to fetal homicide that is quickly changing. The Duke Law Journal states, “Moreover, the born-alive rule serves no purpose in the modern law other than to blindly imitate the past. The rule has simply outlived both its necessity and utility, and states should accordingly abandon it” (4). Finally, from a moral standpoint I suggest that abortion, even in protection of a mother’s life, and especially when an issue of convenience or disability, is inhumane, immoral, and wrong. At the very least, even if a mother is become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, the child ought to be considered a human being, and a vulnerable one at that, one without rights or any way to defend themselves. There are many critical factors to consider before deciding that abortion is the right option, and I do believe it is wrong in all circumstances.  

(1)   Pich, C. (2012, November 2). Should Abortion be legalized? Retrieved April 3, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/8354859/Should_Abortion_be_legalized

(2)   Definitions of Life and Death. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/homicide/DefinitionsofLifeandDeath.asp

(3)   Irving, D. (1999, February 1). When Do Human Beings Begin? Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

(4)   Curran, D. (n.d.). ABANDONMENT AND RECONCILIATION: ADDRESSING POLITICAL AND COMMON LAW OBJECTIONS TO FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1397&context=dlj

            

Controversial Paper 4: Genetic Discrimination

On The Burden of Knowledge and Genetic Discrimination

By

Timothy Wong

            Discrimination against other humans comes in all manner of shapes and forms. Racism and Sexism are two of the most prominent examples, and the most controversial. But humans have discriminated against each other throughout the course of history for many, many reasons. In today’s culture, a more recent and overlooked form of discrimination is genetic discrimination. Genetic discrimination is simply “the misuse of genetic information” (1). More specifically, it’s the tendency of health care providers or businesses to discriminate against people based on genetic screens or family history. This type of discrimination is grossly unkind and immoral; there ought to be no circumstances under which a company could discriminate based on genetic information.

There are some more particular examples of this. “…some people might be genetically more able to resist, for example, carcinogens in the workplace. It might be cheaper to employ these people, rather than install expensive health and safety measures designed to prevent them coming into contact with the substances” (2).  Additionally, “…people have been refused life insurance policies on the results of genetic testing. The argument of the insurance company is that it is not fair on those free of the genetic condition to have to support people who know that they will suffer from a condition, such as for example Huntingdon’s disease later in their lives” (2). These are just a couple of specific examples of genetic discrimination, but the constant theme is that businesses or insurance companies would use a person’s genetic information, results from screens or family histories, to discriminate against them through a variety of ways.

Clearly, genetic discrimination is wrong. Though, thanks to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, while companies can legally ask for you genetic information, they are prohibited from using it in order to discriminate (1). However, the system is far from perfect as, “[the] employee has a high burden of proof to establish that the employer made a particular employment decision based on his or her genetic information rather than a legitimate business reason” (3). But, it is helpful to those who suffer from genetic discrimination, and is one of the first steps toward stifling it. And so, while this topic may not directly affect you, it will be more and more prevalent as time goes on. I encourage you to be informed, and mindful of this underrated and dangerous form of discrimination, as it will be affecting people for many years to come.

(1)   GINA and You. (2010, May 1). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://cosage.mmg.msu.edu/sites/default/files/gina.pdf

(2)   Use of human genetic information. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.beep.ac.uk/content/197.0.html

(3)   Drabiak-Syed, K. (2010, June 11). Indiana University. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://bioethics.iu.edu/programs/other/predicter/legal-updates/gina/ 

Controversial Paper 3: Vaccines

This paper is a bit sketchy; I'm writing in a way that caters to the opinion of my teacher, and it doesn't really portray what I truly believe. I still have a lot of research to do in order to fully flesh out my own opinion on vaccines, and I have a fair degree of skepticism when considering either side. So, any opinions or points about vaccines would be greatly appreciated, as I still have a lot to learn about them. But, I was vaccinated as a child, and generally speaking I believe that they are beneficial and relatively safe, which is what I say in this paper.

On Vaccines, Their Risks, and Their Benefits

By

Timothy Wong

            Vaccines are one of the greatest and most beneficial aspects of modern medicine. Through the research and application of vaccinations, numerous lives have been saved, both through direct application of the vaccine and through community protection. There are many who believe that vaccines have significant and dire consequences, such as causing autism. This is an extreme objection. There are many who state that vaccines are perfectly healthy and safe, and that there are no risks associated with their administration. This is also an extreme, but one that seems strangely and irrefutably backed by statistical evidence. But for the sake of argument, I agree that vaccines are absolutely essential to the protection of the community at large, both through direct application and community protection.

            To begin with, let us examine the realistic risks of vaccination. The CDC states that, “Vaccination risks range from common, minor, and local adverse effects to rare, severe, and life-threatening conditions. Therefore, recommendations for vaccination practices balance scientific evidence of benefits for each person and to society against the potential costs and risks for vaccination for the individual and programs” (1). Hence, a great deal of safety regarding vaccines requires that it be treated on a case by case basis, and much of it is left in the hands of the specific administrator or health care professional. Many adverse effects can be attributed to human error in the recipient, the recipient’s parent, or the health care provider. But according to scientific statistics from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink), and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment centers, if properly administered, vaccines should not directly cause any adverse side effects (2). These programs were created specifically to monitor and address adverse side effects that could have arisen from vaccination, and to date have, apparently, not found any direct links. Thus, it is reasonable that any problems can be attributed to human error through improper, unsafe, or misinformed administration.

            Vaccines are powerful tools that serve to greatly benefit society. If administered properly and carefully, they should not cause any adverse side effects, such as Autism. They are essential for the protection of individual persons, as well as the protection of the community and those who are immunocompromised. In addition, the evidence of their safety seems irrefutable. So, it is vital to become and remain vaccinated, while of course keeping oneself informed about all the risks and benefits of vaccines.

(1)   Kroger, A. (2006, December 1). General Recommendations on Immunization. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5515a1.htm

(2)   Simon, H. (2012, March 5). Immunizations. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/immunizations

            

Controversial Paper 2: Cloning

On the Ethical and Moral Repercussions of Cloning and Its Research Process

By
Timothy Wong

            Cloning seems to be such an intriguing and fantastical concept. It is the stuff of science fiction, and yet is becoming ever more real an idea. The benefits of human cloning seem remarkable and vast; cheap labor, perfect genetics, the creation of life, there are many grand things that could result from cloning. However, these are grossly outweighed by the negative consequences of cloning and its research. From a Christian perspective, the concept of cloning is a blatant rejection of God’s authority and work. But for the sake of argument, I will not be reasoning with my own Christian beliefs. Rather, I will use statistics and general moral reasoning to show that cloning, however many benefits it might provide, is a violent and ruinous concept that perfectly demonstrates how far man can go in order to glorify himself.

            According to the Genetic Science Learning Center, there are number of prominent problems with cloning, the most significant of which is its high failure rate. However, I will address this in a bit. First, I want to briefly cover the other primary problem with cloning: complications that can arise later in development of the clone. The most basic of these are physical complications such as LOS (Large Offspring Syndrome), which explains that, “Cloned animals that do survive tend to be much bigger at birth than their natural counterparts”. Additionally, “Clones with LOS have abnormally large organs. This can lead to breathing, blood flow and other problems” (1). However, there are other complications that could arise in human clones, the greatest of which is identity crisis. The fact that one is a clone of another person could easily lead to psychological distress, and an acute confusion about one’s identity. To be an exact copy of another person is no easy thing to swallow.

            Now, we get to the core of the issue. The simple fact of the matter is that cloning has a drastically high rate of failure, and the research process of cloning has, does, and will leave a wake of destruction and death in its path. The GSLC states that, “Cloning animals through somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply inefficient. The success rate ranges from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. Or you can look at it as 970 to 999 failures in 1000 tries” (1). Each “try” is a life, animal or human, that is destroyed. With the current research and experimental process for cloning, there is no way to avoid, at best, thousands upon thousands of deaths, if not many, many more.

This is a moral issue; are the benefits of cloning worth the gross number of deaths its research would leave in its path? I do not believe so. And yet research continues; scientists still nonchalantly sacrifice an innumerable amount of embryos for the sake of cloning research. Sure, cloning sounds like a great idea, a fascinating concept. But for those who are better informed, it becomes a very important scientific and moral issue. Are the benefits worth the cost? Are the countless deaths justified by the end result? That is for the researcher to decide, and one can only hope that their conscience and moral outlook influences that decision.

(1)   What are the Risks of Cloning? (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/cloningrisks/

Controversial Paper 1: Spontaneous Generation

Hey guys, its been a while...again. I've got some more of my writing to share with you all.

My science teacher (for both my Microbiology and Anatomy and Physiology classes) is off getting married this week, so I have no class. However, he left me with homework; I've been assigned to write 6 different essays on controversial life science topics. I plan to do all of that today, and am sitting at starbucks on my laptop as I speak. I just finished the first of these papers, which may possibly be my best one. But I want to do them all today, and I hope they can be insightful or at least interesting to you all. And before you read, you all know that I am a strong Christian with a heart for God. However, for the sake of argument and completion of this assignment, I've been using moral, scientific, and ethical logic more than religious arguments. So, please keep that in mind as you read. That said, enjoy, and feel free to leave any comments or opinions of your own. These are all important topics I believe, and perhaps my words can be helpful to those who are or will be starting sciencey classes at college soon.

On The Origin of Life and the Validity of Abiogenesis
by
Timothy Wong

            Life is a curious thing, and has remained a topic of great debate for an innumerable period of time. Today, the popular belief is that life formed as a result of random chance, evolving into every living thing that exists today. I, as a Christian, believe that life was formed by the will of a creator, God. This is not strictly biogenesis (the creation of life from other living material), but rather could be considered creationism. Nonetheless, I intend to show, or at least suggest, that abiogenesis is an invalid theory and scientifically unstable.

            Abiogenesis is the idea that life was formed from non-living material, from chemical and inorganic substances. This concept is, quite simply, spontaneous generation. At the end of his article, John Wilkins makes several summarizing statements about the concept of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. He states that, “None of the people who did crucial experiments on spontaneous generation disproved abiogenesis. At best, they strongly confirmed the hypothesis that modern organisms (mice, maggots, or germs) did not arise in ordinary cases out of nonliving material” (1). What Wilkins suggests here is that Abiogenesis is a valid concept, but not for complex organisms as proven by scientists like Pasteur. Rather, it can be applied to the formation of early life, and be used as a suitable theory for the origin of early cells.

            Numerous theories have sprouted about abiogenesis and how it could have been used in the creation of life. Many of these are vague, and lacking in substance or evidence. Others, like the Oparin-Miller model have a clearer theory. However, through my research, all of these theories can be boiled down to the idea that, “life was not, and then it was”. Simply put, science cannot ignore the fact that abiogenesis is simply spontaneous generation, the formation of life from non-life. And this, to me, is preposterous.

I’m sure it makes sense to many that the proper chemical compositions and combinations could have been brought together and formed into early nucleotides, which then gradually evolved into more and more complex forms of life. But the gap between life and non-life is far too great to explain simply through spontaneous generation. The theory of abiogenesis is no longer treated as theory. And this mindset gives rise to another prominent issue, which is the ultimate argument between creationism and evolutionary theory. From a Christian perspective, the belief that life was formed through random chance without any influence or intelligent design indicates that man desires autonomy. He does not want to be controlled, to be influenced by a higher power. Which is more appealing, the idea that we are a result of random chance and are the height of intelligence and power, or that we were created by a more powerful being, a being that controls and governs us? Surely, the former caters more to our innate desires.
            But I digress. The issue here is not the nature and desires of man, but rather the concept of spontaneous generation. Regardless of whether a theory states that life, “…could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans” or whether it suggests that, “carbon oxides released from deep sea vents could stabilize on iron-sulphates, reacting with molecular hydrogen to form organic monomers”, the ultimate conclusion here is that life formed from inorganic materials in however complex or simple a way that may be (1-2). And this, I believe, is no better than magic. Life cannot form from non-life; it requires either a creator or some other pre-existing organic material in order to generate. That is simply common sense, logically and scientifically.  

In conclusion, despite the plethora of theories and suppositions regarding abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, I remain convinced that, through simple logic and basic scientific research, it is clear that life cannot form from non-living material; that gap is too large. Even if one does not want to believe that the origin of life was brought about as a result of intelligent design, the belief that it was spontaneously generated is just as preposterous a notion.

(1)    Wilkins, J. (2004, April 26). Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

(2)    How did life originate? (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_04