65% of people say genetic engineering should be illegal. (Statnews.com) A process that can solve all of our genetic problems is frowned upon by that amount of people? Why is that? It’s easy to think of it that way, but genetic engineering has more layers. On the negative side, there's the animal abuse, the possibility of unexpected mutations in the new generation of genetically changed children, and the unpredictability of what would happen to things that might digest the enhanced gene. (Predatory animals, scavengers, and decomposers) There’s only one point in favor of the positives, but it’s one of the most important discoveries in science, curing diseases. 

 For the pros, there’s the sheer potential. An article from the MU School of Medicine stated, "The main arguments genetic manipulation offers is the potential to cure diseases or disorders in those who have them, as well as preventing diseases in those whose genes predisposed them to those problems.  If done on reproductive cells, gene therapy could keep children from carrying such genes (for unfavorable genetic diseases and disorders) that the children got from their patients" (MUSoM). 

Gene therapy is a process that makes minor changes to cells, but there’s a newer version of it that makes drastic changes to DNA strands.

Genetic engineering has two different parts to it. There’s gene therapy and gene editing. Gene editing is the primary source of objection from the people on the opposing side, and it’s also relatively new to the science scene. This is because it removes a part of a gene, and it gets replaced with one made by science. For some people, this is too close to “Playing God.” It makes people uncomfortable to have that kind of power, that type of control. 

There have been many examples of successful gene editing, even if it isn’t being tested on humans yet. Mice have been crucial to the growth of gene editing. Mice are the starting point in genetic manufacturing, as mammals with similar genetic material. The intelligence of a mouse makes them more ethically and legally able to experiment with compared to a human. This process created the “Chimera mouse,” simply meaning having the cells of two different things, as the Chimera from Greek Mythology does. 

 On the flip side, there are negatives to this process. For example, animal abuse. As Elizabeth Ormandy of the National Library of Medicine says, "The generation of a new genetically engineered line of animals often involves the sacrifice of some animals to surgical procedures. (for example, vasectomy, surgical embryo transfer)" (NLoM). Animal cruelty has been the leading sin of science in recent years. It’s been done in nearly all the fields where it could be considered helpful and banned in a few others. That may not seem very logical to the people who don’t care much for animal test subjects, so if you’re one of those, then this next one might resonate with you. “Gene editing affects only the patient being treated (and only some of their cells). Genetic editing affects all cells in an organism, including reproductive systems, passing on to future generations. The possible consequences of that are difficult to predict” (MUSoM). The possible issues it might create have been weighed by experts, but even for them, it’s tough to predict. It could have negative consequences with specific genetics, quickly killing someone. Another negative outcome could be the vectors delivering the DNA to cells other than the target cells, also having unpredictable results.

 I believe both sides have good points. However, I feel more swayed to the negative side, at least now. Genetic engineering is still progressing and improving, which makes me think that it could eventually be an (expensive) option to cure faulty genetics and gain the support of the people. Scientists also believe it can be a somewhat painless process once the trial and error phase is concluded. Once that’s accomplished, I feel more people, myself included, will drift to the positive side. 

In conclusion, genetic engineering has good and bad sides to it. It could be a lifesaving savior in the future, or it could stay in development until it’s discontinued. Negatives can outnumber a positive, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they will always outweigh the positives.