Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Genetics
-
04-05-2001 11:47pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by OConnor:
Why must people continue to refer to Hitler as thier only example of an evil man?
ok ok so he was partly responsible for the genocide of thousands of innocent jews
BUT its western propanganda that still has him portrayed as evil decades later.
FOR EXAMPLE:
It has been proved that Winston Churchill allowed the destruction of the Lusitania by a German U-boat in an attempt to bring the USA into WW1. During WW2, he and the US allowed Hitler to wipe out his "ally", Russia, by not opening up a second front in the west until years after the war had started. After WW2, the tension caused by this was responsible for the cold war, including Vietnam and Korea, and the near destruction of the world in a nuclear war!!!
hmmmmmmm
Second example:
Margret thatcher another conservative "heroine" ordered the destruction of a passager liner full of innocent people during the falklands war, in addition, she let the hungerstrikers die in prison. All fine attributes most seem to have forgotten.
So be careful before you blame Hitler for all the wrongs in the world.
OC (not actually a neo-nazist, or a republican, im quite neutral really)
really!</font>
What utter drivel. First off, it wasn't 'thousands of innocent Jews', it was five to six million, not to mention the forty five million other people killed during the Second World War, which he started.
He wasn't 'partly responsible', he was fully responsible for setting in place a police state that murdered everyone who opposed them or fell into a category they found unacceptable: Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the physically and mentally retarded.
'Western propoganda', or history as most people call it, still has him portrayed as evil decades later because he was one of the most evil men that ever lived. Just because he died over fifty years ago doesn't make him any less evil.
Please point me in the direction of the proof that Winston Churchill allowed the Lusitania to be sunk.
Thatcher (who I admit is pretty damn evil
) did not have a 'passenger liner' torpedoed during the Falklands War, it was the General Belgrano, an operational battleship - plus the two countries were at war at the time if you recall 
As for the hungerstrikers, they starved themselves to death, Thatcher didn't 'let them die'. Maybe if they had ate some food they might have done just a little better.
As for being 'careful before you blame Hitler for all the wrongs in the world', that's simply one of the most cretinous things I've ever read.
Get a fu<king grip.
0 -
-
-
not the VW Beetle argument again!
how about Memetic engineering. I'm not well up on it but the basic jist is this:
things like language, ideas, religions etc physically manifest themselves in the bod as things like retroviruses. they compete for dominance in the brain like a war, in a darwinian sense of survival of the fittest. They're subject to outside influences of course and the winner, the most able/suitable to adapt become the mainstay. For example, why do some people speak one language over the other. This is just an attempt at a scientific/biological understanding of how ideas evolve.
Memetic engineering is a way to manipulate people's thoughts through methods such a spropaganda, advertising, subconscious stimuli like smells and sounds and so on and so on. This is a kind of genetic engineering too.
I don't doubt it can all be very useful, like Shinji said (good point) but everyone ought to probably be careful also. In the end of the day, once understood, we'll all accept genetic modification.
My point about the above example of Memetic engineering is this: how do we know we aren't already engineered in some way or another. Since wearing shoes, man's foot shape has genetically changed!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by OConnor:
in addition, she let the hungerstrikers die in prison. All fine attributes most seem to have forgotten.
OB]</font>
and would oyu give a f*ck about these hunger strikers if they had been french in a french prison? i dont think so. anyone stupid enough to starve themselves to death earns the right to die. oh, and change your bloody avatar will you, i cant stand to be mistaken for someone who posts such an awful amount of crap.
as for the actual topic, i welcome any advancement in science and technology. most advancements these days are due to huge spending by the military on R&D. lets face it, quility of life has gone way up in the last 20 years, a time where probably 80% of most research has been done.
did you know galileo was the first man to suggest using a pendualum for a clock. just thought i add it in as im reading a book entitled 2201 facinating facts.
quiet fasinating it is too. full of trivia
0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Castor Troy:
What utter drivel. *JUST PLAIN WRONG* First off, it wasn't 'thousands of innocent Jews', it was five to six million, not to mention the forty five million other people killed during the Second World War, which he started.*FACT*
He wasn't 'partly responsible', he was fully responsible*OPINION* for setting in place a police state that murdered everyone who opposed them or fell into a category they found unacceptable: Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the physically and mentally retarded.*FACT*
'Western propoganda', or history as most people call it,*PUN* still has him portrayed as evil decades later because he was one of the most evil men that ever lived.*OPINION* Just because he died over fifty years ago doesn't make him any less evil.*OPINION*
Please point me in the direction of the proof that Winston Churchill allowed the Lusitania to be sunk.>>>GCSE textbook,named "modern world history",by Tony Mcaleavy,Cambridge University Press<<<
Thatcher (who I admit is pretty damn evil ....
As for the hungerstrikers, they starved themselves to death, Thatcher didn't 'let them die'. *OPINION* Maybe if they had ate some food they might have done just a little better.*SOME BLOODY PATRIOT ARNT U CASTOR*
.</font>
0 -
-
Interesting.. like Bucon said, if we can stop children developing with certain diseases, this would be a wonderful thing.
Neuro, you have said that you have worked with kids who have physical and mental handicaps, and they're great. Of course - but wouldn't it be great if they weren't inhibited by these handicaps?
At the same time! I do agree that in some ways it's scary.. I mean if everyone was gorgeous looking and amazingly intelligent then things would be very mundane!
We have to experiment. But I guess we have to ask.. at what price?
0 -
-
-
what do you count as a disabilet ?
i have dislexy very very bad
would i like to not have it yea
but haveing it has changed my mind in many ways
some would say it's has warped it as well
haveing it has changed my life and lead me in
ways that i would never have gone if i did not have it
if given the option to have kids and them not to have it, it's very hard to know what i would do. fine it might make them better at spelling, but life does not resolve around beening the best at spelling, running or any other things. beening dislexy has given me a diff outlook on life, (it makes the brain think in diff ways, as the two halfs do not communicate as well as a normal brain)
diff things change and make people what they are takeing things out or changing them will change them.
i'm not for or agenest the resurch
but what we do wiht it will have to be thought about a lot befor we do it.
doing things in one or two people would not put most people at risk of mistakes.
but the like of Genetic food changes could change all humens on the earth and once out and in the wild they can not be put back in the lad.
so we need to know what were doing befor we do it.
try to work out what all the miss spellings are Answers on a post card to the address below.
Coyote
[This message has been edited by Coyote (edited 05-05-2001).]0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Why must people continue to refer to Hitler as thier only example of an evil man?
ok ok so he was partly responsible for the genocide of thousands of innocent jews
BUT its western propanganda that still has him portrayed as evil decades later.
FOR EXAMPLE:
It has been proved that Winston Churchill allowed the destruction of the Lusitania by a German U-boat in an attempt to bring the USA into WW1. During WW2, he and the US allowed Hitler to wipe out his "ally", Russia, by not opening up a second front in the west until years after the war had started. After WW2, the tension caused by this was responsible for the cold war, including Vietnam and Korea, and the near destruction of the world in a nuclear war!!!
hmmmmmmm
Second example:
Margret thatcher another conservative "heroine" ordered the destruction of a passager liner full of innocent people during the falklands war, in addition, she let the hungerstrikers die in prison. All fine attributes most seem to have forgotten.
So be careful before you blame Hitler for all the wrongs in the world.
OC (not actually a neo-nazist, or a republican, im quite neutral really)
really!
0 -
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
Well, Andro, no, if it meant tampering with their little foetuses before birth, then I say no.
</font>
Okay.
Well that's where we differ, because personally I think that if they could be born without handicaps, it would be great.
I am in no way *whatsoever* disputing their wonderfulness as people in general, so please don't take me up wrong.
But a handicap is such a serious thing- the girl you spoke of has limited opportunities because of her handicap.. and I think that if she could be somehow helped so that she wouldn't have to live with something that is limiting her from doing something like going to art college, then this would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.
A little kid I know was born with no legs from the knee down. He's a prime example of a child who is inhibited because of his handicap.. a wonderful child who would want proper legs like everyone else, if he had the choice.
If these experiments can give people that choice for their kids, then I think they should certainly be welcomed.
[If u can't understand this.. sorry.. [img]http://www.boards.ie/bulletin/smile.gif[/img].. I'll fix it tomorrow evening ..]
0 -
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
Natural progression of science, and a step in the right direction. The ability to alter our own genetic code in order to adapt to new environments, fight new diseases and eradicate crippling defects is one of the most important things our race can develop.
Our bodies are tools and housings for our minds. So far we've only been learning how to repair the tools and patch up the housings, the advancement towards being able to fix the underlying design and improve upon it is a vital one if we are to continue to progress.</font>
for once i agree intirely with Shinji!!!
yeah i see it as a way of doin away with genetic defects, improveing human mental and physical abilities etc.
"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Some of what you say is down to an ethical stance neuro- but a lot of it is just based on misapprehensions and ignorance. I don't mean that to be insulting- I myself will proudly admit to being ignorant in a wide field of topics. So on to the issues then:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Originally posted by neuro:
By all means? Even if there have been hundreds of genetically abnormal children produced in the process? Why do we never hear about the failed cases? A thousand sheep died before we produced Dolly.
</font>
A misapprehension neuro. Genetically abnormal children would not be produced in embryo experimentation. The experiments are conducted in-vitro, in a petri dish- and the embryo never passes the 16-32 cell stages. Your example of Dolly is irrelevant- cloning a living organism is an entirely different issue. Incidentally, I don't think we are (perhaps we never will be tbh) ready to clone a full human individual. But this isn't what I'm talking about. I refer to embryonic research in-vitro, that has the potential to save millions of lives. If we think in terms of opportunity cost- billions.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I disagree. Whether we like it or not, we have no right to attempt to eliminate all pain and disease in the world in this way. If the person involved could have a say in this issue, it would be different...I honestly don't care how much money it costs us to take care of special needs folks, we have a responsibility to take care of them, not to eliminate any possible imperfections.
</font>
There is no way on earth I could agree with that I'm afraid. A physician's responsibility is to care for the patient even if the patient cannot care for themselves or express a concious view. People who are mentally ill, are suffering from an upper motor neuron disorder, or who are in para-vital comas are incapable of speaking for themselves. Following the logic you apply- if we ignored those who could not speak for themselves (embryos included)- you disenfranchise roughly 30% of all treatment currently conducted. Just because the embryo doesn't have a say- doesn't mean that it doesn't have rights- including the right to fair medical treatment. And to the last part of that quote above- there is a clear and definable difference between a disability and an imperfection. They are not the same.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I do not want to live in a world without special needs people. What on earth is wrong with reaching different levels of achievement? ...They certainly let you know when they are angry and frustrated! They enjoy the most simple and childlike things - eating, colouring in, singing... </font>
To put it simply- why not? I've counseled disabled people before in high school and after high school. Many of them are frustrated about their disability- and it causes them a lot of mental, sometimes physical pain. I can only imagine the frustration experienced by someone who knows that they will never achieve what others have done. They are treated very differently by society than those without disability- special needs olympics are only further proof of this- if disabled people are part of society I think it abominable that they are treated any different from the average member of their society outside of caring for that disability- that attitude sickens me. Gene therapy would go a long way towards removing such prejudice.
Also, given the choice, the overwhelming majority would rather not be disabled- they have learned to live with their disability and often choose not to discuss this hope- because for them- hope can be a dangerous thing. You ask why we should eliminate these people- we're not eliminating them, but their disability- they will still be a person- we're curing them, not eliminating them. All we are doing is elimminating a devastating gene from the gene pool. This is no different from eliminating the small-pox virus from the realms of possibility. When we vaccinate a child- does the child get a say? Of course not- we are acting in its best interests. We won't be eliminating disabled people as a whole- if you're anxious to see people suffer with handicaps and strive through adversity- don't worry- plenty of people suffer accidents and deliberate harm which lead to disability. My point is simple- if a society would do everything in its power to eliminate these events that lead to disability in life- then why not at the embryonic stage? I fail to see the difference.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Mother nature may be a "harsh mistress" Bob, but nature at least is honest. It is base. She creates real and raw people, broken, sometimes, they way they are meant to be. </font>
Mother nature isn't honest or fatalistic. Evolution is completely dispassionate- it rewards genes favorable to an environment- and discards genes that would prove unfavorable. If you truly believe that we should not tamper with "mother nature" then we should leave disabled people to make their way in the world without special needs. Another thing:
The way they are meant to be? I'm sorry but telling a disabled person that they were born disabled because of fate or predetermination would offend most of them most terribly. That view sickens me as I read it- it makes me think of trying to console a bereaved family with fatalism- "Oh, she was meant to die- nothing you could have done about it"...Fatalism of that sort is a philosophy borne out of strife and pain of a bygone era neuro- I have no wish to return to those dark days of human thought. The very idea is ridiculous to me- if it is within our power to prevent disease or disability then it is our moral duty to do so. As for eye color, personality traits and the like- I dont't think we're ready for that sort of modification yet. Even if we were, I'm not sure if I'd agree with it.
Also- you say that you wouldn't want another person's genes used to help your baby...genes don't belong to anyone. That person's gene exists in other people- it isn't property. A gene is no indication of individual indentity by itself- genes mutate, change, interact and adapt with the genes around it. There is no risk at all of creating a race of perfectly identical people- the number of mutagens present in our environment- from UV rays to cosmic radiation to paint-stripper would quickly scupper the idea of copying a gene perfectly from one person to another.
I completely understand your fears about the possible misuses of this technology. But I think that these human fears are simply reflections of what accompany our thoughts whenever we venture into the unknown. As to possible abuses- that's why we- and millions of others around the world in positions of power- are having this debate. I am confident however, that we will all overcome our fears on this in time. Personal opinion and ethical stance are fine- but if religion, personal or moral views, superstition and the like- get in the way of effective medical treatment advances or bona fide treatement of a patient- then they have no right to do so imho.
There are several other points to debate- but that's quite enough to be getting on with for now
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=
PS- Apologies to Iceman- your post was interesting Ice, but I just don't have the time to reply to it now But rest assured I'll reply to it soon. 0 -
an aspect of this that worries me is the (very eventual) stagnation of the human race if evolution is to be replaced by fashion.
...that sounds a bit melodramatic i know, but i believe that it has some bearing. Evolution is a tried and tested tool, and who are we to try and replace it ?
Another point: I think that we put ourselves beyond the morality of natural selection as soon as we invented our religions to justify ourselves. aren't we neat!
to put it shortly: we need the mutants (pardon the term) genetic diversity makes us stronger as a race. I would fear that this sort of screening would lead to certian immumities/etc being removed from our genetic makeup, resulting in trouble 0 -
-
Bob, all points clearly taken. I have had no pretences about my knowledge on the subject, only my knowledge of my feelings. I feel somewhat more reassured by your words, as this development is inevitably going to become a frequent feature of our lives.
However, there are some things that I still disagree with.
Occy, you must agree yourself, that from a scientific standpoint, that there is no definitive point at which the life of the individual begins. We just don't know. From an evolutionary standpoint we are unable to date life's beginnings. That is Stephen Jay Gould's theory anyway. So from a scientific standpoint, we are unable to say whether a zygote of a mere 16-32 cells is a life or not. And to dismiss it as nothing important is simply wrong. We are unable to say conclusively when life officially begins at all - if we were, then the argument between the pro-lifers and pro-choicers would be rather more clean cut. Therefore if we agree that we cannot define the starting point, then we cannot go around experimenting on 16-32 cell embryos. It is possible that we are ending a life. So how many lives may have been lost in this process?
From a theological standpoint, we may be kissing goodbye to a brand new soul. This isn't "superstition", Occy, this isn't even about my faith. (Not that I would put faith and moral values in the same bracket as superstition.) Even if I lacked faith, I would be making this same argument, as whether or not we have souls cannot be proven. This is fully, I believe, an ethical decision.
And, as a sidenote which may well not work in my favour judging by your references to the "dark days of human thought", I am a firm believer in predestination.
Your analogy about vaccinating a child from smallpox is undoubtedly a good and valid one, and dificult to refute. But the point is, I am not trying to refute you Bob, I am trying to get to the bottom of how I feel about this. And I have stated before that I can truly understand the temptation to cure any abnoramilities whilst the child is still forming. And my own views clearly are not formed on this yet. However, Bob, I feel that to claim that their personality will not be affected by genetic treatment is a fallacy. Of course their personality will be changed! Their outlook and experiences will be utterly different, and in the case of mental handicaps, it will be almost as though a fully new person will have been formed. Their flesh and blood might be basically the same, but they will not be the same person overall.
My real issures are with my fears of abuse of this technology. After all, I have no problems with donating blood, or receiving it if the need should ever arise. I have been hospitalised numerous times for various conditions, and I am thankful for the medical treatment I have received.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob:
if you're anxious to see people suffer with handicaps and strive through adversity- don't worry- plenty of people suffer accidents and deliberate harm which lead to disability. </font>
That isn't really fair to me, Bob. I am obviously not "anxious" to see people suffer. That is the very last thing I want. However, I am anxious to avoid being in a society where people are developed in laboratories with set standards so that they may be physically perfect in every way. Physical perfection isn't a virtue!
Health is important. It is as important to me as to anybody. But I question these methods of "righting" ebryonic abnormalities. And I think, that if I do firmly decide to trust genetic therapy in the future, I will have been right, anyway, to have questioned it.
0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Androphobic:
I just don't get it. You are arguing that these experiments should be struck down on an ethical and moral basis, but surely if you are looking at it from an ethical and moral view these tests should go ahead.</font>
Sorry Andro, I saw this after I had posted my last reply.
My mammoth post above deals with my problems with the experiments going ahead (ie. where does life truly begin etc). However, your point about ethical obligations to cure ailments if we have the means to, does stand strong - and it is one of the reasons that I have stated repeatedly that I am not sure about the entire issue. It isn't a case of needing to "rethink" - my brain is working overtime here!
I guess I am asking the question whether the ethical obligations to leave the foetus alone outweigh the obligations to tamper with it. And I don't know the answer to that one yet.
I don't like our methods in reaching this higher knowledge of genetics - testing on embryos.
And when I said that I didn't want to live in a society without special needs people, I meant it. I meant it in terms, to clarify, of mental handicap. They have taught me so much. They seem to have a better grasp on the important things than most people do - they are concerned with being happy. They aren't concerned with power and greed and status and gratification.
That is what I meant. There is room for them in my life, be they my children, or somebody else's.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Brilliant point Shinji- and one that I conspiciously failed to mention- guess that's why you're a moderator and we're not
I see no moral or ethical code that can justify witholding life-saving treatment from anyone. It shouldn't be the parent's decision in the event of an immature child- legally speaking it's not. The same is currently true of amnio's and intra-uterine screening. Those two are legally mandatory procedures in many places.
I fully respect neuro's right to question the possible abuses of this technology- we'd be insane not to. But when enormous benefits outweigh acceptable risk- we can't afford to take a puritanical high-ground on the behalf of sufferers(even potential sufferers).
I understand that you are communicating a gut feeling rather than a point of view neuro- and to an extent I see where you're coming from. So long as it's a personal objection with no policy implications I have no problem with it. My dissention only becomes applicable if neuro's ethical standards become applied policy decisions- that truly would be a return to the dark ages-where faith ruled reason to detrimental effect. For me at any rate, faith is a personal issue- and not one that should be applied as a general rule to policy-making.
As far as when life begins goes- it's pretty clear cut scientifically tbh. When the embryo is implanted in the uterine wall- it is scientifically and legally alive. Until that stage, there is no biotic or symbiotic existence- merely the potential for life. This is no standard for ethical objection to this beyond faith- faith which has no place in pragmatic policy decisions- unless you believe in theocracy. As for Steve Jay Gould- I'm a great admirer of his- even met him a couple of times. But...I disagree with the idea that the beginning of life is untraceable. That is simply untrue- and a symtom of faith ruling science. Ice-core research can estimate life's beginning's to within a few thousand years- that's enormously accurate in geological terms.
Those are just ethical considerations at the end of the day- policy decisions must be ruled by rationale- not by superstition, faith, ethics, or the magic 8-ball. That's the simple, pragmatic truth.
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=E Pluribus Unum=0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Unfortunately, the ship was actually outside an exclusion zone stated by the British, and was moving away.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Thatcher (who I admit is pretty damn evil ) did not have a 'passenger liner' torpedoed during the Falklands War, it was the General Belgrano, an operational battleship - plus the two countries were at war at the time if you recall
</font>
It rained in San Francisco Wednesday evening, but the penguins were
still there Thursday morning, smiling broadly.0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
However, Bob, I feel that to claim that their personality will not be affected by genetic treatment is a fallacy. Of course their personality will be changed! Their outlook and experiences will be utterly different, and in the case of mental handicaps, it will be almost as though a fully new person will have been formed. Their flesh and blood might be basically the same, but they will not be the same person overall.
</font>
If the changes are made to the embryo, then no alteration of the personality can be a result, because the embyro HAS NO personality...it is NOT a person but a collection of cells.
At the stage the gene changes would be made, the sex of the child wouldnt even have been determined(?)...so it can hardly "not be the same person"...not the same as what person?
It would be very different, if we found a cure rather than a preventative measure. With a cure, the handicapped/disabled child would have developed and lived with the disabilty, and would THEN have the chance to be cured.
This would most definitely result in a change in personality, if not a change in the very essence of the person. This kind of treatment would throw up far more ethical/moral dilemmas than preventing the disablilty ever occuring in my opinion.
A bit of a messed up post...
Bucon.
0 -
Bob, I can't pretend to have the knowledge of genetic engineering that you do, but I must disagree on some points. Bob, being the guy that you are, I know that this is an issue that you have definitely thought about and considered, so I guess this is going to come down, in reality, to a clashing of opinion.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob:
If growth factors and oncogenes can be better understood by human embryo experimentation, then do it by all means.</font>
By all means? Even if there have been hundreds of genetically abnormal children produced in the process? Why do we never hear about the failed cases? A thousand sheep died before we produced Dolly. I understand that embryonic tests may better our understanding, but do we have the right to tamper with new lives? I think the answer has got to be no.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob:
I think that there is little question that diseases that are lethal, or childhood metabolic disorders should be screened for genetically, and modified embryonically if possible.</font>
I disagree. Whether we like it or not, we have no right to attempt to eliminate all pain and disease in the world in this way. If the person involved could have a say in this issue, it would be different. However, and embryo cannot offer its opinion. We are not supposed to be a perfect race. There is room for all of us. I honestly don't care how much money it costs us to take care of special needs folks, we have a responsibility to take care of them, not to eliminate any possible imperfections.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob:
That is undeniable neuro- for all their courage, humility, determination and success- on average, a disabled person is treated differently, and reaches different levels of achievement than would otherwise be capable in a fully functional person.</font>
I do not want to live in a world without special needs people. What on earth is wrong with reaching different levels of achievement? We as "normal" people, reach drastically different levels of achievement. The people I have worked with, in my limited experience, are a damn sight happier and than most people. They don't hide their emotions. They let you know when they are happy, and when they are sad. They let you know that they love you by hugging and kissing you. They certainly let you know when they are angry and frustrated! They enjoy the most simple and childlike things - eating, colouring in, singing...
Why should we eliminate these types of people?? Their achievements, by far, outweigh mine! They overcome their struggles in a way that can teach us all a little about the important things. We only have to look at the special olympics folks! Their achievements are cause for celebration.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob;
Several current leading cases show parents seeking an abortion upon the discovery that their child might have Down syndrome, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or even being partially sighted </font>
Once more, I understand the temptation to tamper with an embryo in this way. Hodgkin's in particluar is a terrifying disease. The ethics of not treating it at this stage can be questioned too. However, once we start doing this as a regular procedure with each new pregnancy - we start to create the new race. The new, perfectly balanced (3 parented) child. This sickens me. Then, what happens to the people who ethically refuse to have embryonic treatments in society?? Surely their children will be treated as unnatural freaks? Or the people who cannot afford the treatments? What then? And is it okay to choose to create the most aesthetically pleasing child too, with the best hair and eye colour, bone structure and of course, IQ level? Cosmetic gene therapy?
Mother nature may be a "harsh mistress" Bob, but nature at least is honest. It is base. She creates real and raw people, broken, sometimes, they way they are meant to be.
If I ever discover that my baby is a sufferer of Down's Syndrome or some other condition, I will not be considering aborting him or her, or injecting the genes of another person into his or her embryo. It just doesn't fit. Although it would be tempting to try to cure his or her disease in this manner, I feel, that ethically and morally, it isn't the right thing to do.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob:
It just goes to show that society will be skeptical of new advances- and give far too much weight to the arguments of pessimism rather than optimism </font>
Maybe, I will change my mind. As I said, just fifty years ago I may have felt the same way about organ transplants. It isn't black and white, in my opinion.
However, it just seems to me that this type of pregression opens the door to great and dangerous evil.
Excelsior and I were discussing recently how, if we perfect it, injecting a little DNA into an orangutang may produce for us the perfect low skilled, low paid, repetitive worker. That is a fuking scary thought.
Maybe I'm wrong, but right now, i don't think so.
*edited for command errors
[This message has been edited by neuro-praxis (edited 06-05-2001).]0 -
First off I have to say that I am punching way above my weight here. I do not have the medical background to challenge Bob on a whole load of things, I am just a computer science student.
Secondly, unfortunately, I once again it seems have to preface my argument with a disclaimer on faith. Yes, I have a Christian faith. No, this does not shape my opinions on genetics, (or extra-terrestrial intelligence, or pacifism,or a whole load of things) which were formed in the large part before I became Christian. Dismissing my views, or persons like me, as extreme, as superstitious, or as medieval simply because elements of my belief structure are not scientific is a regretful display of ignorance. Every argument I make could be made irrelevant by people simply going, "Aaah, that is 'cause you're a Jesus Freak mate, wha'?" I am not a biblical scholar but as far as I know, there is no biblical teaching on genetics. So that leaves me entirely free to make my own mind up.
And as far as faith infringing on my positions on actual policy, I have to state clearly here that politically I come from the line of John Locke and John Stuart Mill. All positions must be represented by state without direct interference in any way by any church. In my opinion, consilience should be sought between all dsiciplines, except one case- church and state. They can not be allowed to mix.
"policy decisions must be ruled by rationale....not by...ethics"
I disagree entirely. Ethics must play a fundamental role in the decision about any policy. A better way of phrasing what you have said Bob is that this is an ethical issue, and ethical issues are not clear cut. We must constantly strive to keep the individual's liberty and the society's good at the core of our policy and that is ethics. That also happens to be rational.
I was born with an extra finger on my right hand, four joints in my baby finger where most have three, with oddly shaped feet and with a nasal cavity that was so uniquely shaped that I was three before I actually said anything, and it was after 8 years of intensive speech therapy that at the age of twelve I had gotten rid of my speech impediment, (and turned it into a speech improvement). Now I wasn't disabled. They were a catalogue of imperfections but I got over all of them. I learnt how to run and play sports, my hands are sickeningly double jointed now, and I can speak in public anywhere, anytime. But my kids are going to share alot of those little imperfections. What happens to them when genetic therapy is introduced. Will I be forced by social law, or by societal factors to get those little kinks ironed out? Probably not, but their kids are another story.
Now my extra finger was cut off when I was a toddler. That is fine. I was alive and out here in the world. A medical therapy of sorts was offered to my parents and they decided to take it. They were right. I am happier now.
But there is something insidious about having that operation conducted while still an embryo. And my views here are not based on Christian puritanism. The power that such a therapy offers a governement eugenics scheme is terrifying. A little propoganda here, a little propaganda there and a government wouldn't even need to make draconian laws to ensure that all offspring are born 6 and a half feet tall, blond and high-cheeked. Those that aren't just need to be ignored, isolated and ostracized by society that can easily be convinced that they are traitors in their ranks.
1984 and Brave New World were great books, but particuarly the latter has a ring of prophesy about them. I would not be secure that your own government, Bob, wouldn't abuse this technology. It is too powerful a political tool to be resisted.
Now I empathise with the comments that Bob and Shinji have made about the questionable ethics of denying a grown man a life saving genetically manufactured heart. I also know that for the large part, this is where the focus in genetics is. My childish comparison is that it is a scientifically advanced wig. However, this messing around with the removal of "imperfections" at embryonic stage really terrifies me for the simple reason that the power it offers a government to act maliciously and malevonently is at a level unknown up to this stage.
For me this is a balance. I don't want to live in a world of Uma Thurmans and Johnny Depps. Worse still, and more likely, I don't want to live in a world where there is just enough perfectly formed men for military service, and just enough men who are perfectly formed for menial labour. The threat seems very real to me.
Now in terms of your arguments about the removal of malfunctionary gene sets that may lead to lethal disease like Hodgkins or to disabilities like cerebal palsy- is there not something missing here? Is our position in the evolving enviroment not the product of gene mutations just like this? Is this not where our seeming prosperity arises from? Where will the developments occur in evolution if we remove the raw material of development- namely mutations. Or is gene therapy hoping to exist as a seperate entity outside of evolution? Humans would no longer be a sub-set of evolution? If that is the case I think the arrogance so often suspected in modern science will outrun itself. How do we survive if we remove the imperfections in our species' DNA?
Neuro's point about tracing the beginning of life is valid. I would feel in fact, that Bob's statement,
"As far as when life begins goes- it's pretty clear cut scientifically tbh"
is a reflection of opinion rather than clear cut position. I do this tentatively as he is clearly informed way beyond what I am. But life exists in the context of evolution. And to use what I know, as a computer scientist, evolution is very definitively analog. It is not digital. There are no atomic points anywhere along the line of life where we can say with certainty, this is where Species A ended and Species B began. In the same way, the line between father, mother and child is a blurred one. Your distinction is made for the convienience of science and not for scientific reason. It is a standard defintion but the definition is built on convienience. If life begins at the formation of the zygote, why do some of my friends fight bitterly with others about the validity of abortion? Why can science not step in (as it so rarely does in that argument) and point that out?
I could well be coming off as puritanical, or as medieval here in my views. I really should state that I do study science. This isn't out of a fear of new things because they are new. I just inherently feel that a fair democracy would be forever destroyed if genetics were manipulated for the gain of government. And I fear that they will be. Governments are proving themselves again and again entirely capable of reprehensible actions on behalf of society's good. Now I understand that democracy is the product of its own society, but the point remains valid.
I also have pretty serious reservations about the nature of our position in evolution if we begin manipulating feotuses on a large scale.
And Bob, if you ever meet Stephen Jay Gould again, can you get me his autograph? He and Montaigne are the Kings of Essays. My ambition one day is to be a polymath like Mr Gould.
My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent0 -
-
The two points that I wished to cover, regarding Bob's comments about a definitive beginning of life, and the elimination of ethics in policy implementation (gah! what?!), were covered rather well by Excelsior.
I only want to add:
Bob, speaking in terms of what you deem to be life's beginning - do you think that it is ethically alright to destroy a zygote (the potential [using your term] for life), without even a qualm? Do you think that to destroy potential is okay?
Now, I am not talking about preventing conception (ie. with contraception), but actually physically destroying clear and blatant potential - a fertilised egg? It is on its way - it has passed stage one. It is a little life, no? Just because its sex isn't physically decided yet (Bucon), does that mean that it a worthless, valueless blob of cells?
For this zygote to die in this way, is not a natural occurrence. The reason that it is not being implanted into the uterus lining is because genetic tests have destroyed it, albeit in the name of science or knowledge (both inherently powerful and important tools).
Is this okay?
[Bob, I do not appreciate "puritannical" and "superstition" references, as these are two things that I find myself constantly battling against with others. Oddly, I am actually one of those people that does not believe that religion and politics should mix.]
I feel the need to add here that I understand the ethical conflicts in this whole argument - to give gene therapy or not to give - both sides having good ethic substance. In fact, I have been repeating this from the beginning. However, the sinking feeling that it gives me has not yet gone away. Perhaps that is just my fear of potential abuse. Which is kind of inevitable, I think.0 -
Well, now that Excel is in here, things are set to get very interesting indeed
I think that the message of genetic modification and the goals of current research has been lost and mangles in the eugenics debate. This isn't about eugenics as much as it is about legitimate process of treatment. I'll explain this, but first, a few points.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Originally posted by Excel:
I disagree entirely. Ethics must play a fundamental role in the decision about any policy.
</font>
That's why I stated policy decisons are ruled by rationale- not *absolutely ruled*. I was trying to say that, firstly, ethics are subjective and therefore inconsistent, and secondly- basic ethic considerations form the backbone of any rationale. There is no absolute pragmatism or ethical content in rational policy-making, it merely contains elements of both. Ideally, basic moral considerations would be decided via referendum, but in the arcane democracies still present today- this happens far less than it should.
Now on to my main point- the difference between imperfection and disease. Everyone seems to love harping on about the concept of eugenic control, and the creation of a human super-race. As I, and now Shinji have pointed out- nothing could be further from the truth. The focus of our argumentation lies in the treatment of disease. Legitimate disability would fall under the category of disease- to claim otherwise is futile. What do I mean by legitimate disability? A single/multi-system disorder that impairs normal human function in active society within the framework of normal development and interaction. Those are the criterion that most genetic research is searching within as I type this post. Changing eye color, hair color and height are insignificant points in truth. All can be accomplished in young adult life- hair can be dyed, eye color can be pigmented or colored contact lenses used. Height can be modified by the administering of an aliquot of growth hormone. These are insignificant parameters to genetic scientists. The presence of an abnormal gene (whether an artefact one or simply a false replication) is usually nothing to fear. It's when that gene is expressed or that DNA cannot be repaired via repair enzymes that modification could save or improve the quality of life.
These are simple, and commonsense distinctions- many people believe that scientists only pursue an objective goal without ethical consideration. That's simply untrue- and does a disservice to the name of science. The reason that genetic research even before the introduction of legal safeguards has only explored what is of potential medical value as opposed to lifestyle factors speaks volumes about the ethical considerations geneticists themselves apply to their research.
As for governments misusing such technology- that is possible, but unlikely in all honesty. The potential for abuse exists- but there would be incredible outrage if this particular technology was abused in any way. Talk of government conspiracies, genetically manufactured armies and the like better serve as the backbone of an X-Files episode rather than a potential reality.
The idea that we are restricting the possible gene pool by removing mutations has two flaws scientificallly speaking Excel.
Firstly, in a closed system you'd be correct- it is unlikely that without special care, these diseased individuals would die before they had the chance to reproduce. By caring for them we are ironically keeping genes in the gene pool that should have been long-since gone. By modifying these genes at the stage where they haven't been expressed- we eliminate them from the gene pool without the unfortunate side-effect of the death of the sufferer. Not only that- we give that individual every chance to profit as a healthy member of society. As such, the argument that disease mutations are evolutionarily beneficial is mostly incorrect I'm afraid.
As to your argument refuting the beginnings of life...I think you and neuro are confusing the origins of life with the origins of species. There's a huuuuge difference between the two terms- as far as the origins of life are concerned- what I said is scientifically accurate. Life on Earth wasn't created, and there was no simultaneous co-existence. That is what I was referring to. As far as tracing species lines are concerned- you're absolutely right- but I fail to see your point in this regard. Dating life from an evolutionary standpoint has nothing to do with ethical deselection in the human gene pool as I see it...
As far as why science doesn't become involved in the abortion debate is concerned...there are several reasons:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
If life begins at the formation of the zygote, why do some of my friends fight bitterly with others about the validity of abortion? Why can science not step in (as it so rarely does in that argument) and point that out?
</font>
Firstly, life doesn't begin after the formation of the zygote. Only when the embryo has successfully implanted itself in the uterine wall of the mother is the embryo considered an individual scientifically.
Let's get one thing straight- after the embryo has implanted itself- that is the point at which it is clinically established as a patient. It has rights and is therefore alive. Do spermatazoa and ova have rights- are they alive, do they have souls? Of course not- they merely represent the potential for life. Until the embryo implants itself into the uterine wall, it isn't alive. Unless you're a potentialist and believe even the potential for life is sacred. In that case, even IVF is out of the question- and I can't debate genetic modification with you.
The main reason doctors/scientists don't get involved is for the same reason that they didn't get involved in the Siamese twins case until the point of absolute necessity. The court thought of Jodie as alive- but clinically speaking she was an embryonic terratoma- a cancer. A living, walking, talking cancer- but a cancer in clinical terms. From an uneducated point of view, one could say that the courts sentenced Jodie to death that her sister Mary might live on after the seperation. But scientifically that wasn't the case.
Science prefers to take a step back as a philosophy when third-party objectivity is lost- as is the case with abortion. Objectivity is lost when people start crying out murder- but by their standards contraception is considered murder for the most part.
Modifying and treating an embryo during and up to the 16-32 cell stage for the purposes of prevention should be viewed with the same pragmatism as vaccination. This is just a logical progression from what already exists. People felt just as uneasy as Excel or neuro when vaccination was introduced on a wide scale- many thought the idea of injecting their children with infectious organisms was insane and downright dangerous. Well...from an uninformed point of view...it is. Once one studies the processes, assesses the current situation and evaluates possible outcomes, the idea is a lot less uncomfortable.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I just inherently feel that a fair democracy would be forever destroyed if genetics were manipulated for the gain of government. </font>
Isn't that just a tad alarmist Excel? I've already mentioned that with the direction and focus of current research (which will take decades, believe me), such manipulation would not be readily available. But even assuming that it was- how would fair democracy be totally destroyed? Any government that flew in the face of popular opinion would be dashed from power quicker than you could say "Post-conceptual transgenomic progressional modification". And it's hardly likely, with the degree of skepticism that the general public views bona fide research and the money that's put into it, that people would accept a government bent on eugenics...wouldn't you say?
Of course there's the potential for abuse- of course there's the potential for harm- that's the whole point of this discussion. I'm not looking to change anyone's mind here- merely stating the facts of the matter, and offering one or two opinions. I still stand by these-
1) Prevention of disease by whatever possible means should be the primary role of health-care. If such prevention takes place in the womb, all the better- so be it.
2) By selecting genomic progressions that are advantageous to us as a species, we would experience far more favorable mutation patterns, and progress far quicker as a species in the long run.
3) Ministration or denial of appropriate treatment should be in the hands of the parents until it is shown that they are not acting in the child's best interests. In that eventuality, the attending physician's authority should supercede the parents' (as in the Jodie/Mary seperation case)
4) Systemic modification should be implemented without thought. Restoring a blind person's sight, a deaf person's hearing, or a paraplegic's ability to walk cannot be viewed as morally objectionable by a rational individual. Neither can the pre-conceptual prevention of a fatal disease in all honesty.
The sooner we realize that this research is but a natural extension of current practise, the sooner we will accept it as a state of affairs that will come.
I stand by those four main points of argument- I've tried to state my opinion where it is an opinion- but most of my posts in this thread consist of a list of facts sprinkled with somatic argumentation. Sorry for the long post- but I had a fair bit to say
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=0 -
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
..physically destroying clear and blatant potential - a fertilised egg? It is on its way - it has passed stage one. It is a little life, no? Just because its sex isn't physically decided yet (Bucon), does that mean that it a worthless, valueless blob of cells?
</font>
I hope you don't mind if I comment here, but I don't see the problem. I don't have the knowledge of the scientifics behind it.. but I wouldn't think of a fertilised egg as a life.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm being cold and heartless.. but it seems that such huge advances could be made.. surely these can't be held back because of (what I would see as) a few "fertilised eggs"?
Surely a fertilised egg doesn't have a soul?
I dunno.. confusing stuff..
0 -
-
Advertisement
![][cEMAN**](https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/userpics/navatar2587_1.gif){kind=avatar}
![http://www.boards.ie/bulletin/smile.gif[/img].](http://www.boards.ie/bulletin/smile.gif[/img].){kind=link}
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement