Ethics of Gene Therapy

i think one of the major ethical consequences is where will people start and stop defining a genetic "problem"? -- are we talking disease or hair color preference? Unfortunately, i don't think that we can be confident that people will know where to draw the line. We are so trained these days to specify exactly what we want ("a single, half decaf, half reg, soy latte with foam and not too hot") that detailing how you'd like your child to look or behave may be as common place as ordering your starbucks. ideas of superiority could scarily pervade more than they already do-- imagine who will have the money to go ahead with such tests and how this could effect all sorts of relations (race, gender, economic, religious, and otherwise) if a certain bracket of people are being sculpted to be the best. not to meantion how this could play a role in "natural" evolution.

it seems incredible to me that scientists have isolated where some diseases come from and how to replace this defected genes with healthy ones. if it came down to a child developing a debilatating or deadly disease causing suffering for themselves and the family, i would support genetic therapy. it seems unfortunate to be completely against gene therapy when it could give life to some potentially fatal situations. But, it is a very real concern that limitations could break down completely to make room for "progress" and people wouldn't know where to stop. this is a very BIG topic and one i've only given limited thought to.

Emilie R. Bergeson outlines the technical side and arguments for/against gene therapy well in his article "The Ethics of Gene Therapy" (http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/students/bergeson.htm)