Genetic Research

Following the successful cloning of human embryonic stem cells in South Korea I thought I would add a topic to discuss the wisdom, or not, (as the case may be) of cutting back this kind of research. The UK has decided to continue with some work in this area but the US has decided as far as I can tell to ban all such research.

Given the success of the S. Koreans, and I believe Japanese and Chinese scientists are also working in this field, is there a danger that the we are simply bowing out of the next big thing in medicine and that these countries will leap ahead of us technologically? In the future, if they are successful, the rich of the West will pay for these treatments in Korean, Japanese or European clinics? - whilst potentially life-saving treatments will be unavailable to the general public in those countries who have declined to go down this route.

Of course, putting the other side of the argument, have our Governments shown wisdom in protecting us from the unknown dangers that lay ahead?

I think, on the whole, I support the current UK position of continued but careful advance in order that we do still have, at least, a finger-hold on the technology, perchance it should take off. However, I fully understand if someone were to say that this position is, at best, amoral opportunism. :rolleyes: I am open to others opinions on this.

The problem with this is all based on religion...are we playing God?..take this out of the equasion and nearly all ethical dilemas dissapear.
As someone that doubts the exsistance of God (doubts but doesn't deny) i still find certain aspects worrying.I still believe that we don't need to clone Humans as we don't have a shortage. However if cells can be cloned and altered and in turn this could cure cancer for example then i am all for it and i think it is shortsighted to ban such research.
We don't need to alter genetic make ups to produce chickens with a dozen legs for the benefit of KFC and we don't need to cross species (look what happened with the bees in south America)
just a short simplified viewpoint.

At some point, reality will out.

It is a difficult question, even apart from the religious/moral aspects.

I am always reminded of Jeff Goldblum's line in "Jurassic Park", something to the effect of, "They were so enamored of the fact they could, they never stopped to consider whether or not they should. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@16 February 2004 - 22:35
Following the successful cloning of human embryonic stem cells in South Korea I thought I would add a topic to discuss the wisdom, or not, (as the case may be) of cutting back this kind of research. The UK has decided to continue with some work in this area but the US has decided as far as I can tell to ban all such research.

Given the success of the S. Koreans, and I believe Japanese and Chinese scientists are also working in this field, is there a danger that the we are simply bowing out of the next big thing in medicine and that these countries will leap ahead of us technologically? In the future, if they are successful, the rich of the West will pay for these treatments in Korean, Japanese or European clinics? - whilst potentially life-saving treatments will be unavailable to the general public in those countries who have declined to go down this route.

Of course, putting the other side of the argument, have our Governments shown wisdom in protecting us from the unknown dangers that lay ahead?

I think, on the whole, I support the current UK position of continued but careful advance in order that we do still have, at least, a finger-hold on the technology, perchance it should take off. However, I fully understand if someone were to say that this position is, at best, amoral opportunism. :rolleyes: I am open to others opinions on this.

---

It's scientific progress, Biggles, good or bad, you can't stop it, someone somewhere
will carry it on, look at neuclear phisics bad idea but now it's been put to good use.

the future of medicine will prolly involve some form of human cell cloning. if this is able to swing stem cell research away from the use of fetuses, put an end to that controversy, and advance the notion of cloning as a component of medicine in practice, it sounds like a wonderful breakthrough. i mean, if we are on the brink of being able to clone a new arm or a new heart for someone that really needs it, then why not? and maybe there'll be some great benefit to humanity by cloning stem cells.

altho... maybe j2k4 has a point with his jurassic park reference. frankenstein would've been just as appropriate a reference. science fiction, at least science fiction in its noblest form, has always been a great medium for tackling the philosophical/ethical/psychological issues of science, and even just plumbing the more unusual aspects of the human condition. we certainly wouldn't want a cloning fad to result in a mad scientist creating an army of deranged, fire-breathing, tokyo-stomping super-monsters... ;)

@j2k4: that's not intended to make fun of your post. you raised a completely valid objection, imho.

Genetic research is an emotive subject, Frankenstein does spring to mind. However, as was noted above, if clinics can start replacing organs and limbs without the necessity of waiting for donors or concern over rejection then those clinics in those countries which have carried out the research will have enormous clout.

I suspect that this is why the UK has decided to go for a halfway house approach. Medicine is big business, if these technologies do take off those at the forefront will reap huge benefits. I am only guessing here, but I also suspect that major US companies will not want to be left behind. Their capital will flow into those research facilities which have a more tolerant environment to work under - unless the current administration intends to penalise corporations that invest in research in this area.

Biggles

"this position is, at best, amoral opportunism". Whether or not the cloning of human cells should take place, should be a matter for weighing up the pros of advancements in medicine against the cons of seriously deeply held moral and ethical objections. Whether or not we will fall behind in the research is not, for me, an issue.

I am reminded that a lot of the advances in medicine, primarily in surgery and knowledge of the human anatomy, come from the treatment of prisoners during war times. As I understand it a lot of experimentation was done on people in the concentration camps. A lot of good has come from this, a lot of people's lifes have been saved or dramatically enhanced. However if we could turn back time, would we (the human race) commit these atrocities again, no matter the rewards in scientific knowledge ? I hope the answer is no.

Advancement sometimes has a cost, it is often not easy to see that cost, but we must consider it. As someone said earlier, we should not just consider whether we can, we must also consider whether we should.

I would agree about the Genie and the bottle. However, I think the comparison you draw is perhaps a little stretched. There is a difference between messing around with a microscopic clump of cells and dragging some poor sod kicking and screaming into a medical torture chamber.

I do accept that for some there are religious/ethical considerations regarding clumps of cells, but these are fairly specific to certain strands of thinking within those religions. For other religions or those who have none, these are just clumps of cells and less of an ethical issue than say testing on live animals. (I seem to recall reading somewhere that the ancient Zarathustrian religion believes the soul does not enter the human body until the 22nd week of pregnancy.)

Nevertheless, as the technology develops some clown will want to clone himself and no doubt it will happen. More worrying will be those want to improve the human gene pool whether we will or no. The Eugenists of tomorrow. If a Nazi style regime were to come to power in the future with access to this kind of technology then who knows what might happen.

As I said, I don't rule out work in this area, but caution is not a bad idea either.

Humans mess with nature far to often... atom bombs... global warming... why not try and work with it rather than against it.. as someone else said someone will still carry on the research even if it is outlawed.. i just hope they learn from there mistakes :rolleyes:

I think this research is very important and should be done.

If its going to be able to help quadriplegic people to walk again, im all for it. :)

Im sure when blood tranfusions were made possible, their were people that were against it.

Its going to be the same with this.

If we can grow organs for people that need them why the fuck not ??

I myself am all for this sort of research due to the possible applications it may make possible in medicine in the future.

The concerns with this sort of research are largely split into three main groups (as far as I can see);

Ensoulment: due to concerns regarding whether the cells used have a soul and whether it is therefore wrong to use them for this purpose. This is not really an issue for me as I am agnostic (verging on the side of athiesm perhaps however).

Interfering with nature/playing god: concepts about the apparent purity and balance of nature and creationism (as well as often further religious comments) lead to many not wishing it to be interfered with. In my view however the nature we currently see came about through evolution and other scientific principles and was certainly not designed to be balanced, fair or of benefit to humanity (or designed at all in fact), so interfering with nature is not really a problem so long as we consider the impacts on the other organisms we share this planet with and upon whom we are to some degree dependant.

Attack of the Clones: people are also worried that research of this type might make cloning human beings possible and although I have no major moral objection against this, I am probably against the cloning of full human beings as it would reduce the variety of people on earth (making things less interesting), reduce the gene pool (perhaps causing problems with recessive genetic disorders and resistance to disease) and because I quite like being unique. The current research by no means makes this possible however so I have no objections to it.

Basically I think it is best to bring some very clear legislation in quickly across the world so as to make a clear distinction between theraputic (allowed) and reproductive (banned) cloning, rather than leaving it in the current state of uncertainty existing in most countries.

Quote:

---

In my view however the nature we currently see came about through evolution and other scientific principles and was certainly not designed to be balanced, fair or of benefit to humanity

---

I think you are confusing nature and society. How is nature a product of scientific principles, the later results from (evolved?) humans trying to understand nature.

Biggles

I did not mean to suggest that the situations were directly analagous. In my clumsy way I was just expressing the opinion that the ends do not always justify the means. As you are aware, having read your posts, hyperbole is a useful tool.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@20 February 2004 - 21:15
Biggles

I did not mean to suggest that the situations were directly analagous. In my clumsy way I was just expressing the opinion that the ends do not always justify the means. As you are aware, having read your posts, hyperbole is a useful tool.

---

:lol:

Oh yes indeed!

:-"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles+20 February 2004 - 22:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 20 February 2004 - 22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@20 February 2004 - 21:15
Biggles

I did not mean to suggest that the situations were directly analagous. In my clumsy way I was just expressing the opinion that the ends do not always justify the means. As you are aware, having read your posts, hyperbole is a useful tool.

---

:lol:

Oh yes indeed&#33;

:-"[/b][/quote]
;)

In the same spirit.

@ Wizard Mon1

No, my point remains the same...although perhaps I did not explain or define what I was saying well enough. Firstly I should clarify that I was making a point about the natural world and organisms such as humans, as opposed to current society.

I have the impression that many people talk of nature itself as being created (generally be a kind god) for the benefit of humanity. Perhaps people might say how great it is that plants photosynthesise which provides us with the oxygen we need etc. etc. and that this and other things were created purely for our benefit. If you believe however that these things came about by evolution and other natural processes which have been discovered by science, you can see that things such as the example I suggested came about with no planning and forethought, and were therefore not designed to benefit humanity.

Therefore it may not be of benefit to humanity not to &#39;play god&#39; and interefere with nature, so long as environmental concerns are taken into account. It also should be said that few people are complaining when a doctor saves a patients life, or about the many things we take for granted that came about through science and invention such as the computers we are now using to communicate in this forum and utilities such as toilets. These things are hardly natural and some (as in the doctor example) could be seen as playing god. I believe it is in fact our versatility at creating and using tools (and therefore interfering with nature if you view humanity to be outside nature) such as these (although starting with far simpler ones such as termite probes, clubs and fire) that has allowed humanity to be so successful. Whether this inventiveness and things such as science will eventually be our downfall is open to debate but they have certainly kept us going rather than killed us off so far.

Finally, although scientific principles were brought about by humans to describe what they could see, the statistics and processes determined by observation which they saw are still there, and therefore it can be said that they came about by what has been modelled by science...the scientific principles such as evolution. It is correct terminology to say an organism (and all current organisms) came into their current form through evolution. Perhaps our misunderstanding comes down to my use of the word &#39;principle&#39;?

This is a column by a writer I read fairly often, Charley Reese.

I offer it here only to provide an additional perspective on the topic of this thread.

I will dispense with any further disclaimer, as whoever wants to brand me with the thoughts herein is bound to do so anyway-suffice it to say I ran across it with what seemed to me to be fortuitous timing for inclusion here.

2/11/04 Eugenics Is Back

Human beings are funny. Not funny in the ha-ha sense, but funny in the sense of peculiar.

Take the subject of eugenics. We humans are mammals, and since we know that selective breeding of other mammals (dogs, for example) can produce not only differences in physical appearance but differences in temperament, it&#39;s logical that the same thing could be done with people.

This topic was kind of all the rage early in the past century. Margaret Sanger, for example, was an early advocate of contraception and abortion because she thought there were way too many people she considered inferior (blacks and browns) walking around. She wanted to cull the herd.

Then along came Adolf Hitler, who gave the subject a bad name for reasons you can explore by reading a history of the Third Reich. At any rate, after World War II, eugenics and talk of anything remotely related to it became taboo. Even today, to even suggest that intelligence might be largely a matter of heredity will bring the wrath of the politically correct down on your neck.

So, OK, the consensus is that eugenics is a bad subject, and we just won&#39;t talk about it. But — and this is what is peculiar — breakthroughs in genetics have people talking about tampering with people&#39;s genetic code to cure diseases and do other things.

OK, let&#39;s have a drumroll. Genetic tampering is the same subject as eugenics. Eugenics is about engineering a certain type of human being. It makes no difference whether it&#39;s done with selective breeding (a slower but more fun way) or by tampering with the genes in a laboratory. Frankenstein is Frankenstein, no matter which method you employ to create him.

Words and thoughts have no effect on reality. The fact that we wish to say that "eugenics" is a bad word and to remain in denial does not alter the fact that we are largely what our genes say we are, and that if the genes are altered, the person will be altered.

I&#39;ve come to believe that every civilization is a matrix of truths and lies, and the lies are often as cherished as the truths. When Mary Shelley created the Frankenstein monster in her novel, she was expressing the fears of people of her day about science. I think many of us share those fears. We look at science as something devoid of human emotion and compassion, a ruthlessly true set of facts that cares nothing for our ethics or dreams or religious beliefs or wishes or even our very existence.

Whether we like it or not, however, the truth of how much of our existence is controlled by genes will eventually dominate our society. Then will arise all the troubling questions that we have deliberately avoided dealing with for the past century.

For example, why insist that drivers prove their qualifications while allowing anybody, no matter how obviously degenerate, to create offspring? Should not the government prevent people with genetic defects from having children? Why not selectively breed people who are smarter, stronger and faster than normal human beings? And what are we going to do when science proves definitively that some groups are, on average, genetically smarter or less smart than other groups?

We have built our society on the political concept of equality, but equality does not accurately reflect the natural world. As one writer put it, nature creates by profusion, not by uniformity. Some apologists are trying to avoid the truth by talking about how 97 percent of genes are the same in all people and animals. That&#39;s just begging the question. It&#39;s the 3 percent difference that produces a Great Dane rather than a Chihuahua.

I sometimes get the feeling that science is a speeding train that is about to smash our civilization to pieces. I also get the feeling that I will not like the civilization that science creates to replace the old one. It would be cruelly ironic if Hitler had the last laugh.

Thanks for clearing that up - nice post.

My understanding of nature is how the earth and cosmos work e.g. sessions, day and night, sun & moon, water, earth, fire, trees, animals.

The point i was making was that by working with nature we can understand it better, e.g. plants have many curative affects.

I think that western medicine has made some amazing discoveries but if we had a better understanding of nature many of the problems within the human body might not be created in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@21 February 2004 - 20:11
Then along came Adolf Hitler, who gave the subject a bad name for reasons you can explore by reading a history of the Third Reich. At any rate, after World War II, eugenics and talk of anything remotely related to it became taboo.

---

I think the first line there is actually the most telling of the article, Hitler gave eugenics a bad name which it still hasn&#39;t recovered from. However, imo the principles of eugenics are scientifically sound. Humans have removed themselves from evolution and natural selection and without this competition at the genetic level there will inevitably be a weakening of the gene pool. Imo the real problem is deciding what constitutes an undesirable gene sequence, personally I&#39;d probably draw the line at seriously harmful genetic diseases eg cystic fibrosis or hemophilia. (ie persistent medical intervention required).

There was a documentary about this sort of stuff a while back on tv, with the Nobel prize winning co-discoverer of DNA James Watson, who seems strongly in favour of genetic tampering/screening though i had the impression he was exaggerating in order to be more provocative and confrontational. (More info here). There was one part of the documentary that i found interesting and that was James Watson meeting a family whose child had Down Syndrom. If i remember well the family were dead against any form of genetic screening and argued that their child had just as happy a life as any other child and that he/she brought happiness into other peoples lives. Watson wasn&#39;t shaken from his argument at all and i think i agree with him.

I found this on the bbc website:

Quote:

---

"If you are going to manipulate the genetic composition of an individual you are changing not only that individual, but perhaps a thousand descendants of that individual.

"This is so-called germ line manipulation, and it is very tightly regulated because it could be hideously abused."

"The fundamental issue is a question of justice between generations. Do we control the next generation in that sort of way? Are they are a sort of custom-specified commodity?"

---

Wizard Mon1

I believe your point is quite correct and well made...much can be discovered which would be of use to humanity from nature itself and has been in many cases. This, as you may well know, is one of the many reasons why rainforest deforestation is a great problem. The reduction in biodiversity it causes could be making extinct many species which might yield cures to major diseases humanity suffers from.

It appears that the definitions of nature we were using differ (and thats perhaps where our misunderstanding lay). Perhaps my definition of nature as the living world as opposed to this as well as the other things of which you speak (eg. water, day and night) was slightly narrower than it should have been.



It is also interesting that eugenics has been brought into this topic, as well as James Watson. In the later parts of his book DNA: The Secret of life he writes a particularly compelling argument for eugenics (though his definition of this may differ from many peoples) and I agree with him. Eugenics, as in trying to take some control over human germ lines in some way so as to improve the human race, is certainly a possibility which needs considering in the future, despite the way in which it has been tainted in the public view by Nazi pseudoscience and similar (although less extreme) pseudoscience carried out in the USA in the 20th Century.

Currently it appears to be both scientifically viable and morally acceptable (to many at least) so long as it is incredibly stringently controlled and possible improvements are limited to a small number of things, such as eradication of serious genetic diseases. It should also be noted that the methods by which eugenics could be carried out would also need to be stringently controlled and should certainly not include things such as forced sterilisation.

I know that I may have stuck my head above the parapet to some degree but believe that the people of this forum are open-minded and reasonable enough to think through these arguments carefully, rather than seeing the suggestion of eugenics and immediately launching into a flame war. It would be interesting to know what the general view is regarding what has been considered in this topic.

Hitlers version of eugenics was a perversion of what it should mean to a scientist.

Height, strength, and speed are really not relevant to human survival. You only need a certain amount of each to lead a successful life and reproduce. The notion that the human race would be better if we could produce such physical specimens, seems to tell more about the issues Hitler had with his own physical imperfections than anything else.

I see eugenics as the ability to repair a rather degraded human genome. Why degraded. Well, how many of you could survive or would be dead without medical intervention.

Do you wear glasses, do you take insulin, has you appendix been removed. Did you get immunizations and boosters? Have you ever had pneumonia and needed antibiotics.

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions then you may have died in childhood had you been born just 500 years ago. I know I would have walked off a cliff with my poor vision.

You are now protected by a society that frees you from your genetic weaknesses and you have been removed from the pool of natural selection.

The goal of science is to restore your genes so that you may be healthy enough to survive to a reproductive age.

If you have cystic fibrosis, you make improper Chloride channels. Current therapy options do not treat the disease, but help to alleviate the symptoms.

With gene therapy, a proper chloride gene can be spliced into your genome, and the disease is completely cured.

That is the goal of genetic research, as I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@21 February 2004 - 13:11


So, OK, the consensus is that eugenics is a bad subject, and we just won&#39;t talk about it. But — and this is what is peculiar — breakthroughs in genetics have people talking about tampering with people&#39;s genetic code to cure diseases and do other things.

OK, let&#39;s have a drumroll. Genetic tampering is the same subject as eugenics. Eugenics is about engineering a certain type of human being. It makes no difference whether it&#39;s done with selective breeding (a slower but more fun way) or by tampering with the genes in a laboratory. Frankenstein is Frankenstein, no matter which method you employ to create him.

---

Given the internal logic of this essay, I fail to see how he can discriminate between penicillin and genetic research.
If genetic research, with the goal of curing disease, is bad, then isn&#39;t penicillin equally as tainted?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+22 February 2004 - 21:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 22 February 2004 - 21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@21 February 2004 - 13:11


So, OK, the consensus is that eugenics is a bad subject, and we just won&#39;t talk about it. But — and this is what is peculiar — breakthroughs in genetics have people talking about tampering with people&#39;s genetic code to cure diseases and do other things.

OK, let&#39;s have a drumroll. Genetic tampering is the same subject as eugenics. Eugenics is about engineering a certain type of human being. It makes no difference whether it&#39;s done with selective breeding (a slower but more fun way) or by tampering with the genes in a laboratory. Frankenstein is Frankenstein, no matter which method you employ to create him.

---

Given the internal logic of this essay, I fail to see how he can discriminate between penicillin and genetic research.
If genetic research, with the goal of curing disease, is bad, then isn&#39;t penicillin equally as tainted? [/b][/quote]
Your support of microbial genocide is reminiscent of Hitler, how ironic.

Think about it.

I&#39;m a clone, it hasn&#39;t done me any harm.

mirc

Guys-

As I said, I only posted the column because I felt it relevant.

As an aside, it&#39;s author, Charley Reese, is a registered democrat.

My take on the whole issue is one of caution, and at this remove, I&#39;m not sure whether my caution is born of what has gone before (Hitler, etc.) or that I think it represents an overstep into a "reserved" territory; a little of both, probably.

My enlightened self knows it could be the greatest boon to medicine ever; I have a very good friend who suffers from Parkinson&#39;s whose life and family has been devastated by the toll it has taken.

The possibility he could be helped weighs greatly on my mind.

The upside possibilities are undeniable.

On the other hand, there are without doubt nefarious individuals and groups who could and would take this burgeoning technology in a very wrong direction.

This consideration cannot be overlooked by any National or International Authority, as it is not a question of "if" or "maybe"; I would presume it to be a "definite".

I am having a lot of difficulty dealing with the theological aspect of the question, though, and, personally, I don&#39;t feel I can pronounce one way or the other, though I am sorely tempted.

I am, as they say, flummoxed.

BTW-My thoughts are further complicated by the fact that the process, as it has been tried so far, apparently suffers from certain intangible circumstances (I wish I could remember what I&#39;ve read about it) when comes time to engineer a "human" experiment; there are one or two (or more) conundrums, and empirical knowledge, to this point, indicates no direction, or solution.

One wonders whether that door is intended to remain locked. :huh:

Edit: spelling

there&#39;s a thread in Hardware World that might be relevant as sort of a flip-side or parallel to this discussion, for speculation re: genetics, dna, prometheus/frankenstein, the mixing of the organic and the synthetic, the impending obsolescence of our traditional notions about biology, etc.

i thought i&#39;d go ahead and bring it to the attention of World News denizens who don&#39;t make a habit of visiting the Hardware forum. ;)

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=104256

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@12 March 2004 - 11:21
there&#39;s a thread in Hardware World that might be relevant as sort of a flip-side or parallel to this discussion, for speculation re: genetics, dna, prometheus/frankenstein, the mixing of the organic and the synthetic, the impending obsolescence of our traditional notions about biology, etc.

i thought i&#39;d go ahead and bring it to the attention of World News denizens who don&#39;t make a habit of visiting the Hardware forum.&nbsp; ;)

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=104256

---

Yup.

Another take on the same theme:

Prey, a book by Michael Crichton.

Nanotech, bio-engineering, DNA, all that stuff.

Pretty scary. ;)