There is relatively little concern about genetic therapy where applied to somatic cells. In such cases, a stem cell (such as a blood stem cell) is cultured, given the new gene, and reinserted back into the body. This is akin to standard medical treatment wherein the individual is treated. Germline gene therapy would seek to eliminate the "bad" genes from the population.

I have summarized two papers for their perspectives on this problem, and I recommend your reading the originals. However, their points may provide discussions to consolidate your own views. The arguement pro germline gene modification The argument for germline gene modification comes from

Nelson A. Wivel and LeRoy Walters, 1993. Germ-L

Danks concludes that there is very little good that germline modification can do and a great deal of potential harm. He finds that it would be best for society to forbid such uses.

Dr. Danks is the Director of the Murdoch Institute for Research into Birth Defects, Limited at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. he finds "no significant place for germ-line gene therapy in the treatment of genetic disease, and it is quite wrong to suggest that the present methods of gene therapy would allow the correction to carry on through future generations." He views as wrong the assumption that such therapy would be very valuable in the treatment of genetic disease and capable of correcting a defective gene in future generations, as well as in the initial patient.

Some topics in this essay:
Wivel Walters, Georgetown University, GENE MODIFICATION, Melbourne Australia, gene therapy, germline gene, germ-line gene, gene modification, germline gene therapy, Gene Therapy, somatic cell, genetic disease, wivel walters, Ethical Issues, Perspectives Science, Dr Walters, somatic cell gene, future generations, cell gene, germ-line gene modification, genetic intervention, germline gene modification, cell gene therapy, Dr Wivel, David Danks,