Can we vs Should we

Manach

The linked article is about modifying cats to
remove allergy forming genes. My concern is whether they/anyone should tinker around with another species genetic code for our own human convience or would the benefits of such a minor alteration outweight such considerations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1411000/1411802.stm

Raife

We Should'nt!

Thats just messed up!
The abnormalities through mixed breading would and should be frowned upon by most people since the animal would be revered and unwanted.

Good Topic!

Ltr!!
Raife!!

Shinji

Revered and unwanted? An interesting combination...

I don't see why not - it's not actually modifying anything essential to the cat, and it prevents humans from having allergic reactions to them. What's the problem?

Ultimately it's just a more high-tech progression of the cross-breeding we have been doing of cats, dogs and other domesticated animals for centuries. Such animals would probably be verging on extinct were it not for their age-old "alliance" with mankind, I'd prefer to see them modified slightly to make them fit in with us better than to see them replaced by Aibo's big brothers.

Also: this thread should be on Humanities, as it is a morality thread and not a hard science thread, and hence doesn't fall under the remit of this board...

[This message has been edited by Shinji (edited 01-07-2001).]

_CreeD_

Living creatures exist through a balance of more factors than we can currently understand. You can't just modify one part of a genetic code and think everything else'll stay the same.
Sure, you modify a cat to reduce human allergies, and say in the process happen to affect it's own immune system, a new virus developes which eventually mutates and transfers to humans. Could happen.

With genetics you can't bypass evolution without risking tipping the ecological scales further and faster than they are capable of responding.

[This message has been edited by _CreeD_ (edited 01-07-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

What you say would be true Creed: that is assuming that cats interact on a meaningful scale with our natural ecosystem and suffer the same evolutionary pressures as wild animals. Being domesticated removes survivalist pressures from the evolutionary circle- and means that genetic modification would likely affect very little in the way of essential protection for the cat. The allergen-inducing nature of the shedding material came from an era when cats needed to mark their territory more aggresively and had to have a basic defense mechanism versus would-be attackers.

Now outside of catching mice or being chased by the neighbor's dog...cats don't interact on a meaningful enough level for us to be concerned with any kind of ecological change with a so-called "ripple" effect. This particular alarmist phenomenon tends to be used in the wrong context far too often. It's perfectly valid when something as drastic as introducing an entire new species into the wild is concerned(lapinus rabbits and Australia anyone?)- but altering a nonessential part of a domesticated animal's genetic makeup is hardly likely to send massive shockwaves rippling through the fabric of nature

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=

_CreeD_

Ah, but do you really trust our current understanding of genetics to allow us to judge just what is really non-essential? It's all connected, you don't change one thing without inadvertantly changing another. Our whole ecosystem exists in balance, on all levels, bacteriological inclided. The actual amount of interaction between animals is not the point (And cats actually are more of a risk as transmission vectors than most domestic animals since the damn things tend to run off on secret missions fairly often).
I'm not saying we should not investigate genetics, or be afraid to make use of the knowledge when necessary but this is just a foible. Silliness that is not worth the potential risks with our current level of knowledge, IMHO anyway.

Lucy_la_morte

I put my thumbs up, if it makes me stop sneezing and getting watery eyes when I don't take my tablets, then good stuff!

As for the whole tampering of genetic code to serve humans, then aslong as it doesn't jeopardise the animal then yes again, I'd be a hypocrit to say I disagree after I had just agreed with changing cats to suit my allergies.

---

It's just a tail, but I'm sort of attached to it.

Lucy la morte.

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by _CreeD_:
Ah, but do you really trust our current understanding of genetics to allow us to judge just what is really non-essential? </font>

This is what it boils down to, but again, I think I can see Occy's point about the same old "doom-crying" argument.

On one hand, we do not have a complete model for the interaction of species, which means that tiny modifications to that model could wreak havoc without our being able to predict, forsee, or control it.

On the other hand, that argument is true about anything we do. All of our scientific and social advances have directly or indirectly caused massive shifts in the behaviour patterns of life on this planet, right down to bacterial adaptation to new environments. So far, nothing very catastrophic has happened, so why are we so set about scare mongering?

We have seen that the relatively significant changes we have made on the environment have all been coped with by "mother nature", except when we get stupid and actually wipe out a species. And even that hasnt destroyed the planet...so the ecosystem as a whole is fairly robust.

So, it is *highly improbable* that changing this in a cat would have any major effects. I wont say impossible, but I have reasonable faith in science.

Would it be wrong - playing god and all that? Well, lets avoid the god issue, and rephrase the question....is it wrong that we interfere in the genetic development of a species? Much les wrong than having domesticated a wild animal, which in turn has led to gnetic and behavioural changes on a far larger scale than what we're proposing here.

So then we get back to the argument that fact that we have done something before does not give us a license to continue doing it. No, it doesnt, but could you define right and wrong? Will you tell us we should treat our pets a lot worse than we do, because our good treatment of them has increased their lifespan significantly? Or we should release them back into a wilderness they are almost utterly incapable of dealing with, because domesticating them was wrong.

Or is it only wrong when we interfere for our own good, rather than theirs? And who's to say that this wont be for their own good?

Ultimately, I think there are good reasons to question a change like this....but none of them have been posed here yet.

jc

Kolodny

It's a clever idea in theory. I know a few people who suffer badly with cat allergy but would dearly love to keep a cat as a pet, but I would have to agree with Creed - Do we really know enough about animal genetics to decide what can be eliminated from their make-up without unwanted long term effects?

If a species of farmyard animal bred for meat was being wiped out or made ill and useless by an allergy to say, human skin cells or hair how should we deal with it? If wearing protective clothing and keeping the animals isolated would cost too much or be too inconvenient for farmers is it fair to expect humans to take risk of having the cause of the allergy removed from our genetic code...

I think it would be easier to not farm that species at all and look for an alternative. So people with an animal allergy should probably not keep that animal as a pet - there are plenty of other types of pets after all - isn't 're-designing' a pet we want to keep for our own convenience just a little bit selfish?

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kolodny:
If a species of farmyard animal bred for meat was being wiped out or made ill and useless by an allergy to say, human skin cells or hair how should we deal with it? If wearing protective clothing and keeping the animals isolated would cost too much or be too inconvenient for farmers is it fair to expect humans to take risk of having the cause of the allergy removed from our genetic code...</font>

Now thats an interesting thought. Why dont they just re-engineer humans to not be allergic to cats any more?

While I'm not against the idea of genetic modification in general, I do find it interesting that the process is about modifying something because it annoys us, rather than modifying us so we are no longer annoyed.

But its perfectly safe

jc

_CreeD_

Honestly I'm not trying to be a doom-sayer (uber depressed sooth-sayer derivative... ..). I do believe we need to explore genetics, and not be afraid to use it when we are at least 99.999999% sure we know what we're doing, and that it is for something worthwhile (Sorry Lucy, as much as I'm sure your allergies are a pain, I don't think modifying a species just yet is a realistic answer).
Genetics will offer amazing possibilities in the future, and has the capacity for great good. But I put using it for this, at the relatively infant state of the science, up there with developing a portable pocket sized nuclear reactor to power warm coats for old people....

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Creed- I understand the point you raise- however it sounds, it's not a moral point, but one of practical concern. We would be foolish not to be practically concerned about genetic modification in some way. However, let us explore the practical possibilities:

You state that we do not understand enough about genetics to proceed with testing for genetic modification of cats to prevent allergen production. You further state that genetic science is in its infancy. Believe it or not, that's correct- certainly a lot closer to the truth than the prodigious and backpatting articles found in the science section of newspapers.

Having established that the science is in its infancy with regard to modification- you rightly say such modifications would be possible when we know more about genetics. Again, no argument.

Now, to the crux of my point- how do you propose we advance the knowledge we currently possess? The only certain way of advancing our knowledge is to conduct experiments such as this one. If diabetes is to become a thing of the past, we must observe how the genetic modification of another specie's hormones affects it, and the environmental pathogens around it ("its environment", if you will). Now if we don't know enough about genetics to be certain nothing might go wrong in an experiment...and the only way of advancing our knowledge with any surety is to conduct such experiments...then we're never going to get anywhere are we?

Science takes the pragmatic view, that in the absence of viable proof of demonstrable consequence, we accept reasonable risk and continue. If the experiment is conducted in isolation, goes through a standard clinical trials process, and achieves a selected result- then we have achieved an advance in genetics.

It's not an easy concept to grapple with morally- but that's not the point of science. "Ethics" is the domain of the policy-makers who use it as a battering ram either to win votes, or (more rarely) to voice legitimate concern.

Ethically speaking, sure...scienctific research is difficult to come to terms with...but we're not discussing the ethical implications, only the practical complications that might arise. An ethical discussion belongs on the Humanities board...if anyone wants to start one, it could prove interesting(the last one certainly was).

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=E Pluribus Unum=

_CreeD_

Science cannot ignore ethics. You can take research as either gratifying the researcher's need to prove themselves, or that it is advancing humanity, either way as a product of the human psyche ethics will always be a factor.
(look at Einstein, he started rejecting his own work when it began to contradict his religious beliefs)

Though that is not the point I was presenting anyway. It's just a matter of risk vs. gain. I think this was too frivolous an application to warrant the potential risk.
I do agree that we need to test theories to advance, omelettes and broken eggs. Just as pointed out it'd be a bit better to do it on humans.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Science cannot ignore ethics true: but ethics is not part of scientific reasoning. That wasn't the point you were making however, as you yourself stated.

As for it being a frivolous application of genetic modification- I strongly disagree. Einstein's theory of special relativity and Fleming's work that lead to penicilin were ultimately frivolous considerations to begin with- but led to enormous advances that change the very fabric of the society in which we live. The history of science is littered with experiments that initially seemed frivolous for the time, but led to important and lasting advancement of knowledge.

Removing a protein coding gene and survival testing in the absence of an immune system hormone could lead to important understanding of how the body copes in the absence of resistance factors. That is the key issue when discussing how one treats a person with any sort of autoimmune disease(rheumatoid arthritis, AIDS, leukaemia, etc). Now that sounds like an important application of gene modification to me. It would also give us a better idea of how allergen reduction affects afflicted individuals' immune response to other possible pathogens or irritants. Again- on first glance the application seems flippant- but with the science in relative infancy, the potential understanding that could be gained by the simplest of experiments is huge. The purpose of the experiment may not be to test for these various issues- but they will be noticed, and an advancement in understanding could be gained. An experiment very often provides an explanation far outside of its scope or purpose.

As for "potential risk":

1) On a practical level, for better or for worse- potential risk with regards to scientific advancement isn't a good enough argument to wash with policy-makers. The idea that something "might" go wrong isn't enough to deter possible benefit. It's a pragmatic, and imho, a sensible view to take.

2) We may not know much about genetic modification in the short term, but as Shinji pointed out- this is merely microevolutionary breeding. Instead of having to cope with the minutiae of identifying cross-breed gene pools, the gene is unitlaterally modified. All that has happened is an evolutionary event- if it makes you feel any better, think of it as all allergy causing cats becoming extinct, or being selected against in a punctuated equilibrous evolutionary event.

Ecologically speaking, the two are no different- so as far as we know, this is a normal evolutionary process simply sped up- as far as we know, there is no discernible risk. If in the light of present knowledge there is no verifiable risk- I see no reason why the research shouldn't go ahead.

A negative approach to what may seem flippant research is the reason that some aspects of scientific work today are a lot more bureaucratically inefficient than a few decades ago. Scientific risk analysis doesn't forsee any difficulty with this experiment. As for the ethical side- that's something for the Humanities board.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Dago Gracia Regina Fide Defensor=

_CreeD_

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
Science cannot ignore ethics true: but ethics is not part of scientific reasoning.

That is a little contradictory (Scientific reasoning is performed by a human mind that is at all times, in whatever way, influenced by ethics) but I know what you mean.

Other points well taken though (Except for you nicking my Einstein analogy, I don't think trying to find a Unified theory was ever viewed as frivolous - but then that's subjective ).
And please stop bringing up Humanities!... . The topic itself is about the conflict of ethics and science, if you didn't want that then it should have been moved.

Ps. Good discussion though.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

The point you make about scientists judging their work on a moral standpoint whilst and after they conducted their work is a valid one, and well taken.

About Einstein, I was referring more to the fact that a Swiss patent clerk claiming that light did not obey classical relativity, and that time could no longer be viewed as an absolute and needed to be understood as space-time seemed frivolous 60-odd years ago. If some accounting clerk today claimed to put forward such a radical proposal I have no doubt that scientists today would find it equally frivolous The idea of a Unified theory wasn't thought of as frivolous as much, but there was much skepticism, particularly from Heisenberg and Max Planck who contended uncertainty over unification. It would seem that Planck and Heisenberg are right, on the evidence of today's knowledge(though my own understanding of this subject is very much armchair).

I'm sorry I brought up Humanities a couple of times- it just seemed for a moment there that we were edging away from science a tad towards pure ethics- this thread has no reason to be moved as it stands.

This has been a great discussion so far- let's get more people in here though- Creed&me shouldn't have to sustain this topic on our own

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=E Pluribus Unum=

Greenbean

Can we vs Should we.

Did this classical science ethics debate ever get resolved?

In the past, just because we could, that would a good enough reason to do things, plus it advanced science via the experimentation of doing things. The problem is the new things that we can do are potentially very dangerous - the result of science doing very advanced things on the extremes.

The case of just because we can, doesn't mean we should is all about stopping us from making a very dangerous things happen. Unfortunately we have no precedent, nor natural inclination to not do things incase they might be dangerous.

Many people have pointed out the fact that no civilisation can last on pure science alone is well proven because every civilisation seems to burn out - and its always when it seems to be at its peak. At the peak you find things change far to fast, but yet people don't counter balance this - their only instinct is to accelerate, not slow down.

Am I being too abstract?