seem to form views that are not basedon facts, but merely the opinions of a journalist. It is very easy to find articles in News Week or on theInternet that support genetic engineering. The thing that society needs to do is think about the facts anddecide if the benefits of genetic engineering out weigh the consequences. Society tends to argue againstgenetic engineering using three main topics. First, it is not a safe thing for mankind to do because it is notpart of the natural order of things. Many people also think it is letting doctors and scientists play the role ofGod. Third, people believe that scientists are trying to control something that man was not supposed tocontrol. All of the previous topics have little or no support and were partly created because of societysignorance.The most common defense that people give for not accepting the science of genetic engineering is that it isnot part of the natures course. If this is the case then driving, flying, wearing clothes and etcetera should bebanned and people should be afraid of this. As man has evolved from the earliest stages of Precambriantimes, it has introduced things that were completely unknown and not part of nature. This includes fire,clothing, boats, automobiles, planes, medical treatment, computers, and now genetic engineering. Geneticengineering is just another evolutionary step in the great journey of mankind. If the world could harness thepossibilities of genetic engineering, it would save many lives and prevent many diseases from everdeveloping. Many people also think that this new biotechnology is letting scientists and doctors play god. These doctorsare not trying to recreate human science; they are just trying to perfect its flaws. Doctors and scientists havealready helped diabetics with their synthetic insulin, and unfertile parents are now able to have children. Those that oppose genetic engineering because doctors are trying to play god, do not ...
