Genes Paper

If there had to be any type of inspiration of genetic engineering, it would have to be me. I am the first "creature" ever to be genetically created and I have inspired scientists to begin genetic engineering. Should scientists move forward with this idea of genetic engineering? Can scientists move forward with this idea? My creation was deemed a "marvel of the sciences," yet not one person has duplicated Dr. Victor Frankenstein in creating such a complex design such as me. I am a fully functioning body created from the midst of the unimaginable, the impossible, and the unknown. Scientists are now seeking ways in which to "renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption" (Shelley 32).

Lately, I have been reading books that I have stolen from the library on genetic engineering and how the brain functions. I came across a chapter in a book by Michael Gazzaniga called 'The Ethical Brain.' In the chapter, 'Better Brains Through Genes', Michael Gazzaniga explains how, through in vitro fertilization (IVF, test tube) in which, parents are able to choose what genes they want their children to possess. For example, a parent may want to give a child his or her athletic genes because he or she may want the child to be as athletic as he or she was in life. Seriously, "who among us would not do whatever we could to ensure our children were perfect?" (Gazzaniga 37) This question began to make me question why Dr. Frankenstein did not want the best genes for me. Although I am the first man created by another man, why did I not have the "good genes" instead of being imprisoned with the "bad genes"? If only I had gotten an IVF, maybe Frankenstein could have given me "good genes" so I would not terrorize people and bring death to anyone who steps in my path. The idea of IVF for humans angered me dearly. I stormed around the city wrecking havoc upon anyone ill-fated enough to cross my path. Once I stopped my blood raging rampage, I took a seat on a nearby bench to continue reading the books.

As I continue to read, I read about two Harvard scientists, Steven Pinker and Michael Sandel, who express their views on the process of IVF. Pinker, on one hand, is very skeptic about the whole idea of IVF. "Selecting for sex or brown eyes is one thing, but trying to engineer intellect, or athleticism, or even personality is quite another." (Gazzaniga 39). Doing an IVF may be a harder task to choose for mental traits, than for physical traits. According to Gazzaniga, the ability to select intelligence is 'polygenetic,' meaning the output of thousands of genes. It is scientists like Pinker who give me the life that I love, destroying anything that comes in my path. However, Sandel, believes that through science, IVF will allow us to be able to choose genes in the future. In the future, if humans "collected the instruments of life" (Shelley 34), they could indeed create a human and choose its genes. Sandel is a scientist that makes my life devastating, attempting to rid the world of all the abnormal humans in exchange for humans with "good genes." I storm around in yet another hair rising rage and calm down because my curiosity gets the best of me. I am very curious to see what may be in store for the future of IVF and humanity.

Unfortunately for me, but very fortunate for humans, most scientists agree that genes can determine attributes such as IQ, athleticism, and even good looks. None of these qualities work great on my behalf. In my opinion, I would make sure no humans had the chance to get IVF's. According to Gazzaniga, there are "three laws of behavior genetics" (Gazzaniga 44). The first law is that all behavior traits are hereditary. The three categories for hereditary traits include: "cognitive abilities, personality, and psychopathology" (Gazzaniga 45). The strongest hereditary trait of these three is cognitive abilities. There is no specific gene for IQ, therefore it is almost impossible to select traits for intelligence. It is almost impossible to select traits for personality