“Humans do not realize the challenge they are accepting” (Parsons 3). That is a very accurate and ominous statement.  The human race has begun to tackle something that it cannot begin to dream of understanding neither its benefits nor its risks. But does one outweigh the other?  Does the numerous deaths that result from experimentation become acceptable because of an outstanding life changing breakthrough? Are the accidental allergic reactions, suffering animal, and selfish humans, a small enough part in the experimenting to make further research worthwhile? Sadly these instances are still too common. Biogenetic Engineering is a dangerously terrible idea.

One famous example of a life that suffered at the hands of Biogenetic Engineering was the first successfully cloned sheep named Dolly. Dolly was a reason for rejoicing at first. Never before had human beings been able to duplicate life, however, it was not a flawless achievement. Dolly died at age six when most sheep live to age 12. She prematurely acquired lung disease (not seen is a sheep under the age of nine) and arthritis (Parsons 2). Not only was her life cut short, but 277 attempts were made before any embryos accepted the cloning. Out of the 29 successful embryos Dolly was the sole survivor (parsons 2). Even after Dolly, scientist couldn’t duplicate the experiment on a pack of monkeys. 

Yet there are people who plan on cloning a Wooly Mammoth. At first glance this may sound like a beneficial idea. We could restore an extinct species. In the future we may even be able to clone a favorite pet after its passing. But, we need only remember the story of Dolly to remind us what the results may be. Parsons wrote, “Imagine the number of fetal deaths that would derive from experimenting with larger and more complex anatomy like the human race? Death would be inevitable.” And although we may have had one success with Dolly, the small imperfect triumph does not outweigh the risks. Because of the outrageous loss of life, cloning is not safe.
Cloning is not the only form of Biogenetic Engineering. It is also a possible to implant DNA from something into another in order to give it new traits. Food is a common recipient of this type of modification. In 1996 a problem surfaced when soybeans were induced with a Brazil nut gene in order to improve their value as animal feed. However, certain side effects were not foreseen and the test subjects with Brazil nut allergies had allergic responses (Genetic 1). Imagine if a product similar to this was placed on the market without proper testing. Near death experiences for people and animals around the world would occur.

A second mistake made with food modification was the incident with the Superweed.  “Overuse of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" trait, which is engineered to tolerate the herbicide, has promoted the accelerated development of resistance in several weed species” (Genetic 1). Millions of U.S acres are infested by these Superweeds.
Surprisingly, scientist have managed to successfully alter a few types of plants for our benefit. Rice is among them.  By enhancing the amount of Vitamin A in the rice they have created a higher value form of rice that has a distinct yellowish gold color and has been dubbed the “Golden Rice” (Glenn 1). However compared to the potential dangers in the side effects that products like this may cause, for example; food allergies, or worse, possible diseases, it is clear that Food Modification is not dependable.

Like food, modified Animals have shown some signs of success, but, once again, at what cost? Genes from a sea anemone and jellyfish were transferred into a Zebrafish granting it a florescent glow under a black light. These fish are now more commonly known as Glofish (Ormandy 1). On the flip side, Scientist have also successfully removed genes from animals for our self-gain. One example is the Hypoallergenic Cat. The major gene in this cat that causes allergenic symptoms in people was removed (Ormandy 1).

Unfortunately animal modification doesn’t always work. An attempt was made on Swine to increase their growth, but despite the fact that the “growth hormone transgenes are expressed well in swine” (Hanna 1), the pigs stubbornly refused to grow any more than their custom. Similarly, an experiment was carried out to increase the muscle mass on cattle, and it worked. But only for a short time. Muscle deterioration transpired ahead of time and the animal had to be “destroyed” (Hanna 1). Due to the Consequences that animals have faced from their enhancements, Biogenetic Engineering once again proves unpredictable. It is not worth playing a game of chance with another living things life just so it can radiate a slight glow or become slightly bigger than normal.
However, evidence shows that there are people in the world who would most certainly use genetic modification. In 1964 a cross country skier with two gold medals in the Winter Olympics was found to have a genetic mutation that increased the number of red blood cells in his body. While this may not have been his fault, other athletes have taken a form of medication to purposefully cause this in themselves and heighten their own stamina. In 1998 a bicycling team was kicked out of the Tour De France and the two top cyclist admitted to taking the drug. “Recent efforts to deliver the Epo gene into patients' cells would eliminate the need for regular injections, but this process could also be abused by athletes” (Hanna 1).

Likewise, War is a place where people abuse the power of biogenetic engineering. Only they use the dangers to their advantage. “By using genetic engineering, biological researchers have already developed new weapons that are much more effective than their natural counterparts” (Aken 1). The dangers behind these experiments are evident.  Although they may be successful, what happens if they are too successful? “One example is the USSR's 'invisible anthrax', resulting from the introduction of an alien gene into Bacillus anthracis that altered its immunological properties. Existing vaccines proved to be ineffective against this new genetically engineered strain” (Pomerantsev et al., 1997 qtd.in Aken 1). If one of these new stronger dieses is accidently leaked into the public, chaos would ensue. Because of human’s selfish nature and their unfortunate habit of taking advantage of things, causing harm to others, the small strings of Biogenetic Engineering that actually work are still dangerous.  
Rather it is animals or humans paying the price, someone suffers at the ruthless hands of Biogenetic Engineering. Success never comes easy, but the resulting failure in these instances are too brutal to be allowed to continue. Biogenetic Engineering may have the potential to save many lives, but it has additional potential to destroy far more. For the safety of the world these uncertain experimentations must not be allowed to continue. 

Works Cited
Aken, Jan Van, and Edward Hammond. "Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons." EMBO Reports. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
"Genetic Engineering Risks and Impacts." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Glenn, Linda McDonald. "Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics." Actionbioscience. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Hanna, Kathi E. "Genetic Enhancement." Genetic Enhancement. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Ormandy, Elisabeth H., Julie Dale, and Gilly Griffin. "Genetic Engineering of Animals: Ethical Issues, including Welfare Concerns." The Canadian Veterinary Journal. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Parsons. "Genetic Engineering: The Good and the Bad." Genetic Engineering: The Good and the Bad. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.