Answer:
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 significantcontroversy in many areas.Some groups or individuals see the generationand use of GMO as intolerable meddling with biological states orprocesses that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, whileothers are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fullycomprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of geneticmanipulation. Other people see this as a continuation in the rolehumanity has occupied for thousands of years, modifying the genetics ofcrops by selecting specimen of crops with the most desirablecharacteristics as parent for the next generation of crops.
Foodchain
The safety of GMOs in the foodchain has been questioned by someenvironmental groups, with concerns such as the possibilities that GMOscould introduce new allergens into foods, or contribute to the spread ofantibiotic resistance.According to a study published in 1999, there wasno current evidence to suggest that the processes used to geneticallymodify food were inherently harmful. However, a number of more recentstudies have raised concern, and environmental groups still discourageconsumption in many countries, claiming that GM foods are unnatural andtherefore unsafe.Such concerns have led to the adoption of laws andregulations that require safety testing of any new organism produced forhuman consumption.
GMOs' proponents note that because of the safety testing requirementsimposed on GM foods, the risk of introducing a plant variety with a newallergen or toxin using genetic modification is much smaller than usingtraditional breeding processes. Transgenesis has less impact on theexpression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels thanconventional breeding or plant (non-directed) mutagenesis. An example ofan allergenic plant created using traditional breeding is the kiwi. Onearticle calculated that the marketing of GM salmon could reduce thecost of salmon by half, thus increasing salmon consumption andpreventing 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 decisionto remove their seed cereal business from Europe, and environmentalistscrashed a World Trade Organization conference in Cancun that promoted GMfoods and was sponsored by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow(CFACT). Some African nations have refused emergency food aid fromdeveloped countries, fearing that the food is unsafe. During aconference 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 foodand expressed dissatisfaction in the public’s negative opinion ofbiotechnology.
Agricultural surpluses
Patrick Mulvany, Chairman of the UK Food Group, accused somegovernments, especially the Bush administration, of using GM food aid asa way to dispose of unwanted agricultural surpluses. The UN blamed foodcompanies and accused them of violating human rights, calling ongovernments to regulate these profit-driven firms. It is widely believedthat the acceptance of biotechnology and genetically modified foodswill also benefit rich research companies and could possibly benefitthem more than consumers in underdeveloped nations