1. Sequencing the human genome may bring to light a number of genes that are the basis for known genetic diseases or that predispose a person to a condition such as heart disease, cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease. Yet finding a gene for an illness may not lead to an immediate cure. Would you want to be tested to learn whether they had a genetic disease or predisposition if no cure was available? Why or why not?
If I had the opprotunity to learn if I would hvae any genetic disorders or diseases I would take it. Even though it might not immedeatly bring a cure it would enlighten me on what might happen and I could take certain preocautionary measures to maybe prevent these diseases and be ready for them when I get them. I think it might not be perfect though because I might then spend the rest of my life worrying about getting certain diseases. I think that in general it would be good if they could do that because then people that would want to know could get tested and people who wouldn't want to know wouldn't get tested.
2. Consider a scenario in which a lab needs DNA samples for use in genetic testing studies. Researchers are searching for a variant of a gene that provides resistance to specific bacterial diseases. If the company finds this gene, it may be able to produce a drug to sell to people who have these diseases. Would you agree to have your DNA be part of the study? Why or why not? Would you want royalties for your part in finding the gene? What if during the testing, the company discovered you had a gene that might result in a health problem later in life? Would you want to be informed? Why or why not?
I would agree to have my DNA tested but I would also want to be paid royalties. I think that this would be good because I would be helping people but I should be payed for it. If some very important part of my gene was used to cure cancer or something I think that I would deserve some sort of compensation. I would also do it without getting paid if the results could be very positive but I would try to get some sort of compensation. I think htat this would be good for humans in general and that everybody should give DNA since it would be for a good cause and its not like we have DNA identification anyway. Since there isn't anything to do whith DNA except testing it at the moment I think it would be safe.
3. As more is learned about genes, there is a risk that the information will be used to define certain members of society by their genetic makeup. Identify the meaning of the terms genetic discrimination and genetic privacy. What are some ways to protect against this type of genetic discrimination?
I don't think that this would be good because engineering babies to the extent that non-engineered babies are considered inferior would make the world horrible and unnatural. We were created/evolved not to be the perfect animal but just to survive and live. If this happened I don't think there would be any way to stop it because it would already be happening. The discrimination would also kinda make sense in most cases since people are specificaly modified to be good at something while others aren't makes the ones that are much better for the job. Overall I think that this sort of a scenario would be very bad.
