Is genetic modification morally wrong?

Is genetic modification is morally wrong?

Genetic modification is methods that make it possible to change the pattern in genetic material. The genetic material found in cells in molecules called DNA, is the design for any living thing. I.e. plant, animals, bacteria, etc. Changing the pattern of DNA molecules ay make it possible to change the characteristics in the living organism.
The ability to modify organism’s genetic makeup has uses:

<> Understanding the basic of plant, animals, including humans.
<> Use in agriculture; better yield of crops and better for consumers.
<> In animals: better health, livestock and humans.

However genetic modification is doing more harm then good. Studies show the disadvantages of genetic modification. These studies show that GM crops and foods are harming the environment and could be harming wildlife and even humans.

Crops that have been genetically modified (GM) to produce pharmaceuticals that can contaminate the food supply.
There were scares that drugs that are produced by GM crops, were getting into the food supply such as cereal.
‘Biopharma’ grown for the drug, produced for medicines were getting mistaken for GM crops and ending up in American supermarkets as breakfast cereal.

This is a preview of the whole essay

There has been a study that shows that crops that have been genetically modified to resist insects kill not just ‘target insects’ (borer and weevil) but beneficial insects (monarch butterfly). They also (GM crops) threaten habitats of birds and other animals.
Pollen from a successful GM crop, Bt-corn, was found that it killed larvae of monarch butterflies, which are good for the environment.
A gene from a bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis, has modified bt- corn. It makes the plant tissue toxic to resist a pest, which is hard to remove with chemicals.
It’s harmless to humans and other creatures (such as bees and ladybirds) however it’s deadly to the larvae because it feeds of the leaves of the Bt-corn (milkweed).

I believe the technology involved in producing genetically enhanced/altered crops or livestock will be much too expensive for the average farmer to afford. Those who will be able to afford it will be the corporate growers.
These conglomerates will effectively be able to monopolize the food market, putting small growers out of business and setting prices on what they produce, not to mention any environmental hazards they may create.

It has been shown that overproducing food to world problems such as starvation, famine, and drought etc contributes to the problem it is trying to correct. If you take a culture that is in such a crisis situation and try to solve the problem by giving them a large food supply, what happens is, the culture generally begins to overpopulate until once again there is not enough supply to meet the demand. Food = Overpopulation = Famine. The real question is how to handle the overpopulations. This why I believe that if we introduce GM foods into this world on a large scale then we will be putting more problems into this world then they are already. This why I believe its morally wrong because we are provoking the world in which it is.

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

skatealexia

29th of Jul 2012

Quality of writing

Punctuation, grammar and spelling all to a good standard. Paragraphs very clear with a nice easy to read font used.

Level of analysis

The candidate introduces the essay well with a good description of what genetic modification is, but to include greater scientific detail the candidate should include exactly how genetic modification works with a simple diagram. The essay is very unbalanced and whilst it argues a variety of negative points very well, this is all what is included in the essay making the essay and the conclusion unbalanced in viewpoint which is not good because there will be some positives which the candidate has not considered which might outweigh the negatives.

Response to question

The candidate responds to the question well in some aspects but not so well in others. A good depth of scientific reasoning is used, but because the argument is very one-sided the candidate does not have a well rounded conclusion that should be used when considering all scientific data.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn