Okay, enough about guns and capital punishment. Let's talk about the future ...

[Toad]

Santa,

Some old wag said: "Life: No one here gets out alive"

A Navy buddy used to say:  "Life! This is no drill! Repeat, This is no drill!"

I think they're right. Tear off all you can chew on your first pass and then grab another bite as you egress.

 

[Naso]

Oh God !!!

I like this thread !!!

 

[blur]

For those of you on the "fence" regarding GE issues and have no ethical concerns I'd like to give a brief description of some of the technical procedures involved to shed some additional light on this subject.

If you remember from biology you have a basic unit called a cell. Inside each cell are pairs of chromosomes that contain loops of DNA thread.

The basic building block of DNA is the four nucleotides (A,C,T,G) which spell out instructions on how to make any protein. Specific segments of the DNA thread are called genes. These contain instructions for a particular cell trait or process.

In the front of each gene there is a control area called the promoter. This determines what protein sequence is to be made and how much. This functions as a gene "flag".

Now we come to genetic engineering whereby DNA segments are "spliced" into an existing DNA chain. Let's say you want to insert a human gene into a pig. Our scientist runs into a problem here. Unless the incoming segment contains a code the promoter area recognizes it will not be accepted. So, instead of spending years and perhaps decades to fully understand this complex process, what does our intrepid researcher do? He piggybacks the DNA segment on a virus. Viruses contain very powerful promoters, which can break through the gene safeguards and insert their genetic information in the host DNA chain. This is called a Trojan Horse.

As we all know viruses replicate quickly and are uncontrollable.  Are you getting that warm fuzzy feeling yet?

Genetic engineering is still an experimental "test-tube" science. It demonstrates a wanton disregard for the inherent intelligence and beauty of the building blocks of life. In computer terms genetic engineering is not engineering at all, it's "hacking".

I can just see it now. We have a young couple looking into the pained eyes of their eight month old genetically modified child because the piggy-back virus is replicating it's code sequence in random areas of the DNA chain and the child is now literally unraveling from the inside out. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet right?

At the rate things are going we should expect to have our first genetic "Chernobyl" within 20 years, maybe 10.


[This message has been edited by blur (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Dowding]

It seems to me you have a problem with GE partly because 'accidents' might happen or that its application might not bring the 'right' results.

By implication, surely you have a problem with conventional medicine or biological science in general? Look at Thalidimide or the widespread use of 'bleeding' in the 19th century - both of these things were developed in the belief that their use might alleviate some ailment. They didn't and there are many examples of a similar nature.

In my opinion, the issue isn't that side-effects might be bad - all medical operations can go wrong, from anesthesia to key-hole surgery; accidents do happen. The issue is in who's hand the power is. An independent, regulatory body with very strict powers is what's needed - the ethical issues have to be decided through DISCUSSION without reactionary bias.

I have absolutely no problem with the use of GE technology to eliminate heriditory disease - I don't agree with its use in cosmetic applications, however. I have a similar view on vivesection.

[Igloo]

 

No one should have to be trapped in a dysfunctional body / mind only because of a faulty gene that could have been fixed.

Ahh, but then you get into the side of the debate where spiritual beliefs take hold.  Many people believe that such conditions are necessary for that soul to experience to further it's growth.  And really, science cannot tell us whether or not this is true.


What I meant by medical purposes is by using gentically engineered people as a source for spare parts.  I don't think it would ever come to that though because it is much easier to engineer a organ than a person.  


------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[LJK Raubvogel]

Anyone ever read any of the "Lazarus" books by Robert Heinlein? Interesting stuff, and probably not too far off in the distant future. Maybe not in mine or your lifetime, but eventually, dying of old age will probably be a choice.

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Ahh, but then you get into the side of the debate where spiritual beliefs take hold.  Many people believe that such conditions are necessary for that soul to experience to further it's growth.  And really, science cannot tell us whether or not this is true.


What I meant by medical purposes is by using gentically engineered people as a source for spare parts.  I don't think it would ever come to that though because it is much easier to engineer a organ than a person.  

Igloo,

You missed the point again. The key part was that no one should HAVE to live in a dysfunctional body. If they choose to out of a religous belief it is not a case of having no choice. See the difference?

Mav

[Igloo]

How does the child being born make that decision?  

My understanding is that the genes have to be maniuplated very early on in life.

I didn't miss the point, now you're refering to parents making that decision for the child?  Still undecided if even they have that right.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
How does the child being born make that decision?  

My understanding is that the genes have to be maniuplated very early on in life.

I didn't miss the point, now you're refering to parents making that decision for the child?  Still undecided if even they have that right.

Igloo,

You are inferring something that I did not say. Notice, no where in that post did I use the words children or parents.

I do not share your assumption about the age of the victim being determinant in the treatment possibilities. I figure (hope) that treatments will be available to use on those who already have the physical problems and are trapped in a body that is not whole.

mav

[Igloo]

Mav, I am fairly certian that genetic manipulation must be done very early in life.  We do not have a chance to have it done, whereas a newborn or a child even prior to being born does.

Our body would reject any new genetic code, and I'm fairly certian an infant has a higher chance of accepting the changes. Remember, this is the manipulation of the DNA structure.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Gunthr]

Raubvogel, I read the Heinlein work, "Time Enough To Love" - a truly great sci fi book.
I sort of choked on his atheistic leanings, but I got such a kick out of the story of Lazarus Long that I overlooked it. Here are two of my favorite quotes from the book:
--------------------------------------------

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
- Robert A. Heinlein
---------------------------------------------

"An armed society is a polite society."
- Robert A. Heinlein

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Mav, I am fairly certain that genetic manipulation must be done very early in life.  We do not have a chance to have it done, whereas a newborn or a child even prior to being born does.

Our body would reject any new genetic code, and I'm fairly certain an infant has a higher chance of accepting the changes. Remember, this is the manipulation of the DNA structure.

Igloo,

Using this as your premise, only infants or a fetus will be able to accept a cloned organ.

I didn't say that the repair had to be based solely on a full genetic replacement. Making the repair based on the recipients gene code would avoid the rejection issues.

Then again we could be saying about the same thing from different perspectives.

Mav

[Fariz]

Some people broke machines to stop a progress. Other burned books and burned those, who wrote those books.

Truth is that progress is something what is hard to stop. And because the creativity power in the humanity is stronger, than the tanatos (as the history shows us), I believe that somedays we will reach the stars.

Only bad thing is that I wont see it.

Fariz

P.S. Russian poet Voznisenski wrote (my  translation, sorry).

"Even if, by a coincedent, I are harrowed by a crowd"
"Even then I believe than in average human 90% of good."

[Igloo]

Mav, these are two different things.  The process of genetically manipulating the DNA sequence to cure downs syndrome, for example, must be done to the fetus.  It will not work on people who already have it, only on those who are developing it.


The process of genetically engineering a heart, for example, is entirely different.  It is not changing the actual DNA sequence of the individual, it is only replacing an organ.  This can be done at any stage in life.

Both are possible.  

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Dowding]

Igloo - DNA manipulation to eliminate genetic diseases would have to be done when there are as few cells as possible - i.e. before the sperm and egg cells have combined.

Rejection of transplanted organs is essentially due to DNA differences between the host and the donor.