I have seen several solutions online, but I want a better understanding to this assignment. Please do not simply copy and paste from google. I will reject that. I need more insight for better understanding. Provide resources as well so I can read further.

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs which make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and a functional standpoint. Some people advocate the use of this knowledge to ultimately develop gene therapy. The goal of gene therapy would be to find alleles that are "faulty" and to correct them with normal alleles. Ideally, to "fix" every cell in an individual, this process would need to occur in embryos. Presume a couple found out their embryo has a gene mutation that has a high success rate of causing cancer later on in the baby's life. Would you advocate the use of gene therapy in the embryo to correct the problem before the child was ever born? What if the embryo did not appear likely to develop a genetic disease, but the parents decided that they would really prefer that their child have blue eyes as opposed to brown? Would you advocate the use of gene therapy in this case? Should the use of this therapy be limited? Who should decide those limits?

         Gene treatment has been acquiring fame for the therapy of different illnesses and especially malignancy. However much invaluable as it seems to be, gene treatment additionally has a few limits. Attempting to disturb or alter the changed gene that may cause malignancy in the infant's life can be pushed for gene treatment. This may be valuable such that transformations create as an element of time and as the cells partition, the odds of the gathering of more changes is exceptionally conceivable. Altering the gene in the undeveloped phase of the infant using the CRISPR-Cas9 framework has been demonstrated to be valuable and can be followed here. I would advocate this thought.

            I would not backer altering the genes for improving the attributes or qualities of the incipient organism. The American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has likewise expressed that genetic intercessions to improve attributes ought to be viewed as reasonable just is seriously limited circumstances. Despite the fact that the gene-altering methods, for example, CRISPR-Cas9 frameworks are exceptionally exact that off-changes are not amassed and the mosaics are limited, attacking the undeveloped organism superfluously ought not to be allowed.

            The utilization of treatment may not be restricted however can be investigated better so the proposition, for example, gene doping is not allowed. Gene treatment has more achievement rate and stories. Subsequently, the treatment ought to be directed better by chambers, for example, American Medical Association, World Medical Association alongside different committees like FDA, NIH, OHRP, and so on, A joined guideline may end up being superior to a solitary administrative body administering the treatment.