I need help with the style (content) of my almost finished paper! Note:I haven't cite my sources yet and don't worry about grammar too much just because I can made up points for grammer, but not for content! I am trying to persuade my reader that genetic engineering is a good thing not a bad thing. It is due in about 3.5 hours!

Here is my paper!

Bui 1

Binh Bui

Mrs. Wallenberg

Advanced English 12/Hour 2

Genetic Engineering Is the Next Step in Evolution

Henry I. Miller, a researcher at the Hoover Institution and Gregory Conko, director of

food safety policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, they both claim that genetic

engineering has the ability to obtain results in improvements in agriculture and in life-saving

medicines. They disagree with accusations that are cipher those products that are genetically

engineered that threat children’s health which discourage the use of these products that could

actually save children’s lives. There are always people who are skeptic about the consequences

provided by genetic engineering unless there are more people that can influence others about the

benefits of genetic engineering. The benefits of genetic engineering that it has to offer should not

be impede just because of some special-interest groups out there are using it as a scapegoat for

their own ethnical issue.

According to Ron Epstein, a research professor at the Institute for World Religions in

, he believed that the long-term negative effects of genetic engineering

exceed the short-term benefits it has to offer. It is a fact that genetic engineering does not poses

a threat to mankind just because modification of organisms at the basic genetic level existed for

at least back to 6000 BC when the Babylonians used microorganisms in the process of

fermentation to brew alcoholic beverages and there are many scientific bodies, including the

World Health Organization, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, have studied on modern

biotechnology and arrived at conclusions that they are safe.

Bui 2

Many skeptics, including Ron Epstein, believes that genetic engineering is a threat to the

environment and human because of genetically engineered pathogens that either be use in

biowarfare, recombined in a toxic form from harmless, rapidly mutating engineered organisms,

or release into the environment by accident. In reality, there are no effective means of

transportation to deliver mutated pathogens to be used as biological weapons and there was a

Japanese terrorist group that interested a lot of money into making deadly pathogens with no

prevail.

Some people believe that genetic engineering have a possibly of causing harm to the

future of the human race if we genetic engineer our children which would support why genetic

engineering of humans is largely unethical. Bernard Gert, the Eunice and Julian Cohen Professor

for the Study of Ethics and Human Values at , stated:

“... genetic therapy risks great harm for many in future generations and that there is not

sufficient harm prevented to justify these risks. Genetic therapy, like genetic

enhancement, not only is permanent during the entire lifetime of the affected individual,

the transgene becomes inheritably transmitted to countless members of future

generations.

Advocates that support genetic engineering of humans is ethical it is because genetic

engineering prevent our children from getting undesirable genes that can give them life-

threatening illnesses. Also, it is our duty to use our intellect to pursuit for more knowledge and

achieve new scientific breakthrough. An example of a scientific breakthrough is found in Mary

Shelley’s Frankenstein when Victor’s mind precluded into thinking about making his creation, he

questioned himself, “Whence, I often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed? Another

reason why genetic engineering of humans is ethical is that Oliver Morton, a contributing editor

Bui 3

at Wired magazine editor at Wired magazine stated:

“Biology, after all, is about life, not nature. It’s just an accident of history that, until

recently, everything alive was more or less natural. Nature is a record of 4 billion years

of life’s successes, written in the language of the genes. Biology’s new strength comes

from being able to read that record; cracking the genetic code has ushered in one of those

wonderful eras of scientific progress when new discoveries keep leading to new

techniques with which yet discoveries can be made.”

Advocates including Bernard Gert claims that genetic engineering is an unethical ordeal

it is back up by the fact that positive eugenics or genetic enhancements is morally wrong just

because it is dealing with something we do not know that there are risks.

Advocates opposes this because they believe that that a species’ genetic variation affords

evolutionary plasticity or there is a potential for new subsequent adaptation.

Lee M. Silver, a molecular biologist and the author of Remaking : Cloning and

Beyond in a Brave New World, who believe that human cloning is ethical quoted, “Real human

clones will simply be later-born identical twins—nothing more and nothing less.” According to

Lee M. Silver, he concluded that most people are against human cloning because of religious

beliefs that he feels are not good enough to influence public policy to be on their side on human

cloning.

E.V. Kontorovich, a writer living in , who claims that human cloning, is

unethical quoted, “Cloning would take the humanity out of human reproduction, and in doing so

rob our spirits of something that cannot be replaced artificially.” According to him, he believe

that the relationship between the cloned child and their parent would be awkward, and the clone

might be viewed as an economic good that as made than rather a person who was born. Also, it

Bui 4

is unethical that the scientists harvest organs from cloned human fetuses.

People who are on the same side as Lee M. Silver believe than cloned children will be no

different in biological terms from everybody else of the species. According to Lee, one of the

reasons why there are so many scholars, ethicists, and scientists that oppose human cloning

it is because they wonder if it is safe or not. Since the cloning process has not been proven to be

safe and its applications toward generation of newborn children could have negative

consequences such as birth defects. Secondly, they are afraid of the psychological effect of the

cloned child even if the physical defects are preventable. And at last, the skeptics are worried

about the negative effect that cloning will have an impact on the whole society. His reason

about would why people make these excuses up to oppose human cloning stated:

“They have latched on to arguments about safety, psychology, and society because they

are simply unable to come up with an ethical argument that is not based on the religious

notion that by cloning human beings man will be playing God and it is wrong to play

God.”

Kontorovich like other advocates who are against human cloning believe that human

cloning will be an advance where it will undermines the human race in the long run. That is

there is a good reason that all higher life forms are reproduced through the process of random

combination of the DNA by the two parents. In respond to changes in the environmental

changes, the genotypes goes through constant change, failure to vary the genotype would creates

genetic stagnation that can be harmful to all forms of life.

People that are for human cloning and it is ethical including Lee M. Silver agree that

human cloning will not harm society because if human cloning is going to become legal, the

cloned children would only be accounted for a fraction of a percent of all the children born into

Bui 5

world.



1 2
My paper is double-spaced so when I paste it the lines didn't came out right, but don't worry about it!
Are you just looking for feedback on the words in bold? Otherwise, that's a loooong article to look through.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
No, it is basically going to be a 5 pages double-spaced paper! Someone was busy today, but they said that the sentence sentence or the paper was tangible so I'm screwed since to me, it look fine! Just read it over to see what can I change in my paper to make it persuasive!
They disagree with accusations that are cipher those that products that are genetically

engineered that threat threaten children’s health which , as this discourages the use of these products that could

actually save children’s lives. (or alternatively: and counter that the use of these products could actually...)
The benefits of genetic engineering that it has to offer should not

be impeded (or: held back) just because of some special-interest groups out there are using it as making it a scapegoat for

their own ethnical issues.

(This doesn't quite make sense - a scapegoat is something you blame in place of the real guilty party. Your sentence reads as if special-interest groups would otherwise be blaming their own ethical issues. Did you mean something along the lines of: "special-interest groups have hijacked the issue with their own political (or ethical) agendas"? The tone of your original uses quite emotive language here - it doesn't necessarily read as a balanced argument.)
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
That is what I meant:Did you mean something along the lines of: "special-interest groups have hijacked the issue with their own political (or ethical) agendas"? I am thankful just because I starting working on my paper overnight!
It is a fact that genetic engineering does not poses

a threat to mankind just because modification of organisms at the basic genetic level existed for

at least back to 6000 BC when the Babylonians used microorganisms in the process of

fermentation to brew alcoholic beverages. (as an argument, this is quite weak - are you claiming that the Ancient Babylonians genetically altered the micro-organisms? And in any case, there is no necessary connection between Babylonian brewing techniques and the threat to the food chain from current or future genetic modification) and there are In addition, many scientific bodies, including the

World Health Organization, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, have studied on modern

biotechnology and arrived at conclusions concluded that they are it is safe.
I am thankful just because I starting working on my paper overnight!

- it rather shows! I'm afraid I don't have the time to carry on - perhaps someone else from the forum could step in and help you?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more