Critical+Reviews

**__GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD__**
Recently I read an article on the New York Times about genetically modified food, or GM food, and why it should be the way forward for humans. In this review, I would like to propose my viewpoint, as well as showing the pro's and con's of GM food.

Food shortage is a growing problem for the world, with a rapidly growing population. In 1950 the worlds population was about 2.5 billion, and in 2010 it was 6.8 billion. It is projected that in 2050 the worlds population will be 9.3 billion. With global warming and various natural disasters, there will be a drop in food production. For example, there is currently a drought occuring in the USA, affecting 12% of land. Texas is the largest producer of beef in the USA, and with many cattle being sold due to the high cost of feed, beef prices are predicted to rise higher. It is clear that there will be a food shortage in the near future, and one of the possible solutions would be genetically modified food.

Pest resistant plants? Wheat that grows without water? Genetic engineering can make it happen. For example, soybeans can be modified to be resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides. With genetic engineering, crops can grow in tougher conditions and produce higher quality food. This might then seem to be the obvious solution. However, there are many people who are also against genetic modified crops.

Personally, I am for the use of GM crops. I believe that with global warming causing serious climate changes, non GM crops will become less and less practical. Changing weather patterns prevent crops from growing properly, and with a spate of natural disasters lately, from the Sichuan earthquake to the recent Japan tsunami. All these natural disasters destroyed large amounts of agricultural land, reducing the food supply even further. Coupled with a growing population, it is inevitable that there will be a food shortage in the near future. When this occurs, I believe GM will be the most realistic solution available.

Plus, GM can also give crops more vitamins and nutrients. There can never be enough of a good thing, and since GM can provide it, why not? All this would seem to add up to GM being a highly obvious solution, but there are also downsides to GM.

There have been various objections to GM, from harming animals to causing new human allergies, but there is little scientific evidence to back up these claims. In fact, the European Union has spent over 400 million dollars studying the safety of GM crops, and the conclusion so far is that GM crops are not dangerous at all.

However, what I feel is a more credible objection would be the economic concerns. Several companies have created new GM crops, and have patented them. Copyright infringement is a big worry here. After all, it is difficult to control the pollination of plants. The solution for this would be to insert a gene into plants that cause them to die after a certain time period. This would force farmers to keep buying new seeds and some farmers may not be able to afford this. Also, people are concerned that these patents will cause the price of GM seeds to rise, causing small scale farmers and people in poorer nations to be unable to afford these seeds.

All in all, I personally feel that the benefits of GM food outweigh the disadvantages. I think that GM is the way to go if the coming food shortage is to be solved. Frankly, I also feel that many of the objections are also based on flimsy or illogical grounds. As mentioned before, there is precious little solid evidence to back up the claims. GM food will definitely become an integral part of human life, and I think it ought to be welcomed.

__**CLONING**__
Even though cloning is not a relatively new breakthrough in science, with the first successful cloning of animals conducted in 1952, I felt that it is an extremely interesting topic so I decided to do some research on it.

Cloning can be split into 3 types, molecular, cellular and organism. Molecular cloning is using a DNA from a single living cell to create many new molecules with identical DNA. Cellular cloning is used to create many cells from a single one. An example of cellular cloning would be in stem cell research, where it is used to create embryos for research. Organism cloning would be creating a entirely new multicellular organism, which is genetically identical to another. The most famous example of this would be Dolly the sheep, the world's first successful cloning of a mammal from an adult cell.

For this short commentary, I would be focusing on organism cloning, and more specifically human cloning, as it is the most controversial as well as the most appealing to me.Human cloning can again be split into two, therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning uses cells which are taken from a patient, inserts the cells into a fertilised egg with no nucleus. The cell then divides to form a blastocyst, and stem cells can be extracted. These cells can help the patient grow tissue which is a perfect genetic match. This type of cloning is being researched widely, and it is less opposed as compared to reproductive cloning, which would be making an entire human, as seen in several sci-fi movies.

The main objection against reproductive cloning is that human life should not be created for the sake of experimentation, and it cannot be used as a commodity. I feel that in a way this does make sense. The moment that human life can be created through unnatural means, it loses its "sacredness", and I feel that using humans for experimentation, even cloned humans would be callous and also immoral. I think that in cases like this, the need for scientific progress needs to be placed in the back seat as personally I think it would be wrong to use reproductive cloning.

The main use of reproductive cloning would probably be for organ transfer, when a clone's organs can be transferred to a patient, and it would be fully compatible because the clone is genetically similar. Clearly there are moral issues here, considering the clone would also be a human being and would have no say whatsoever in the decision. Personally, I could not accept an organ from a living human being without consent given. I think that a better way would be to grow organs within other kinds of organisms, like pigs and cows, then later transplanting them to humans.

I think that human cloning is definitely a very touchy subject, and I think that certain lines have to be drawn. I feel that therapeutic cloning is fine, and it can bring benefits to medicine and science, however, I think that reproductive cloning should not even be attempted. I feel that it is immoral and human life should not be treated that way.