Answer:
The change of existing human infections and creature infections. Infections recently restricted to little, secluded populaces that would now be able to spread because of mechanical or social changes, for example, the improvement of moderate worldwide travel.
Explanation:
Ethical doubts about genetic engineering motivate a view that many philosophers favour: that genetic therapy to eliminate disease and disability is ethically acceptable, given that the risks can be overcome.
But genetic enhancement is ethically problematic. The line between enhancement and therapy is difficult to draw.
Studies show people who are physically attractive are likely to earn more than those considered to have below-average looks. Does this mean “ugliness” is a disability that ought to be corrected by genetic engineering?
Or, similarly, is having a below-average IQ a disability, something that should be subject to change through gene-editing?
Hello!
The main purpose of peer review boards is to have your peers write what they remember, so you can look at the board and take the notes.
Enjoy.
~Isabella
