Letter on “Twenty-first Century Genetics: Power and Responsibility” by Jasmine Chiu
The article “Twenty-first Century Genetics: Power and Responsibility”, written by Jingwen Zhang in 2013, discussed the uses and complications of recent genetic discoveries. She argued that scientists have to educate the general public about the drawbacks of genetic and genome research, in order to make this research reach its full potential. Interestingly, I have also written an essay on the benefits of scientific developments like genetic testing, and argued that genetic research is helping us improve the human race, because “gene therapy is a milestone in modern medicine”, and “if being able to cure cancer and genetic disorders is not called improving the human race, I don’t know what is”. However, after reading Zhang’s article, I was prompted to rethink my claim. Like Zhang mentioned, genetic testing also involves issues such as the exclusion of non-genetic carcinogens, eugenics, and privacy. The human genome project, for example, founded an Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) Program to address how this project can affect “individuals, families, and society”, explained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. This shows that the bioethics of genetic testing is also essential in this project. Zhang raised thoughtful points, but what is still crucial to examine is the moral of scientific research. Some argue that scientists are treating humans like mere biological objects. Are we playing god when trying to manipulate our human genes? How much should we know about ourselves before it becomes too much? Our knowledge about science is our own power. Like President Bush once said, “the powers of science are morally neutral - as easily used for bad purposes as good ones”. I believe that genetics research can only be beneficial when it is morally justified with the right purposes. Therefore, science and its ethics are inseparable, and should always be equally studied.
질문은 이렇게 되는데요
In this review, the author believes that genetic research is intrinsically good. (True or False)
정답은 F로 처음에는 그렇게 생각했다가 Zhang's article 읽고나서 생각이 바뀌어서 F라고 하는데
제가 생각하기에는 바뀌었다기보다는 처음에는 유전학 연구 최고! 하다가 윤리문제도 생각해야겠다로 내용이 추가된 정도인것 같은데..그래도 저자는 genetic research is intrinsically good 이라고 생각한다고 할 수도 있을거 같은데 어떻게 생각하시나요?
Intrinsically가 inherently 아니면 essentially로도 쓸 수 있지 않나요? 그러면 유전학 연구의 본질에 대해 이야기하는거일텐데. 그렇다면 저는 유전학 연구의 본질이 "good" (여기서 말하는 "good"이 제가 생각하기에는 모호하지만...the benefits of scientific developments...a milestone...etc) 이기 때문에 윤리적인 문제만 잘 다뤄지면 유용할 것이다. 라고 저는 보는데.
제 결론을.. 유전학 연구는 윤리문제가 있지만.. 유용하다("good")... 이렇게 생각 할 수도 있는 문제 아닌가요?
그냥 간단하게 처음에는 좋다고 생각하다가 늬양스가 바뀌었구나... F라고 하는것 말고도요.