"When they are finally attempted…genetic manipulations will…be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict." In agreeing with this quote by James D. Watson, director of the Human Genome Project, I affirm today’s resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified." I will now present a few definitions. Human genetic engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through genetic processes. Moral is "pertaining to right conduct; ethical." Justified is to be "proper; well-deserved." Therefore, something that is morally justified is ethically beneficial. My value today will be cost-benefit justice. When we examine the benefits that human genetic engineering provides to society, these benefits will outweigh any costs and will thus affirming the resolution will provide for justice. I will now present one observation—the existence of human genetic engineering will not be without limits. Patrick Ferreira, the director of medical genetics at the University of Alabama Hospitals, notes that a "technological imperative [states] that the development of extraordinary powers does not automatically authorize their use." In other words, the point of technology is to be careful, and as with any technology, a society will be meticulous in its understanding of human genetic engineering. I will now present 3 contentions that uphold my value of cost benefit justice.

CONTENTION 1: Human genetic engineering can cure disease when other methods may not exist. For example, at the Geron Corporation, a biotech firm in Menlo Park California, scientists have discovered how to make healthy cells will divide indefinitely. They are now working on a project that will result in keeping unhealthy cells from continuing such a division. In simplest terms, at the Geron laboratories, scientists are using genetic engineering to help eventually cure cancer. They are not endangering society, but rather are using genetic engineering for the purposes of good. Any reasonable person would agree that trying to prolong human life by curing deadly conditions such as cancer is a morally justified action; in the same idea, human genetic engineering is currently trying to cure these deadly conditions. If we negate the resolution today, we stop this research, we stop the chance to cure cancer through genetic engineering, and most importantly, we stop any ability to cure any disease when we are moving towards such a goal.

CONTENTION 2: Human genetic engineering can help prolong life. An example should prove my point. Thanks to genetic engineering, in the future we will be able to clone organs to help people live longer. A person with one kidney could very well clone that kidney through genetic engineering, and end up with two kidneys. This would remove the long waiting lists and the needs for organ donors. People would no longer be turned away because science "couldn’t help them." Genetic engineering would provide organ cloning as a possibility to prevent disease and improve the health of society, when without it, no such possibility could even exist. People would undoubtedly die because genetic engineering wasn’t there to provide that extra kidney, or that replacement heart. But if we affirm the resolution, say that genetic engineering is morally justified, we can cure disease and we can prolong life, and thus the health of society is improved. Such a benefit cannot be ignored, and thus my value of cost-benefit justice is provided for by affirming the resolution.

CONTENTION 3: The possible benefits of human genetic engineering outweighs any vague risks. As with any new technology, there are admittedly any risks. There are possibilities that something may go wrong with human genetic engineering, and my opponent may mention some of these risks. Yet, Gregory Stock, director of the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life at UCLA, explains that, "The potential medical benefits of genetic engineering are too great for us to let nebulous fears of the future drive policy." We can’t say human genetic engineering is morally unjust because something might go wrong; such a concept would lead us to no advances in technology because something "might go wrong." But we don’t let these fears drive society; we do have new inventions. We ought not to turn away a person from a possible cure for a disease because something "might go wrong;" we provide that cure through genetic engineering because it can help that person live. The benefits of human genetic engineering are too great and too vast for us to ignore. Thus, through my value of cost-benefit justice, we have an obligation to provide for life. Human genetic engineering can accomplish such a goal.

In the end, however, human genetic engineering is not immoral; the failure to use such a technology is truly what is unjust. To negate the resolution is to turn a person away from a possible cure, from a chance to prolong life. I have shown that human genetic engineering can improve the health of the society by both curing disease and prolonging live. Both benefits are worthy goals of any just society. These possible benefits of genetic engineering, those of curing disease and prolonging life, outweigh any possible "side-effects" that may occur with the development of any new technology. But we must remember that we do not rush into any new technology; human genetic engineering will be done carefully as with any technology, so that we may maximize the benefits of such a great gift to society. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified."