List the arguments as notes in bullet points. Also, make the arguments 'for' gene therapy bold, and leave the arguments 'against' gene therapy normal. This is so I can differentiate between the arguments 'for' and 'against' gene therapy.
For gene therapy:
* Saving people from potentially painful (mentally, physically) existances.
* Saving immense money from the expenses incurred with treatments for various conditions.
*The danger of people wanting to create the "perfect" person. Designer babies, etc.
Gene therapy is like any other treatment, therapy, or transplant. I don't see why it should be controversial: is organ transplantation controversial? What about cancer therapy?
Any invasive or internal treatment or therapy might be considered "playing God," which is not a good counterargument, by the way.
Gene therapy allows for bad genes, wrong genes, or defective genes to be swapped or replaced, just like any transplant. The only reason it is controversial is because of political fear that it is somehow a pandora's box or slippery slope toward human cloning. Again, bad arguments both.
The arguments for gene therapy may be as follows:
- Gene therapy may lead to reverting genetically-prone illnesses, hence saving us from many forms of cancers and other inherited diseases.
- Gene therapy helps us understand better the way our bodies defend themselves
- Gene therapy will make us more healthy
- Gene therapy will help humans by decreasing the amount of deaths and illnessess related to genetic conditions.
Arguments against it include:
- To some, playing with our genes is like trying to play God, and trying to manipulate nature
- Gene therapy can also go wrong and produce terrible mutations
- There is not sufficient background studies to prove that genetic therapy is permanent, nor 100% effective.
- Gene therapy many not be the solution to reverting diseases, and maybe we are placing it on a pedestal, where it may not belong.