The nature vs. nurture debate sees to be a ubiquitous subject of discussion in all psychology, sociology, and philosophy classes today. It is in fact almost impossible to break away from the theories that dominate not only these fields, but the biological and neurological aspects of science as well. Nature vs. nurture comes up daily in personal, moral, political and scientific discussions. It defines who we are and what is in store for us in the future. Is someone doomed to spend their life in prison because their father spent his life in and out of the local jails? Will schizophrenic parents always produce mentally unstable children? All of these questions can be answered in terms of nature or nurture theory.
             The nature vs. nurture question can exhibit moral undertones and become a touchy subject in our society. For example, a criminal goes to court for his crime. When the criminal is on trail, you must debate this man's sentence, they must consider his past and the context of his crime. Is it fair to sentence a man to prison if he was raised in an abusive household where crime was the only life he knew? Or, would it be fair to sentence this man to a life in prison if he inherited a specific gene from his father, which makes him commit horrible crimes and behave in socially unacceptable ways? Whether we chose to accept the nurture viewpoint or the genetics and nature viewpoint, it is possible to generate excuses for a person's inadmissible behavior. It begins to become clear that the nature or nurture dilemma does not have a clear-cut resolution.
             Other issues that support the nature viewpoint arise when we begin considering genetic engineering, which is an emotional, controversial issue of society today. Ethical questions are posed about genetic screening in the workplace and these questions are "a mere taste of the moral issues that will be raised by human genome research in a world whose history has been punctuated...