DNA profiling has many uses, both positive and negative, in our society.
Aside from its usefulness in many legal investigations, DNA profiling can be
used in the workplace to discriminate against employees whose profiles could
pose a financial risk. For example, genetic technology can and has been used to
determine the capacity of a person to contract certain diseases, such as sickle-
cell anemia, which could cause many employers to hesitate in the hiring and
training of such people. In the early 1970's, the United States began a carrier
screening for sickle-cell anemia, which affects 1 in 400 African-Americans.
Many of those identified as carriers mistakenly thought they were afflicted with
this debilitating disease. Furthermore, confidentiality was often breached, and
in some cases, carriers were discriminated against and denied health insurance.
Nevertheless, genetic profiling has been beneficial in paternity suits and rape
cases, where the father or the assailant could be identified. However, despite
its growing number of utilizations, DNA profiling is extremely hazardous when
results are inaccurate or used to discriminate.
The frequency of genetic testing in criminal investigations (more than
1,000 in the U.S. since 1987) has been increasing dramatically despite the
inconclusive testing by the scientific community in many aspects of forensic
identification.
Disadvantages:
Biological process
The use of genetically modified organisms has sparked significant
controversy in many areas.Some groups or individuals see the generation
and use of GMO as intolerable meddling with biological states or
processes that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, while
others are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully
comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic
manipulation. Other people see this as a continuation in the role
humanity has occupied for thousands of years, modifying the genetics of
crops by selecting specimen of crops with the most desirable
characteristics as parent for the next generation of crops.
Foodchain
The safety of GMOs in the foodchain has been questioned by some
environmental groups, with concerns such as the possibilities that GMOs
could introduce new allergens into foods, or contribute to the spread of
antibiotic resistance.According to a study published in 1999, there was
no current evidence to suggest that the processes used to genetically
modify food were inherently harmful. However, a number of more recent
studies have raised concern, and environmental groups still discourage
consumption in many countries, claiming that GM foods are unnatural and
therefore unsafe.Such concerns have led to the adoption of laws and
regulations that require safety testing of any new organism produced for
human consumption.
GMOs' proponents note that because of the safety testing requirements
imposed on GM foods, the risk of introducing a plant variety with a new
allergen or toxin using genetic modification is much smaller than using
traditional breeding processes. Transgenesis has less impact on the
expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than
conventional breeding or plant (non-directed) mutagenesis. An example of
an allergenic plant created using traditional breeding is the kiwi. One
article calculated that the marketing of GM salmon could reduce the
cost of salmon by half, thus increasing salmon consumption and
preventing 1,400 deaths from heart attack a year in the United States.
Trade in Europe and Africa
In response to negative public opinion, Monsanto announced its decision
to remove their seed cereal business from Europe, and environmentalists
crashed a World Trade Organization conference in Cancun that promoted GM
foods and was sponsored by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
(CFACT). Some African nations have refused emergency food aid from
developed countries, fearing that the food is unsafe. During a
conference in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, Kingsley Amoako,
Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
(UNECA), encouraged African nations to accept genetically modified food
and expressed dissatisfaction in the public’s negative opinion of
biotechnology.
Agricultural surpluses
Patrick Mulvany, Chairman of the UK Food Group, accused some
governments, especially the Bush administration, of using GM food aid as
a way to dispose of unwanted agricultural surpluses. The UN blamed food
companies and accused them of violating human rights, calling on
governments to regulate these profit-driven firms. It is widely believed
that the acceptance of biotechnology and genetically modified foods
will also benefit rich research companies and could possibly benefit
them more than consumers in underdeveloped nations
