The forefront of science

[Dav]

I just want to get some views on this, seems all we talk about here is america so something fresh is in order.

 

Over the past 50 years we have moves further fowards in biochemistry, micro and cellular biology that noone could have dreamt of the current wealth of knoledge we have. With the human genome sequenced and us beginning to understand where the genes are located and what they do gene therapy is coming into the visible future.

 

Stem cell research is another huge area and growing fast, the possibilities this brings are almost unimaginable from growing new organd to treating desises such as parkinsons.

 

Here is the question, should we be going in this direction or are we playing too much with the natural cycle of things?

 

Here is my view on the matter.

 

This research has many problems in the international media, of course "possible cure for altsimers" or "cystic fibrosis is no more" wont sell as many papers as "GM superhumans in the next 10 years". This give people a rather srong feeling this should not be done at all. The ting is most people carring out this research have no intention of these things, its the cure of desiese and the understanding that drives them and thus requlation is required. The regulation needs to be adequate to stop the renagades that for some deranged reson feel that a GM superhuman or human clone is a good idea

 

I am in full support of this research and find it increadably interesting (hence my reasons for taking a degree in biochemistry). I also feel its a very important matter for the evolution of our sociaty.

 

But doesnt nature want to get rid of the bad genes?

The answer is yes, but by gene therapy these genes are removed and thus naturs work has been sone, with thye benifit of somone that would uaually die having the chance to live a full and normal life.

 

Being as human life is such a presous gift, i feel all we can must be done to prolong it and allow every single person to stay well and active throughout it.

[SamHughes]

Gene therapy is not an issue. It does not affect the human gene pool.

 

More dangerous is the replacement of genes at the zygote stage, in order to cure diseases. These changes can alter the human gene pool, and there is no distinct line between curing congenital diseases, fixing pseudo-problems, like ADD or obesity, and adding enhancements, such is greater height or intelligence. Modifying genes at the zygote stage is unnecessary anyway, because the doctor could easily throw out that specimen and choose one that doesn't have the genetic problem (a method which of course leaves the gene pool untouched).

 

But why should we care if we modify the gene pool? Well, if we modify the gene pool, we'd soon be producing beings that are barely human. Bigotry and elitism will happen on both sides. Also, we'll get an arms race of genetic modification. We might at some point be able to give our babies 150 IQs, but ten years later, we'll discover genes that give them 170 IQs and amazing athletic ability. All people would grow up knowing that they would quickly become obsolete. That doesn't sound like a happy society.

 

So, conventional gene therapy doesn't matter, and gene replacement in the pre-embryonic stage, the dangerous activity, is completey unnecessary for birthing a healthy child. Non-person-producing research doesn't threaten society, so I don't see any problem with it.

 

Chimeras pose an interesting problem.

[Aileron]

I don't like the idea of regulations. Lawyers can find loopholes in them. People can choose simply not to follow them. Or, people can push the line.

 

Something stronger than regulations should be implaced.

 

 

Fortuneatly we have something. Psycologists have done studies on twins seperated at birth, and found that about 50% of a person is genetics, 50% the environment. Thus, to get the 180 IQ, they not only have to enhance the baby but nurture the child, hoping that they can controll every element of this upbringing which they clearly can't.

 

Also, the technology is very very far from this being cost-effective enough to impliment.

 

 

Ofcourse, you must realise that we are already manipulating the gene pool. People choose their mates very carefully, so people with good qualities have an easier time producing children than people lacking them. The point is natural childbirth has its own installed system of this, and it costs a lot less.

[Sass]

I'm under the !@#$%^&*umption that many 2nd and 3rd world countries' desire to proliferate nuclear weapons along with the means to deliver them across the globe will inevidibly surp!@#$%^&* the need to find cures and healing. Therefore I also assume that we the world will truly destroy ourselves before the reality of superhumans becomes a real threat through over-population.

 

Sure it sounds sci-fi, but let's face it - man's survival instinct combined with hatred will lead us to it.

[»Ducky]

I am pro, always have been.

Studying it and implementing it in certain situations will open up doorways into other areas.

 

I personally don't see a huge downside in my life time.

I don't have solid factional reasons for the belief, so don't for ask any.

[Phyran]

watch gundam seed and gundam seed destiny

 

great mecha anime about naturals (natural born humans) having a war with coordinators (genetically enhanced humans)

 

deals with the sadness and hatred of war and prejudice and some very nice action

[MonteZuma]

This area definitely needs strict control. There is too much at stake to leave it to 'market forces' (or whatever). I don't really have a problem with manipulating genes, with some caveats.

 

In general, I'm opposed to experiments carried out on human embryos. I think an extreme precautionary approach should be taken with regards to genetic modification of any organism (to the point where a GMO is considered a bio-hazard until *proven* otherwise). The idea of designer babies needs to be knocked on the head. People should not be able to custom-build children (can you imagine what Michael Jackson would have done with this kind of technology?).

 

There are so many ethical issues. I don't know or understand many of them. But I think that this is an area where we can't trust scientists or governments to do the right thing.

[Aileron]

Actually, one can trust both scientists and government with this. They were trusted with the atomic bomb and for what its worth the world is still in one piece.

 

What you meant to say was the corporations and very rich people can't be trusted with this technology.

 

Market forces are usually stronger than regulations...people might do illegal things for money, but nobody will do something that is both immoral in their eyes and causes them to lose money. The only problem is that there are few ways to controll market forces.

[Phyran]

do remember that morals change overtime

 

during WW2, carpet bombing cities was considers so immoral and an atrocity that even Hitler didnt do it, but as the war extended on and on everyone went "wtf lets do it anyway" and the morality of it changed ever since.

[Aileron]

But after WWII was over it shifted back into the immoral status. So, really its one constant view...city bombing is immoral, only excusable if you are caught in a really really ugly war. I mean, in WWII, nobody cared if their actions were moral, they just wanted their country to be around tomorrrow.

 

Really though, morality doesn't change, just our view of it. If between now and the time this science is perfected our view of this issue changes, we should let whoever is around at that time decide.

 

We have moral issues of our time to work out...let our children solve the moral issues of their time.

[MonteZuma]

What you meant to say was the corporations and very rich people can't be trusted with this technology.

No. That isn't what I meant to say. Frankly, I think that no individual, be they a corporation or a person or a government, can be trusted to manage this kind of technology. Society needs to make the rules.

[MonteZuma]

But after WWII was over it shifted back into the immoral status.

Not really. It didn't shift until Viet Nam. Thanks to colour television.

 

Really though, morality doesn't change, just our view of it.

I understand your point, and maybe you are right. But I'm not so sure. Morality is only about the distinction between right and wrong. That changes all the time.

 

If between now and the time this science is perfected our view of this issue changes, we should let whoever is around at that time decide.

I don't think it works like that. The research itself is dangerous. Once something is invented, it can't be uninvented. However people and governments can make decisions about what research will be funded and what won't.

 

e have moral issues of our time to work out...let our children solve the moral issues of their time.

I think we need to work it out now. Some issues are already here and others are just around the corner. We also need to know where to invest our research money today.

[Sass]

lol - O crystal ball, what do you see?

[MonteZuma]

You don't need a crystal ball. All you have to do is look into the past and learn something from history. Try it some time. Where there is a knowledge gap, you make an !@#$%^&*essment as to whether or not the gap needs to be filled, and whether or not the benefit will outweigh the cost. We don't need to fill every gap. It isn't rocket science and it isn't magic.

 

Messing around with life processes, at any level, from the introduction of new species into new ecosystems, or the manipulation of the building blocks of life, has had tragic unforseen and irreversible consequences in the past and it will in the future.

 

One area where genetic manipulation is now mainstreeam is in the use of genetically modified crops that are herbicide resistant. You don't need to be a soothsayer to imagine how that kind of genetic manipulation could accidentally produce an annoying and costly agricultural weed. Is it worth developing that kind of organism if the chance of it going feral and damaging the agricultural economy is 40%. What if the chance of an adverse impact was totally unknown? Scientists and politicians can't answer that kind of question. That is a question for society to ponder.

 

I hope I helped improve your understanding of the issue. I like to help people.

[Sass]

lol, I hate having to simplify things for you but I will do it in short understandable statements.

 

Money

 

Greed

 

!@#$%^&* happens.

 

How does your 'learning from history' help you here my friend. You've forgotten that history has proven that you cannot stop the inevidible mechanism of invention. Perhaps you're realizing the futility of arguing for 'strict' control when truly market forces will dominate.

 

I hope I've brought you back to the real world. I like to help people....too.

[Dav]

Of course genertic manipulation can go much further, look at GM crops.

 

In the future it may be usefull to produce new antibiotics once natural strains become useless against the ever evolving bacterial infections.

[»SD>Big]

loosly based on this thread but really cool!

 

"Wired News has published that Scientists have successfully modified the AIDS-causing HIV in such a way that it can attack metasticized melanoma (cancer cells). The impact of genetic research on cancer research is in and of itself amazing. To mix this with the strategy of using one strong enemy against another is brilliance! Research will continue, obviously, but they are already reporting success on living creatures."

 

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,6...tw=wn_tophead_1

[Dav]

i was wondering if this was a possibility after learning how the HIV virus attatckes cells. The gene therapy prospect is more exciting though, given time it will im sure be a plausable methord.

 

Thanks for the link.

[Aileron]

Hey, genetic manipulation has its benefits too...how many of you eat food? If you have ever eaten something in your life, you have probably eaten a plant or animal that several millenia ago was bred and manipulated from varities found in nature.

 

I mean, just look at a modern cow or sheep and ask yourself if such an animal would survive in nature. They would most certainly not, the species were manipulated over the centuries to what they are today. Look at an ear of corn and see how the seeds stay on the cob rather than fall on the ground and scatter...that's a product of genetic tampering folks.

 

The "tragic unforseen and irreversible consequences" of this manipulation has brought mankind out of the paleolithic era. If it wasn't for manipulating life, its likely none of us would even be around today.

 

 

Breeding humans is wrong, but breeding plants and animals has always been regarded as acceptible. Since the genetic manipulation is very similar to breeding, I'd say it should follow the same guidlines, don't map the human genome, but feel free to do whatever you want to the plants and animals.

[MonteZuma]

lol, I hate having to simplify things for you but I will do it in short understandable statements.

Cool! That would be an improvement over your previous posts.

 

Money

 

Greed

 

!@#$%^&* happens

These are not statements. They are words.

 

Oh well. Maybe you can try again next time.

 

How does your 'learning from history' help you here my friend.

If you don't know, then your teachers have failed you. Pick up a book one day and you might figure it out. If you read on, you might find a few examples.

 

You've forgotten that history has proven that you cannot stop the inevidible mechanism of invention.

Wrong. For an extreme example, look up "Dark Ages" in your encyclopedia. The history of mankind is basically a cycle of dark ages and renaissances. For a basic example, have a look at any research organisation's budget. People choose what knowledge will be advanced and what won't. That is why we know more about the moon than we do about ocean abysses.

 

Perhaps you're realizing the futility of arguing for 'strict' control when truly market forces will dominate.

When it comes to nuclear technology, we don't leave it to market forces. Why should we do the same with genetic technology?

 

I hope I've brought you back to the real world.  I like to help people....too.

You've helped noone. But thanks for trying.

[MonteZuma]

Hey, genetic manipulation has its benefits too...

I'm not against all kinds of genetic research or manipulation. Undoubtedly it has many potential benefits - including for agriculture and the environment. But the risks need to be weighed up against the benefits on a case by case basis.

 

don't map the human genome, but feel free to do whatever you want to the plants and animals.

In some places, we actually do have restrictions on how animals can be bred - on the basis of animal welfare concerns, or public safety. But when it comes to the kind of genetic manipulation we are capable of today, we have a whole new ball game.

 

Herbicide resistant crops can lead to the emergence of herbicide reistant weeds. Those weeds don't stop at the farmer's fence. They blow over into the neighbours farm.

 

I vaguely recall an early incident when the seeds of crop modified to be Roundup (a herbicide) resistant blew across into a neighbours farm and started to grow there. Because it is roundup resistent, he would need to purchase new chemicals to remove it. The neighbour was later sued by the seed manufacturer for growing a patented crop without a license.

 

Similar problems occur when you have a GM-free organic farm next to one that uses GM crops. You just can't prevent contamination.

 

We also must remember that we are eating this stuff. Many of us complain that we eat too many pesticides, antibiotics or growth hormones in food, now we must also ask ourselves how else our vegetables or meats might be tainted. You just can't assume that GM will be a good thing. And you can't just do what you want with plants, animals and the food they produce.

[Sass]

lol, Montezuma, since you decided to 'attack the man' (isn't that how you put it - or is it some other spin spoof?) I've decided to redeclare your major issues - hence why no one cares for your opinion...

 

You have no proof of having a big member, only a big ego. Congrats on that. As for living in your neo-evangelical God's country, please tell your viewing audience any proof you have to substantiate that claim. Again, since God created the earth, you'll have none. Next.

 

You cannot be helped obviously because you are too egotistical to consider what smacks you in the face. Since I have tried and apparently failed, I will digress from attempting to teach an aborigine more than can be handled. Bling.

 

Since you like attacking me, I surely hope that your highness will have some digression in his near future.....or we can continue. Shall we? I do enjoy reverse spinning the spun view of life you have. Bling.

 

Shall we continue? Apparently you are not learning from history.

[Dav]

Hey, genetic manipulation has its benefits too...how many of you eat food?  If you have ever eaten something in your life, you have probably eaten a plant or animal that several millenia ago was bred and manipulated from varities found in nature.

 

I mean, just look at a modern cow or sheep and ask yourself if such an animal would survive in nature.  They would most certainly not, the species were manipulated over the centuries to what they are today.  Look at an ear of corn and see how the seeds stay on the cob rather than fall on the ground and scatter...that's a product of genetic tampering folks.

 

The "tragic unforseen and irreversible consequences" of this manipulation has brought mankind out of the paleolithic era.  If it wasn't for manipulating life, its likely none of us would even be around today.

 

 

Breeding humans is wrong, but breeding plants and animals has always been regarded as acceptible.  Since the genetic manipulation is very similar to breeding, I'd say it should follow the same guidlines, don't map the human genome, but feel free to do whatever you want to the plants and animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

true, our "intelligance" has allowed us to manipulate nature (i use inteligance loosely as an inteligant animal would not destroy its habitat) our selective bredding to our own needs has brought us everything from sheep to domestic cats.

 

Of course nature does this as well through evolution but we are coming to a new era with the ability to select and manipulate entire genomes.

 

Im all for this, for everything from removing a genetic weakness from a population of animals nearing extinction to save them (if we have destroyed most of them instead of a mostly natural degridation) to gene therapy. If every man is born equil then every person should have the right to live their full life expectancy.

 

The problem as i said comes from the rouge scientists that want to make cllones, design babies, enhance humans and so on. (personally if somones going to do that they shouldnt be allowed in university). The question here is over the moral issue, moral arguments can be risen on both sides and this is why world wide regulation is required on everything.

 

Further to this i thing gene patenting is a stupid idea, just people tring to profit because they idemntified a gene first and can make money from seeing if you have it, soesnt seem to benifit the scientific community much really considering that information can be used in much more productive ways then a profit tool.

[Sass]

I completely agree with your last statement Dav. It is truly about money - and not just rogue scientists....more like rogue CEO's.

[Dav]

in that case of our rouges its all money and fame.