Scholarly+articles

Rabino, Isaac. "Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues." Science, Technology, & Human Values. Vol. 28. Sage, 2003. 365-402 . //JSTOR//. Web. 10 May 2011. <[|__http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557969seq=1&Search=yes&search__] __[|Text=genetic&searchText=engineering&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction]__ __[|%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dgenetic%2Bengineering%26acc%3Don%26wc%3]__ __[|Don&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=37306&returnArticleService=showFullTex]__>.

Dr. Isaac Rabino teaches and researches out of Empire State College in New York. He has done an immense amount of surveying in the United States and Europe of physicians and scienties in academics, government positions, and industry positions about controversial issues. Many surveys have been about the bioengineering of food, cloning, and genetic alterations. He hopes to amass the feels of these specialists about how their research has affected society policy and how society has affected their research. This piece is an informational report. This selection is meant to be read by people with a background in the field. Dr. Rabino's thesis is that the new technology and advancements in the field are going to cause a lot of moral, ethical, and religious issues to arise. The author states the people working in the field often realize that they are causing controversial dilemmas in society, and they say that the feelings of society directly influence how far their research can go. The author provides specific examples given from scientists about how society influences their work to support the fact that the extreme uses of genetic engineering are causing people to become either afraid or hopeful, depending on what stand they take. For example, one might be hopeful if one has an illness, but one might be fearful if one believes that the alteration interfere with "God's work." Through stating that society directly influences and is directly influenced by the work in the genetic engineering field, the author has supported my belief that the process should only be used in dire cases. The organization of this piece is very logical and clear. The author has fully addressed the topic adequately and has not given bias. The author made his thesis clear and strongly supported by surveying extensive amounts of experts in the field. This has been helpful because it aided me in supporting my argument that the intensity of genetic engineering needs be toned down a bit so that the radical beliefs on both sides can relax so that the helpfullness of the alterations can actually cure diseases instead of being fought about.

McGleenan, Tony. "Human Gene Therapy and Slippery Slope Arguments." Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol. 21. BMJ, 1995. 350-355. JSTOR. Web. 12 May 2011. <[|__http://www.jstor.org/pss/27717667?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dgene%2Btherapy%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dgenetic%2Bengineering%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D50%26so%3Drel%26wc%3Don&Search=yes__]>.

Dr. Tony McGleenan is a leading professor of law and lecturer at member at Queen's University of Belfast and has assisted in high-profile cases that revolve around the subjects of Administrative Law, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Constitutional Law, Contract and General Commercial, Criminal Assets, Defamation, Employment Law and Industrial Tribunals, Immigration, Inquests, Judicial Review, Negligence and General Tort, Professional and Medical Negligence. This is an informational piece with little or no bias. This piece is meant to be read by people with background in both law and genetic engineering. Dr. McGleenan's thesis is that because of the ethical issues and the high probability that during any case where gene therapy is in question, slippery slope arguments will arise because gene therapy is easily targeted in this way. A slippery slope argument is one in which the plaintiff who is arguing against the present argument while sharing information about the potential other arguments that could arise from this one. The author provides extensive examples of somatic cell gene therapy and states that if we allow this to occur then germ line gene therapy would occur, and this is unethical. The organization of the piece is clear and logical. This supports my argument because it hits on the foreboding problems of allowing gene therapy to modify some of society's beliefs. It is extremely easy to bring about a court case, McGleenan says, so if we allow gene therapy we have to be ready for the intensive battle between medicine and the courts.