Genetic Engineering

rigormortis

What are your opinions on genetic engineering? Do you think this is a threat to humanity.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/three-parents-produce-one-embryo/2008/02/05/1202090420956.html

Will a two tiered race develop, based on superior engineered people and those that either cannot afford the treatment or rather choose to remain as they are.

DrIndy

its not really. inherited mitochodrial disorders are carried by the mother and they are very crippling or even lethal.

This allows you to use someone elses mitochondria to replace the damaged ones.

I would support it.

Its not a case of 2 tiered race either. The inherited mitochondrial conditions are very rare and it is a disease. This is a cure for a disease not manipulating DNA to make a superhuman.

bonkey

rigormortis wrote:

Will a two tiered race develop,

You say that as though we don't already have a multi-tiered society...

based on superior engineered people and those that either cannot afford the treatment or rather choose to remain as they are.

At a guess, that breakdown would roughly parallel existing tiers of those who have and spend a lot of money, and those who either don't have it or don't spend it.

Genetic engineering isn't going to create that divide. That divide already exists.

rigormortis

DrIndy wrote: »

its not really. inherited mitochodrial disorders are carried by the mother and they are very crippling or even lethal.

This allows you to use someone elses mitochondria to replace the damaged ones.

I would support it.

Its not a case of 2 tiered race either. The inherited mitochondrial conditions are very rare and it is a disease. This is a cure for a disease not manipulating DNA to make a superhuman.

Who decides where disease ends. Surely many things could be classed as a disease? I have no doubt that this technology will be used to develop superior species.

rigormortis

bonkey wrote: »

You say that as though we don't already have a multi-tiered society...


At a guess, that breakdown would roughly parallel existing tiers of those who have and spend a lot of money, and those who either don't have it or don't spend it.

Genetic engineering isn't going to create that divide. That divide already exists.

At the moment a two tiered race does not exist in terms of genetic engineering, that was the point I made. In terms of financial resources there are many different divides. If people can be specifically bred with high intelligence and great physical characteristics, including disease resistance, would that not concern you. Could these techniques not be misused?

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

Who decides where disease ends. Surely many things could be classed as a disease?

Many people would class "being unattractive" as a genetic disadvantage of sorts - hence the growing popularity of cosmetic surgery among the general populace. Cosmetic surgery allows them to become "better" people in their opinion.

There are plenty of supplements available without prescription that (supposedly) improve “performance” of one sort or another.

However, these measures are not available to everyone. Does this make them unethical?

A multi-tiered society has always existed and probably always will.

rigormortis

djpbarry wrote: »

However, these measures are not available to everyone. Does this make them unethical?

A multi-tiered society has always existed and probably always will.

I don't care if someone looks better than me. I just want the right to live as a free person. How can you be infavour of genetic engineering. Of course it is useful in certain cases, be the good of the many must be considered over the needs of the few. Why is such an important issue never debated, never publicised?

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

I just want the right to live as a free person.

And how is research into GE/GM denying you that right at present (or in the near future for that matter)?

rigormortis wrote: »

How can you be infavour of genetic engineering.

Because it is a fascinating technology that already helps millions of people and has the potential to help millions more.

rigormortis wrote: »

...be the good of the many must be considered over the needs of the few.

What are you talking about? You mean people should be refused certain treatments because you have a problem with those treatments?

rigormortis wrote: »

Why is such an important issue never debated, never publicised?

Are you serious?

rigormortis

As I said a two tiered race will be the ultimate outcome. Where has this been debated? I have never seen it on the news? I looked at the bioethics.ie website, i even have an ongoing e mail debate with them, they constantly fail to answer my questions.

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

As I said a two tiered race will be the ultimate outcome.

In your opinion. Based on what, I do not know.

Besides, it has already been pointed out that a multi-tiered society always has and (probably) always will exist.

rigormortis wrote: »

Where has this been debated? I have never seen it on the news?

Do you expect every irrational conclusion of yours to be debated on the news?

rigormortis wrote: »

...they constantly fail to answer my questions.

The same way you have failed to answer my questions?

rigormortis

Alright, how do you see the future developing, given the use of genetic engineering. Will it be all one big happy family? I dont think so, this has never been the case in the past.

Tree

genetic engineering is very important in science today. without it you wouldnt have access to the same level of vaccinations and antibiotics. if you have an issue w/ genetic engineering just try to cut its products out of your life and see where you're left, i think you'd find the quality of such a life to be very much less that what you're used to.

genetic engineering as a means to cure diseases is very neseseseasecary (can never spell this), there are limits to what can be done using conventional techniques and the advance of science and medicine is always welcome.

rigormortis

Tree wrote: »

genetic engineering is very important in science today. without it you wouldnt have access to the same level of vaccinations and antibiotics. if you have an issue w/ genetic engineering just try to cut its products out of your life and see where you're left, i think you'd find the quality of such a life to be very much less that what you're used to.

genetic engineering as a means to cure diseases is very neseseseasecary (can never spell this), there are limits to what can be done using conventional techniques and the advance of science and medicine is always welcome.

All food will be GM, if it is not already. I could not disagree more with the position many people are taking here. Read the works by the Huxleys, Aldous and Julian. You cant get much more establishment than that pair. As for vaccinations, no your alright thanks, read Poisoned Needle, a good introduction to the subject.

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

All food will be GM, if it is not already.

Why would food be made GM unless necessary? This would drive up the cost of production. You assume this is done just for the sake of doing it?

rigormortis wrote: »

Read the works by the Huxleys, Aldous and Julian.

I have read Brave New World – I didn’t realise it was a documentary.

rigormortis wrote: »

As for vaccinations, no your alright thanks, read Poisoned Needle, a good introduction to the subject.

If you have never received any vaccinations then there's a pretty good chance you'd be dead by now.

Ay yes, The Poisoned Needle, by the great biologist Eleanor McBean. Oh no, wait...

rigormortis

GM food is much more resilient to disease, at least that what the propaganda said, would this not reduce costs?
As for vaccinations, I have not has any for the last ten years. I am yet to drop, just waiting for the day when the non vaccinated are rounded up due to their threat to humanity at large.

bubonicus

Brian Paddock said Skunk is Genetically Modified.

So I think that's how they are going to keep us down.

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

GM food is much more resilient to disease, at least that what the propaganda said, would this not reduce costs?

Well that depends on the food and it also depends on the disease, doesn't it? I personally see no need to produce GM crops, at the present time.

rigormortis wrote: »

As for vaccinations, I have not has any for the last ten years.

Ah, but you have had them.

rigormortis wrote: »

I am yet to drop, just waiting for the day when the non vaccinated are rounded up due to their threat to humanity at large.

Well, actually, un-vaccinated individuals can pose a threat, because they can incubate contagious diseases. Relatively innocuous diseases, such as the measles, are fairly harmless to vaccinated individuals, but can prove fatal to others:

http://archive.nics.gov.uk/hss/000426f-hss.htm

Parents who do not have their children vaccinated are quite frankly, irresponsible.

rigormortis

Was that a government website you linked? Thats like a publican telling you the booze is good for your coordination. Here is a passage from "the impact of science on society" by Russell:

“Diet, injections, and injunctions [a command, admonition, etc.] will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

Tree

if you dont like science, why are you here?

Bison

rigormortis wrote: »

All food will be GM, if it is not already. I could not disagree more with the position many people are taking here. Read the works by the Huxleys, Aldous and Julian. You cant get much more establishment than that pair. As for vaccinations, no your alright thanks, read Poisoned Needle, a good introduction to the subject.

Debating the future of genetic engineering is one thing, endangering your life by relying on a ridiculous book written in the 50's is quite another.

A good example of the arguments relied on in that book is the section on VACCINATION IS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE. In this section she relies on the arguments of a Dr Shelton, who claims that antibodies don't exist, and Dr Antoine Bechamp who claims that germs do not enter the body from outside but evolve out of decaying cells.

Dr Shelton was a doctor of Naturopathy who started publishing in the 30's, well before even the discovery of DNA. Dr Bechamp lived in the 1800's and his theories were disproved by Pasteur because, well, Pasteur could prove his own theory, Germ theory.

Unless you update your sources of information, I hope for your own sake you stay in Ireland and don't decide to holiday in countries that require Yellow Fever vaccinations...

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

Here is a passage from "the impact of science on society" by Russell:

“Diet, injections, and injunctions [a command, admonition, etc.] will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

That's some nice selective quoting. If the previous line is included, it completely changes the context:

"In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is a dictatorship."

This is all starting to sound an awful lot like another conspiracy theory.

rigormortis

Bison wrote: »

Unless you update your sources of information, I hope for your own sake you stay in Ireland and don't decide to holiday in countries that require Yellow Fever vaccinations...

My participation with overseas travel has been volunteraly reduced. I prefer no to be degraded about ten different times between entering the original airport and leaving the destination airport.

Anyway this thread was originally about genetic engineering, and I was interested in discovering the views of those involved with biology. Can people not see how this development, the alteration of genes, will be misused?

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

Can people not see how this development, the alteration of genes, will be misused?

Can you not see that you have automatically assumed that this technology will be misused? Unless you can produce evidence to back up this stance, then this is just speculation.

rigormortis

djpbarry wrote: »

That's some nice selective quoting. If the previous line is included, it completely changes the context:

"In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is a dictatorship."

This is all starting to sound an awful lot like another conspiracy theory.

Exactly, lets get back on topic.

rigormortis

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you not see that you have automatically assumed that this technology will be misused? Unless you can produce evidence to back up this stance, then this is just speculation.

I base my judgements on previous experience. I can see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Tree

ALL technology has the potential to be misused. why single out genetic engineering? the level public ignorance of its importance is criminal.

2Scoops

There's a conspiracy theories forum for this type of thing, you know.

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

I base my judgements on previous experience.

Previous experience of genetic engineering?

:eek: You're one of THEM!

rigormortis wrote: »

I can see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

You see no evidence to disprove your belief that something might happen in the future?!?

2Scoops wrote: »

There's a conspiracy theories forum for this type of thing, you know.

I think he knows that. Methinks he's a re-reg of this guy, who in turn was a re-reg of this guy:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55079040&highlight=casey212#post55079040

rigormortis

Why are you attacking me? Back to the main issue, here is a BBC news report backing up my allegations that genetic developments will be used for other purposes. The reason I posted this topic here is to get the opinions of those in the medical field.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/683647.stm

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

here is a BBC news report backing up my allegations that genetic developments will be used for other purposes.

First of all, this article is nearly 8 years old. Secondly, the term "genetic engineering", or some variation of it, does not appear anywhere in the article. As for the content of the article:

It means that people with a family history of certain conditions could face higher insurance premiums.

Is this not the case already?

Here's a more up-to-date article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6634969.stm

In 8 years, not much has changed:

At present, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) has to ask the Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC), which advises the government on the issue, for permission to request details from customers of genetic tests.

I personally see nothing wrong with the use of genetic testing as a means of disease detection. For example, if I discover that I am genetically susceptible to lung cancer, I'm going to make damn sure I stay clear of cigarettes! This will quite possibly prolong my life - hardly a bad thing (well, depends on who you talk to ).

rigormortis

DJP, can you not see the negative side to anything? The next thing you will be told what job you can do, what you can eat and so on. I believe I read somewhere this week where it may soon be illegal for a restaurant to serve an obese person. I don't need a nanny state telling me what to do. The same goes for genetic engineering, I don't want a breed of supermen dominating my life based on some supposed superiority. Some could say the same thing is happening on a lesser scale nowadays, where everyone has to surrender all beliefs and opinions in the name of science(propaganda?).

2Scoops

djpbarry wrote: »

I think he knows that. Methinks he's a re-reg of this guy, who in turn was a re-reg of this guy:

Dammit! If that's the case then he's also this guy:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=140255

I've already been suckered by him in another thread.

djpbarry

2Scoops wrote: »

I've already been suckered by him in another thread.

Yep, that's him. You got suckered good!

DrIndy

rigormortis - you are beginning to sound like a troll.

This is not the forum for irrational paranoia - there is a conspiracy forum. This thread can continue so long as it remains scientific.

rigormortis

DrIndy wrote: »

rigormortis - you are beginning to sound like a troll.

This is not the forum for irrational paranoia - there is a conspiracy forum. This thread can continue so long as it remains scientific.

Are you in the medical field. What are you opinions on this topic?