Glow in the Dark Beagle

[Snoopy]

Yet, one must concede that so much of our medical progress has been on the backs and bodies of other critters, without which medicine would still be in the Middle Ages.

I do indeed concede it. We value our own species above all others and see them as expendable to our wishes.

s.

 

[Dream]

There is likely to be a lot of suffering as the world adjusts to the wonderful & equally cruel powers of genetics. As foresighted beings, we need to immediately prepare by emphasizing empathy both in laws and actions. If one lucky future generation finds its life lengthened by genetics, let it not be a cruel one. I don't want my life to have counted in the end only to increase cruelty.

 

[juantoo3]

We value our own species above all others and see them as expendable to our wishes.

Yep, the instinct for survival will do that to a species.

 

[juantoo3]

There is likely to be a lot of suffering as the world adjusts to the wonderful & equally cruel powers of genetics. As foresighted beings, we need to immediately prepare by emphasizing empathy both in laws and actions.

Even though we *are* capable of foresight, it is not our strong suit. If Frankenstein had known what a monster his creation would become, would he have created it anyway? One could argue that as brilliant as he was, he should have had the foresight to know better...

There was a program on PBS some years ago titled "Our Genes, Our Choices," a program I continue to recommend ever since I first watched. Representative experts across multiple fields from medicine to law to media as well as civil rights advocates all sat down and discussed the ethical implications of genetic medicine. It was quite enlightening, as there were avenues explored that I would not have thought to consider.

If one lucky future generation finds its life lengthened by genetics, let it not be a cruel one. I don't want my life to have counted in the end only to increase cruelty.

Mapping the genome is one thing, and learning to read it. Manipulation of the genome, particularly before the genome can be properly read, is quite another thing. Closely related is the use of embryonic fetal tissue, particularly when other tissues can be shown to be as effective or better.

What stands out to me from the PBS program even now was when Dr. Collins took on the Media representative (one of the regulars from the Newshour on PBS) and called them out for overhyping and sensationalizing the possible benefits of genetic medicine. He cautioned that we were still many years away from any applicable procedures.

It was also brought to light that as with any tissue, a patient's body has a tendency to reject foreign tissue...which is why organ transplant victims must remain on anti-rejection medicine for the rest of their lives, medicine that drastically lowers their ability to fend off *regular* diseases like the cold or flu. And it is true in my experience that the media does tend to play up the benefits of fetal stem cells as some panacea to cure just about anything, but fail to note that unless those fetal cells come from a very close kin (brother/sister or child) the patient's body is very likely to reject those cells as the foreign bodies they are. Similar complications arise from cadaver sources of stem cells, but for research purposes cadaver cells have far fewer ethical complications.

Most promising seems to be the culturing of a patient's own stem cells. There is far less tendency to rejection, and no ethical complications. The drawback is time. But this is gaining ground in some circles of research, and is why the saving of cord blood from newborn infants may hold the best promise yet as the science and these children mature. There is the potential going forward for a child born today being treated 20 years from now for some adverse disease process by culturing stem cells from his or her own cord blood set aside and saved for that very purpose...no rejection issues, no ethical issues...only time, money and the advancement of the science.

Cloning on the other hand raises separate distinct ethical problems. It's not like a "cloned" arm or leg can be cultured, it's pretty much an all or nothing proposition. It is one thing to discuss a glow in the dark puppy or a rabbit that glows under a black light. It is quite another to discuss cloning a super human soldier, for example. Or a clone "for spare parts." Whole organisms are whole organisms, so a whole human grown for parts is still a human. Singular tissues can be cultured from adult stem cells in the lab, clones are not needed for such technology. So the only viable excuse for cloning a human would be for reproductive purposes, but even that can hold the potential for abuse.

Time out for response to talking points...

 

[Tao_Equus]

Even though we *are* capable of foresight, it is not our strong suit. If Frankenstein had known what a monster his creation would become, would he have created it anyway? One could argue that as brilliant as he was, he should have had the foresight to know better...

Ermmmm....Frankenstein was fiction. I get a little miffed as to why people can only see it as some fictional myth. I suppose we have always distrusted the secret/not understood, arcane/specialised occultists/scientists. Progress is ambivalent and inevitable. And we are incapable of disinvention....otherwise god would have been disinvented by now

 

[juantoo3]

Ermmmm....Frankenstein was fiction. I get a little miffed as to why people can only see it as some fictional myth. I suppose we have always distrusted the secret/not understood, arcane/specialised occultists/scientists. Progress is ambivalent and inevitable. And we are incapable of disinvention....otherwise god would have been disinvented by now

Just trying to follow along here: Frankenstein was fiction, yet you get miffed that people only see it as fictional? I think Mary W. Shelley hit an ethical nerve with a prescient social commentary that still echoes today. Perhaps more so today.

I agree society tends to distrust that that is a bit beyond the collective ability to understand...perhaps that is the role the media plays in this? "Educating" (so-to-speak) the public, although that education can as rightly be called propaganda or hype.

Progress is inevitable? I suppose, depending how one defines progress. Feces is the inevitable conclusion of anything once living that gets eaten by something else. Doo-doo happens. While maybe humanity will progress into some idealized utopia like Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World, or maybe even Wells' Time Machine...but it is just as likely humanity will progress as Einstein pointed out, "I know not how they will fight WW3, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Every step ahead is accompanied by two steps backward...global climate change, superfund dump sites, storage of spent nuclear fuel, too much ozone at the surface and not enough high in the atmosphere, wild weather swings, and humanity's inherently unwise drive to erect living quarters on the most geologically volitile stretches of real estate, just to name a few. Not counting "our" underlying propensity to subjugate anybody who doesn't think and act like "we" do. So progress towards some Utopian ideal is not a given.

Perhaps G-d could be disinvented, but I doubt it would happen if there actually is something behind the veil afterall. Toto had it right all along...

 

[Dream]

Respect for your points:
First I hope you do not think that because I have not quoted you in full that I mean any slight against you. I was recently accused of that by an old forum member; but the fact is it would be much easier and sloppier for me to just quote your entire post. Instead, by selecting representative parts I show effort on my part and respect for your work, and this is fitting as it corresponds to the ancient fashion of referring to passages without chapter and verse (as there were no chapters or verses in the before-time).

"Even though we *are* capable of foresight, it is not our strong suit...."

"It was also brought to light that as with any tissue, a patient's body has a tendency to reject foreign tissue...Similar complications arise from cadaver sources of stem cells, but for research purposes cadaver cells have far fewer ethical complications..."

It is not our strong suit, nor mine; but on the bright side our bodies are 'Fearfully and wonderfully made'. There are natural limitations withholding the greater powers from us for a long time to come.

"There is the potential going forward for a child born today being treated 20 years from now for some adverse disease process by culturing stem cells from his or her own cord blood set aside and saved for that very purpose...no rejection issues, no ethical issues...only time, money and the advancement of the science."

"...It is quite another to discuss cloning a super human soldier, for example. Or a 'for spare parts.' Whole organisms are whole organisms, so a whole human grown for parts is still a human..."

In partial (not whole) agreement with Dr. Collins' "...Still many years away from any applicable procedures...," we are unlikely to ever perfectly attach replacement parts. Each creature is a whole creature and not the sum of parts. When a leg is chopped off, the person remains; but adding a new leg requires retraining & re-growing the entire body.

I suppose we have always distrusted the secret/not understood, arcane/specialised occultists/scientists.

Partly agree; but even now knowledge of Science beyond the generic is withheld from the public. I am starting to mistrust the current cabal of 'Scientists' myself! Useful info is prohibitively expensive and is regarded by many officials as just another gun or narcotic. You know, in the 'States we can't even buy Pseudophedrine now without a prescription? It's too dangerous for mere citizens to handle!!! How much longer before Science is only for state officials?

Progress is ambivalent and inevitable.

Progress doesn't need us; we need it. It will go on without us; though we become extinct.

 

[juantoo3]

First I hope you do not think that because I have not quoted you in full that I mean any slight against you.

No problem on my part, at least you are not creatively editing and taking things out of context...that I would have issue with. But answering certain points and not others is fine by me.

It is not our strong suit, nor mine; but on the bright side our bodies are 'Fearfully and wonderfully made'. There are natural limitations withholding the greater powers from us for a long time to come.

I want to agree. Philosophically I do agree. And there do seem to be some limitations at this stage. Dolly the sheep died very prematurely, and she was riddled with disease. Those trumpeting the successes tend to overlook or downplay the shortcomings. The vast majority of the genome sequence is indecipherable as it is right now. It is like trying to read War and Peace with a kindergarten education, we can pick out bits and pieces that "we" (those involved) can understand, but there are long stretches of the genome that are a great mystery yet to be resolved. 20 years ago the thought was that humans had a very long list of genes because the genome was something 2 or 3 billion letters long, by 10 years ago that was whittled down to 100 thousand genes as a best guess. Now we know there is something like 20 to 30 thousand genes...that's all. All it takes is less than 30 thousand genes to make virtually every creature on the planet, just by flipping this one on and this one off...with at least one catch.

The difference between the genome of a man and a mouse is only about 10 thousand genes. But you can't "just replace" those genes and expect the mouse to start playing golf or listen to Mozart. (Dr. Collins) Human genes "multitask" (Collins' word), mouse genes do not. So while there is a lot that can be surmised regarding the evolution of various species by genetic drift, even within that drift there is specialization...and there are errors in expression, which lead to things like cancer.

In partial (not whole) agreement with Dr. Collins' "...Still many years away from any applicable procedures...," we are unlikely to ever perfectly attach replacement parts. Each creature is a whole creature and not the sum of parts. When a leg is chopped off, the person remains; but adding a new leg requires retraining & re-growing the entire body.

See, that's part of the hype. It's not possible to grow "just a leg" or "just an arm," it doesn't work that way....in spite of the hype otherwise.

 

[seattlegal]

Perhaps. My understanding is limited not working in the field, and he was addressing students and faculty here at UF, particularly those working with genetics. So a lot of jargon went by me, but I did my best to keep up.

I don't recall the particulars, only that there was some progress being made with the treatment of at least one form of cancer by tailoring the treatment according to the patient's genome. Beyond that it was outside the scope of my understanding. Sorry if I'm not much help.

Well, what were they going to do with the genetically manipulated clone? Were they going to use it for testing the development of viruses designed to bring in the proper genetic material before using this virus on the patient? Were they planning on growing a clone with a corrected genetic defect for spare parts? Were they planning to produce a clone of a person with a corrected genetic defect, and then hold some sort of ritual inspired from the Tibetan Book of the Dead to get the patient to reincarnate into the genetically corrected cloned body? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[juantoo3]

Well, what were they going to do with the genetically manipulated clone? Were they going to use it for testing the development of viruses designed to bring in the proper genetic material before using this virus on the patient? Were they planning on growing a clone with a corrected genetic defect for spare parts? Were they planning to produce a clone of a person with a corrected genetic defect, and then hold some sort of ritual inspired from the Tibetan Book of the Dead to get the patient to reincarnate into the genetically corrected cloned body? Inquiring minds want to know...

Oh no! My bad, there was no cloning involved. Just an assessment of the person's genome and a tailoring of the treatment to that individual's idiosyncrasies. I apologize if somehow I mislead you to believe that there was any cloning involved.