Genetic Engineering: Major Advancement or Major Setback?

As biochemist Isaac Asimov once said, "Advances in genetic engineering have enabled us to imagine designing our own evolutionary process." In 1946, scientists discovered that genetic material from different viruses could be combined to form a new type of virus. This is an important discovery that has gradually penetrated in the era of modern genetics. Current scientists have defeated the government's 3 billion dollar scale genome project and developed a new way to decipher human DNA.

Because genetic engineering is related to many major fields of science, restrictions are necessary. Genetic engineering can also be used for domestication, but I will only talk about molecular genetic engineering of DNA. This argument will discuss global genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a problem occurring outside the United States. In fact, the first genetically modified embryo is in China. To learn more about genetic engineering, it is necessary to discuss history and background. Genetic engineering is now attempted for medical use. Genetic engineering is very similar to surgery in many respects. The original purpose of surgery and genetic engineering is to heal people. The first surgeon can be traced back to about 800 BC and the surgeon was named Sushruta Samhita. Francis Bacon predicted genetic engineering in 1627. The first genetically modified organism was made by Herb Boyer and Stanley Cohen in 1972.

There is contradiction in the problem for every controversy. Genetic engineering certainly is not different. A few people want to stop human genetic engineering. Most public and government strongly support the latest developments in genetic engineering. The other side believes that genetic transformation brings many problems to society. One of the parties to genetic engineering believes that it can be managed under government supervision and will be used only for good purpose. Before I support it, I

In the field of cancer, focus has been placed on gene mutation as a cause of the problem in the past 50 years. There have been several important advances in some of the smaller diseases (CML and Gleevec), but in general cancer has not been more successful than 50 years ago. This approach has taken us one step a thousand miles trip. Part of the problem is how to approve anticancer drugs. The FDA approves drugs based on side effects (toxicity) compared to the efficacy of drugs - can be defined in many ways. If that medicine can help to prolong the cancer patient's lifespan, it is likely to get approval. This may be the most important hard end point for medicine. Unfortunately, between 1990 and 2002, 75% of the FDA's approval was due to reasons other than longevity