Gene Therapy Essay Example

Gene Therapy Essay Example Gene Therapy Essay Gene Therapy Essay Gene Therapy What is it? If genes dont produce the right protein or dont produce it correctly a person can have a genetic disorder. Gene therapy is an experimental technique that involves the transfer of a working copy of a gene into a cell to repair or replace a faulty gene so it is able to produce functioning proteins again. There are several approaches. The most common one is to insert a normal gene to replace the non-functional gene. Another approach is to swap a non-functional gene with a normal gene or the faulty ene could be repaired through selective mutations. Also genes can be switched on and off to a certain degree. How does gene therapy work? A carrier gene, called a Vector brings the normal gene into the target cell. Currently a virus is commonly used for that. The virus infects the target area with the healthy gene and so the cells can produce functioning proteins again. The genes can also be directly introduced to the target cells; this can only used in some tissues though. Also an artificial sphere, called Liposome, can be used which carries the DNA and is capable of passing the DNA through the target cells membrane. Another way is to chemically link the DNA to a molecule that will bind to specific cell receptors. Then the DNA will be passed into the target cell. This though seems to be less effective than other options. Advantages: has the potential to restore health to many who are suffering with the disease Disadvantages: controversy surrounding the medical treatment relative newness of the technology :

About McLaughlin v. State of Florida in 1964

About McLaughlin v. State of Florida in 1964 Background: An interracial black-white couple, identified only as McLaughlin in the ruling, was prohibited from marrying under Florida law. Like same-sex couples prohibited from marrying today, they chose to live together anywayand were convicted under Florida Statute 798.05, which reads: Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. Fast Facts: McLaughlin v. Florida Case Argued: Oct. 13-14, 1964Decision Issued: Dec. 7, 1964Petitioner: McLaughlinRespondent: State of FloridaKey Question: Can an interracial couple be subjected to race-contingent fornication charges?Majority Decision: White, Warren, Black, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg, Harlan, Stewart, DouglasDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida criminal statute that prohibits an unmarried interracial couple from habitually living in and occupying the same room in the night-time denies the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and is thus unconstitutional. The Central Question: Can an interracial couple be subjected to race-contingent fornication charges? Relevant Constitutional Text: The Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Courts Ruling: In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Court struck down 798.05 on grounds that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also potentially opened the door to full legalization of interracial marriage by remarking that the 1883 Pace v. Alabama represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court. Justice Harlans Concurrence: Justice Marshall Harlan concurred with the unanimous ruling but expressed some frustration with the fact that Floridas blatantly discriminatory law banning interracial marriage was not directly addressed. Justice Stewarts Concurrence: Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Justice William O. Douglas, joined in the 9-0 ruling but expressed firm disagreement in principle with its implicit statement that racially discriminatory laws might be constitutional under certain circumstances if they serve some overriding statutory purpose. I think it is simply not possible, Justice Stewart wrote, for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor. Aftermath: The case put an end to laws banning interracial relationships as a whole, but not to laws banning interracial marriage. That would come three years later in the landmark Loving v. Virginia (1967) case.

About McLaughlin v. State of Florida in 1964

About McLaughlin v. State of Florida in 1964 Background: An interracial black-white couple, identified only as McLaughlin in the ruling, was prohibited from marrying under Florida law. Like same-sex couples prohibited from marrying today, they chose to live together anywayand were convicted under Florida Statute 798.05, which reads: Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. Fast Facts: McLaughlin v. Florida Case Argued: Oct. 13-14, 1964Decision Issued: Dec. 7, 1964Petitioner: McLaughlinRespondent: State of FloridaKey Question: Can an interracial couple be subjected to race-contingent fornication charges?Majority Decision: White, Warren, Black, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg, Harlan, Stewart, DouglasDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida criminal statute that prohibits an unmarried interracial couple from habitually living in and occupying the same room in the night-time denies the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and is thus unconstitutional. The Central Question: Can an interracial couple be subjected to race-contingent fornication charges? Relevant Constitutional Text: The Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Courts Ruling: In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Court struck down 798.05 on grounds that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also potentially opened the door to full legalization of interracial marriage by remarking that the 1883 Pace v. Alabama represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court. Justice Harlans Concurrence: Justice Marshall Harlan concurred with the unanimous ruling but expressed some frustration with the fact that Floridas blatantly discriminatory law banning interracial marriage was not directly addressed. Justice Stewarts Concurrence: Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Justice William O. Douglas, joined in the 9-0 ruling but expressed firm disagreement in principle with its implicit statement that racially discriminatory laws might be constitutional under certain circumstances if they serve some overriding statutory purpose. I think it is simply not possible, Justice Stewart wrote, for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor. Aftermath: The case put an end to laws banning interracial relationships as a whole, but not to laws banning interracial marriage. That would come three years later in the landmark Loving v. Virginia (1967) case.

About McLaughlin v. State of Florida in 1964

About McLaughlin v. State of Florida in 1964 Background: An interracial black-white couple, identified only as McLaughlin in the ruling, was prohibited from marrying under Florida law. Like same-sex couples prohibited from marrying today, they chose to live together anywayand were convicted under Florida Statute 798.05, which reads: Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. Fast Facts: McLaughlin v. Florida Case Argued: Oct. 13-14, 1964Decision Issued: Dec. 7, 1964Petitioner: McLaughlinRespondent: State of FloridaKey Question: Can an interracial couple be subjected to race-contingent fornication charges?Majority Decision: White, Warren, Black, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg, Harlan, Stewart, DouglasDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida criminal statute that prohibits an unmarried interracial couple from habitually living in and occupying the same room in the night-time denies the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and is thus unconstitutional. The Central Question: Can an interracial couple be subjected to race-contingent fornication charges? Relevant Constitutional Text: The Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Courts Ruling: In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Court struck down 798.05 on grounds that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also potentially opened the door to full legalization of interracial marriage by remarking that the 1883 Pace v. Alabama represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court. Justice Harlans Concurrence: Justice Marshall Harlan concurred with the unanimous ruling but expressed some frustration with the fact that Floridas blatantly discriminatory law banning interracial marriage was not directly addressed. Justice Stewarts Concurrence: Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Justice William O. Douglas, joined in the 9-0 ruling but expressed firm disagreement in principle with its implicit statement that racially discriminatory laws might be constitutional under certain circumstances if they serve some overriding statutory purpose. I think it is simply not possible, Justice Stewart wrote, for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor. Aftermath: The case put an end to laws banning interracial relationships as a whole, but not to laws banning interracial marriage. That would come three years later in the landmark Loving v. Virginia (1967) case.