Genetic Engineering

[alexa]

Hmmm. I really expected a lot more diverse input from a wider range of views.

Miss another saga ? I'm already in the pickle jar, so I have nothing to loose.

No matter what our generation thinks about genetic enginering, in 50-100 years the general opinion of people will change. As human beings, we need time to adapt to this kind of scientific research. And if we don't do anything to protect the environment, I'm afraid we'll be forced to manipulate the genetic code of plants, animals and humans.

Lets say, for the sake of discussion, the gene from a forbidden food is introduced into the makeup of one that isn't. Is the new product then forbidden henceforth and forevermore?

In my opinion, the new product wiil be forbidden, too.

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly (concerning the "new" product".) What I'm wondering is if, say zucchini squash or garbanzo beans were genengineered with say, a mako shark gene, would subsequent generations of zucchini or garbanzo beans be halachically forbidden (since there is always random pollenation of these particular plants, especially squash.)

I'd hate to someday bring a beautiful tomato salad to a potluck and have it rejected because it's unkosher, halachically speaking.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[alexa]

In this case, I'll it depends on rabi's opinion. I'm not jewish, so I cannot pronounce myself on this matter.

Let's take the question into a different manner. A patient needs a heart transplant. I still see only the patient in front of me, not his new heart taken from a dead body. If only a gene from the shark is transferred into a zucchini for the purpuse, example, to grow up faster, I still see only a zucchini in front of me. The chicken we buy at the supermarket is forced to grow up into a month with a special diet. Do we really think what was into this diet or we check a special price ?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Hey, how did I manage to stay out of the pickle jar? You guys get all the neat stuff.

Anyway, was thinking about Alba the rabbit today, and I found a rather interesting site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gene_safari/wild_west/glowing_gallery2.shtml

Some really cool stuff there, especially if you page forward and back (this is actually somewhere in the middle of the presentation). Anyway, might give a little glow-in-the-dark fodder for discussion...

 

[lunamoth]

Kindest Regards, all!

Hey, how did I manage to stay out of the pickle jar? You guys get all the neat stuff.

Anyway, was thinking about Alba the rabbit today, and I found a rather interesting site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gene_safari/wild_west/glowing_gallery2.shtml

Some really cool stuff there, especially if you page forward and back (this is actually somewhere in the middle of the presentation). Anyway, might give a little glow-in-the-dark fodder for discussion...

Hi Juantoo3, thank you for the link. Just as an aside, apart from the dramatic examples of glowing GE animals shown in that website, the use of Green Flourescent Protein (GFP, a gene from jellyfish that causes the green glow) has been very valuable in all manner of research studying about how genes are regulated. Just knowing all the DNA sequences and even identifying the proteins encoded by all the genes is only part of the story. Gene regulation, what turns genes on and off, is very important for understanding how genes work. But, it's very difficult to see a regular gene being turned on and off, which is a function of a part of the gene known as the promoter. But, if you combine just the promoter part of the gene to the GFP gene, you can study this switching mechanism pretty easily just by lookinf for the conditions and timing that turns on the green glow.

I have pretty mixed feelings about all the "applications" of the glowing animals discussed on that web page. Doesn't seem right to me, for example, that we should be creating fish to detect pollution. I don't know. There's a good reason I only worked on plants. The downside seems to be that people might be left with the impression that scientists go about creating these transgenic animals for frivolous reasons. These are the things that make the news because not many people care about glowing bacteria and petri dishes, but that is a large part of the reality of the research.

lunamoth

 

[Bandit]

i dont think they should be creating any of that stuff. it is going to change & mess up the whole ecosystem..so much for the future of GM humans when we are all a freak show. some of these things are supposed to be the way they are & that is what makes the globe work.

i thought Andi was kind of cute, but i wish he was not altered that way, it makes me sad.

Juan, no more ideas from your human pickle jar!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Luna!

Thank you for the insight!

I learned a little about the GFP at Mr. Kac's website when I first learned of Alba. Somewhere in my ton of leftover research printed out for various classes is a copy of the 10 or 12 or so pages of Mr. Kac's story of Alba. I'm afraid I was surprised when I saw the site I just listed say the French scientists denied Mr. Kac access to Alba for a show. The reality is quite a bit different. Mr. Kac explained the GFP process and how it is used as a marker for various genes at a cellular level. He hired these French scientists to create a whole organism, Alba the rabbit, that was marked by this GFP. In effect, Alba was bought and paid for, and after her "creation," the scientists kept the rabbit and the money and effectively told Kac to go stuff himself. Not very neighborly or ethical, in my opinion. Kac claims his reason for creating Alba was as a "work of art" specifically to instigate discussion among people about transgenic manipulation, to get the public involved in the discussion, instead of letting the science define the ethics.

I have pretty mixed feelings about all the "applications" of the glowing animals discussed on that web page. Doesn't seem right to me, for example, that we should be creating fish to detect pollution. I don't know. There's a good reason I only worked on plants. The downside seems to be that people might be left with the impression that scientists go about creating these transgenic animals for frivolous reasons. These are the things that make the news because not many people care about glowing bacteria and petri dishes, but that is a large part of the reality of the research.

Perhaps as works of art, such manipulation is a bit frivolous. As for detecting pollution, I like the way the site explained it, "canary in a coal mine." As much as we like to think we have gauges for this measurement and instruments for that, a lot of the time tools such as a canary or a glowing fish is the instrument we have that is most reliable. Is it ethical? Ummm, dunno. If the cost is one canary to save a hundred men, then I would have to say yes.

I hear ya about the bacteria in the petri dishes, it is not very "photogenic" or alluring. But I do think that as techniques such as cloning catch on, there is going to be a great deal of ethical soul-searching required. I remember hearing some time back that there is already a company in existence to create clones of beloved cats. The question at that time is whether or not the same temperament and intelligence would transfer. In other words, would it be a genetic twin, just born a generation or two behind its sibling? I never heard the results.

BTW, dogs at that time were considered too difficult to clone, cats were much simpler to deal with. I do not understand why, especially if there are those over the past year talking now of cloning humans...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest regards, Bandit!

i dont think they should be creating any of that stuff. it is going to change & mess up the whole ecosystem..so much for the future of GM humans when we are all a freak show.

I guess its pretty bad when all we have to do is point to a movie to try to say what we want to say, but I have to point out here that this is exactly the point the movie "Blade Runner" was getting at. Once created, are these creations "life" in the sense we think. Or in any sense, for that matter?

I could go a step further, what of Artificial Intelligence? At what point does a machine become alive? By its definition? By our definition? By God's definition?

some of these things are supposed to be the way they are & that is what makes the globe work.

Some of these things? Who gets to choose which?

Mankind has been manipulating the whole of nature since fire and tools.

I agree, we are to tend the garden, not rape, pillage and plunder. But the simple fact is that we have been manipulating nature for as long as we have been able to. We divert rivers and build dams to create and harness electricity. Is this natural? No, it is harnessing nature.

Every time you mow your lawn, you are manipulating nature. It is merely a matter of degree.

Juan, no more ideas from your human pickle jar!

At last, my very own pickle jar!

Sorry Bandit, no can do. I face my moral dilemmas, and I try to reason through them. I try not to solve things with a one-time solution that does not apply down the road. (I really hate not doing a job correctly the first time!) I try very hard not to be a hypocrite, I think Jesus was very specific about that. In a very Kantian sort of way, my solution must work for me as well as others, near and far, rich and poor, old and young, tomorrow and a hundred years from now.

Sticking my head in the sand in denial will not solve the problem, and it will not make it go away. I would rather be part of the solution, than a part of the problem. Or worse, leave my mistakes for others to deal with...

 

[Bandit]

Some of these things? Who gets to choose which?

Mankind has been manipulating the whole of nature since fire and tools.

I agree, we are to tend the garden, not rape, pillage and plunder. But the simple fact is that we have been manipulating nature for as long as we have been able to. We divert rivers and build dams to create and harness electricity. Is this natural? No, it is harnessing nature.

Every time you mow your lawn, you are manipulating nature. It is merely a matter of degree.

mowing grass & controling the flow of water is not the same thing as changing the elements that are, such as altering a pig so it poops differently.
building a fire is natural, creating gasses that destroy the ozone is not natural.
creating a hammer from wood & metal is natural. creating plastic & deadly chemicals that do not degrade, poisoning wildlife & humans is not natural.

so no, man has not been manipulating as long as you say, it is only since technology & certain scientists have a thorn up there butt to create & destroy that which is given with an obvious objective. for power? fame?
using the 'lesser race' which I am seeing quite often.
People create there own moral dilemnas which in return effect the entire creation, even those who would never do such a thing.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

mowing grass & controling the flow of water is not the same thing as changing the elements that are, such as altering a pig so it poops differently.

Oh, in what way? Change is change, it is no longer the same. As for altering pigs (and other barnyard animals), isn't that what 4H clubs are about? People have been altering the nature around them for thousands of years. Or else why are so many animals and plants considered "domesticated?"

building a fire is natural, creating gasses that destroy the ozone is not natural.

I can think of so many arguments here, it is not funny. If building a fire is so natural, why is it ONLY humans are capable of doing so? Further, the products of fire are the very things we struggle with when it comes to air pollution. Internal combustion is still, in the purest sense, fire. What of the exhaust from coal fire, and oil fire, and gas fire, and... And heaven forbid the toxins raised from a tire fire! And what of "rapid oxidation" a la 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl? Fire may be natural, but whoo boy!, it is definitely not always mans best friend. It is also not always in the best interest of nature either, as these same examples show.

creating a hammer from wood & metal is natural. creating plastic & deadly chemicals that do not degrade, poisoning wildlife & humans is not natural.

The entire manufacturing process, (unless it is specifically designed to account for these things), whether metal or plastic, destroys and pollutes. So, according to you, the destruction of whole mountains in the pursuit of metal is natural, but the distillation and formation of plastic from petroleum is not? What of the smelting and purification process for metal, and all of the nasty byproducts from that? Is this slag natural? I could even argue about the use of wood products...to drive by the mills around here is every bit as difficult for me as a slaughterhouse. No difference, except trees can't moo.

so no, man has not been manipulating as long as you say, it is only since technology

Do you not see the contradiction? As many times as I have addressed this very subject, still you do not see? What do you think technology is? When do you think technology began?

People create there own moral dilemnas which in return effect the entire creation, even those who would never do such a thing.

I've got to hand it to you for this one! Excellent!

People do pick and choose what moral dilemmas are important to them. Some cannot be bothered with any of it. Some fall over themselves over every little nuance. Some cannot find rational, moral or ethical guidelines that are equitable across the board. Some are only too happy to stand against anything or anyone who does not have a couple of bucks to line "his" pocket. (Like, no logging, until the logging lobby coughs up a few bucks) The world is made of all kinds of people.

Some dilemmas are blown out of proportion. (I do not see how bovine flatulence can possibly affect global warming...cows have been farting for thousands of years) Some dilemmas are not urgent enough. (The plight of the passenger pigeon and quaggas, among others) Some are frivolous. (Stopping a water project for a fish called a snail darter) Some are tragic. (The Palos Verdes Blue butterfly becoming extinct for a motorcycle park)

In genomic science lies many hopes. And many catastrophies. It is not necessarily the science that is evil, it is the use of the science that can become evil. We stand at a threshold where we can make the choices not to do evil with the science. We may be able to undo some of our past mistakes, perhaps resurrect the passenger pigeon or the quagga. And we may be able to do unmistakeable evil, which I would rather not imagine.

Or, we can ignore it, and wish it all away. And let somebody else, like China or India, make the decisions for us. The science is here, and barring a worldwide catastrophy, it is not going away. If we don't do it, somebody else will.

I want to get my two cents in now, while I can.

 

[Bandit]

without fire to stay warm man would be dead. that is not going to get me into an argument with you, however much you may want to argue.
sure Juan. whatever you say. when you can show me that domesticating animals is the same as GE..
& when half of the earth is destroyed & the inhabitants, we will see who has there head in the sand.
you go right ahead, altering & destroying the creation & justify it in that pretty little picture.

sorry, i am not as smart as you are, but this one thing i know...

back in the pickle jar you go

 

[InLove]

Hi—Peace to All,

Ummm, lunamoth? Did you know your jar is giving off a green glow? What’s that all about, Bandit?

The term genetic engineering is a catch-all phrase that includes many many many types of research on all different species (bateria, plants, animals). If someone wants to villanize a new biotechnology all they need to do is label it GE and there will be a whole lot of backlash against it, even if it has nothing to do with human or animals at all.

honestly, i dont think the general public is even aware of the depth of all this let alone the possibilities of future problems with it and/or the public does not really care. not sure which.
that kind of leads me to wonder if that is why there is such a 'push' for these experiments with some, like cloning etc. kind of like 'get things passed before people are aware' is something i keep seeing in certain articles.

I think you are both on the right track here, because I really believe that the general public does not understand enough about the whole issue. I will venture that many people cannot say for certain what a “stem cell” really is. Of, course, it is up to each of us to attempt to educate ourselves on these matters, if we can, but some things are easier said than done—particularly when they are surrounded by propoganda from all sides. As Alexa and some others have pointed out, it may take some time, not only for the “scientific” world, but for everyone.

I am sorry to hear that your nephew has had to suffer, lunamoth. I “lost” a spouse because of a rare, genetic blood disorder which led to the failure of all his organ functions, starting slowly with the liver, and lingering agonizingly for years. I cannot tell you the times he was treated with contempt because people just assumed that a man his age with liver problems had to have ruined his own life. Our health insurance was limited (we lost his because he had trouble on his job due to an illness that, at the time, was so hard to diagnose) and so we just did not get on the transplant list in time. (Just kind of an aside, here—oddly, even though the doctors fervently urged his family members to be tested for the disease, they just seemed so unwilling to admit that it could be something in their genes!) Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I agree with juantoo3 regarding the non-embryonic resources we already have—or could have—if somehow, we could only drum up as much interest in these areas as there are elsewhere. (This includes health care and insurance matters, as well, IMO—but that is probably best left to another conversation) Am I making any sense?

I think I tend to agree with you luna, that I would have to understand things on a case-by-case basis, but I don’t know how that works in a government scenario. And, I am wondering if juan, having a better handle on the medical aspects of things than I do, would mind expanding a bit more on the following:

Now, alternate sources are available for genetic material, stem cells, from adult human and cadaver sources, and umbilical cord blood, that I do not have these issues with. If the source for the stem cells is from a source without the moral dilemma, then the only objection I have is that I mentioned of proceeding with caution, understanding that the technology is as of yet flawed and insufficient. As with organ transplants, rejection is a serious problem, so a genetic match is required to draw from.

I guess I am thinking it might help if you could describe a situation where the source for stem cells is from a source without moral dilemma. I think I might know what you mean, but I think it would be helpful to me and perhaps others if you wouldn’t mind?
As for whether or not there are people out there already doing what they want to with genetic engineering? What makes anyone think otherwise? As you said, juan:

Private sources are very free to continue whatever avenues they wish, at their own expense. Any research on further lines must be privately funded as well.

Hey Bandit—what about electricity? Just wondering? (Please don’t put me in a pickle jar—I’m Clausen-phobic [sp?] )

InPeace,
InLove

 

[InLove]

Sorry if the font was big on that last post! Looks huge from here. Couldn't seem to fix it--but just so ya know, I wasn't yelling!

 

[Bandit]

Hi—Peace to All,

Ummm, lunamoth? Did you know your jar is giving off a green glow? What’s that all about, Bandit?









Hey Bandit—what about electricity? Just wondering? (Please don’t put me in a pickle jar—I’m Clausen-phobic [sp?] )

InPeace,
InLove

Luna is my little lightening bug, Luna used to be a human . i would never hurt anyone in my pickle jars. they would be safe & warm with no chemicals or alterations.

i probably sound like a hard man, but i truly love what God has given & the way it was given- but i know I cannot stop man from destroying it.
I have the same feelings anyone else has when i see the less fortunate & wonder why.
i know there is more going on with all this than what meets the eye. some of these sciences are like a war between nations just like politics. who can own space first! not all of these experiments are from God.
i think it was Jesus who said, Woe! to the inhabitants who destroy the earth. (paraphrase)

i am all for finding cures & research until it comes to things involved with GE & what they are doing today & have been doing over the last few decades.

as for electricity i dont see where that is altering the natural chemistry of the earth. i dont know exactly how the oil is used to make it & i think they have that way under control. (i could be wrong with this) one thing that is nice about all this, is how they have developed energy efficient appliances & hopefully automobiles someday that will be a reliable source of transpo.

one thing that used to make me crazy was when the jets would drop there tanks of fuel over the everglades & ocean just before landing. i watched that area completely die within 8 years time & the homes in that stretch were totally pitted with the fuel & no one wanted to live there any more.

InLOve, The automobile is my favorite invention of all, that man has ever made. I love cars & truck & motorcycles. At the same time, I will be the first in line to give up my cars & return to horses with a drawn carriage, with the coolest carriage ever seen to help save the environment. Yes! the days when a trip into town or sunday drive meant something to everyone. I dont think very many would be willing to do this today with there favorite invention & I would like to know why.

so, it is all about how we use what is given. maybe if we really got down on our knees & would seek the face of God, He would heal us & show us what we should do & we would not have to guess. but i can't make the world do that either.

 

[lunamoth]

Ummm, lunamoth? Did you know your jar is giving off a green glow? What’s that all about, Bandit?

I've been looking at the new green big smiles smilie too much, I guess. 'course, I'm pretty green to begin with, if you've noticed my wings.

Luna is my little lightening bug, Luna used to be a human .

Actually, I used to be a cockroach. Then I was a caterpiller. Now I am a moth. I'm not transgenic, but I am transformed.

I think you are both on the right track here, because I really believe that the general public does not understand enough about the whole issue. I will venture that many people cannot say for certain what a “stem cell” really is. Of, course, it is up to each of us to attempt to educate ourselves on these matters, if we can, but some things are easier said than done—particularly when they are surrounded by propoganda from all sides. As Alexa and some others have pointed out, it may take some time, not only for the “scientific” world, but for everyone.

I agree. And you are right that there is propaganda on both sides. BTW, stem cell research is not genetic engineering, which I think you know InLove but I just want to clarify for others reading the thread because we've been talking about both.

I am sorry to hear that your nephew has had to suffer, lunamoth. I “lost” a spouse because of a rare, genetic blood disorder which led to the failure of all his organ functions, starting slowly with the liver, and lingering agonizingly for years. I cannot tell you the times he was treated with contempt because people just assumed that a man his age with liver problems had to have ruined his own life. Our health insurance was limited (we lost his because he had trouble on his job due to an illness that, at the time, was so hard to diagnose) and so we just did not get on the transplant list in time. (Just kind of an aside, here—oddly, even though the doctors fervently urged his family members to be tested for the disease, they just seemed so unwilling to admit that it could be something in their genes!) Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I agree with juantoo3 regarding the non-embryonic resources we already have—or could have—if somehow, we could only drum up as much interest in these areas as there are elsewhere. (This includes health care and insurance matters, as well, IMO—but that is probably best left to another conversation) Am I making any sense?

That is very sad, InLove. It's going to be a mixed bag for certain as we learn more and more about genetic disease. The chance for therapies is hopeful, but there is the danger of creating a genetic underclass who have difficulty getting insured. Can you imagine being denied health care for a child if you choose to have a biological child knowing they have a 25% or 50% chance of having a genetic disease? Let's hope we never see that day, but in this world of profit over people I sometimes fear the worst.

(Please don’t put me in a pickle jar—I’m Clausen-phobic [sp?] ) [/color]

(GFP-smilies)

lunamoth

 

[Quahom1]

as for electricity i dont see where that is altering the natural chemistry of the earth. i dont know exactly how the oil is used to make it & i think they have that way under control. (i could be wrong with this) one thing that is nice about all this, is how they have developed energy efficient appliances & hopefully automobiles someday that will be a reliable source of transpo..

Natural Gas, Oil and Coal are burned, which in turn is used to create super heated steam under high pressure, which turns turbine wheels, which turns generators, which create electricity.

one thing that used to make me crazy was when the jets would drop there tanks of fuel over the everglades & ocean just before landing. i watched that area completely die within 8 years time & the homes in that stretch were totally pitted with the fuel & no one wanted to live there any more.

Standard procedure to dump excess fuel prior to landing, as a safety measure for plane, passengers and crew. Why they might have been regularly dumping fuel on a residential area is beyond me. That violates CFR, EPA and FAA regulations.

InLOve, The automobile is my favorite invention of all, that man has ever made. I love cars & truck & motorcycles. At the same time, I will be the first in line to give up my cars & return to horses with a drawn carriage, with the coolest carriage ever seen to help save the environment. Yes! the days when a trip into town or sunday drive meant something to everyone. I dont think very many would be willing to do this today with there favorite invention & I would like to know why.

Before the automobile, horse and carriage was the primary mode of family transportation, as well as ships and trains. However, the towns literally stunk of horse manure and walking in the streets was at one's own peril (sanitarily and safety wise). Factories used Coal as an energy source and some city skies were so thick with coal dust and soot, that it looked like dusk in the middle of the day. Animal products were sold semi spoiled because of lack of refrigeration. The average life expectancy of Americans one hundred years ago was about 50 years, and child mortality rate was four in ten, because of poor sanitary conditions, disease and pollution.

Without Polio, small pox, Rubella (German measles) and influenza vaccines (modified versions of the desease/viruses themselves), the lower life expectency and mortality rates might be the same or worse.

The good old days were not so good, in fact they were terrible.

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

when you can show me that domesticating animals is the same as GE..

Very good! Now you're beginning to make sense. I never said that domestication is the same as GE. What I said, in some form or other, is that humans have modified other creatures for a very long time, thousands of years in the case of livestock and crops. GE is but another way of modification. It is not the same modification, but GE is applied to an awful lot of the same creatures we have been modifying for a very long time. What I wanted you to see, is that humans have been modifying creatures for a very long time. GE is just the newest trick in the bag.

you go right ahead, altering & destroying the creation & justify it in that pretty little picture.

You mean, like somebody mowing their lawn every weekend?

sorry, i am not as smart as you are, but this one thing i know...

you are as smart as you think you are, and a lot smarter than you give yourself credit for. Just learn to mean what you say, and say what you mean.

back in the pickle jar you go

Is my skin supposed to be turning slimy and green?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, InLove!

My heartfelt condolences for your lost spouse.

And, I am wondering if juan, having a better handle on the medical aspects of things than I do, would mind expanding a bit more on the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now, alternate sources are available for genetic material, stem cells, from adult human and cadaver sources, and umbilical cord blood, that I do not have these issues with. If the source for the stem cells is from a source without the moral dilemma, then the only objection I have is that I mentioned of proceeding with caution, understanding that the technology is as of yet flawed and insufficient. As with organ transplants, rejection is a serious problem, so a genetic match is required to draw from.

I guess I am thinking it might help if you could describe a situation where the source for stem cells is from a source without moral dilemma. I think I might know what you mean, but I think it would be helpful to me and perhaps others if you wouldn’t mind?

I will be happy to provide what little I know. I am not in the field, I am only an interested observer. But the University of Florida (go gators!) has announced on a couple of occasions different projects being undertaken in the field involving stem cell research specifically. Apparently, active and usable stem cells can be harvested from cadaver sources (dead human donors). They can also be harvested from live donors from bone tissues, and I believe I recently heard brain tissues (I may stand correction on this one). Umbilical cord blood is a wonderful new option for children born over the last few years. I have heard a couple of stories of children being born so their umbilical cord stem cells could be used for an older sibling. Which brings me to another point, usually overlooked in the media hype, in that stem cells have compatibility issues just like organ transplants. A body can reject stem cells, just like body can reject a kidney or liver.

The up side to stem cells, at least in the hype, is that stem cells can become any type of cell the body requires. I think the reality is a bit different, especially in adult sources, which is one of the difficulties in using these sources. That is, stem cells from bone can become bone, blood and maybe some other types of cells, but I think there are some cells they cannot become, like maybe brain and/or nerve. Umbilical cord blood, which can be preserved by the way, is much more like the fetal sources, in that they can become any form of tissue.

There is a lot of hype over just what it is stem cell therapy can do. The reality is that the science is just too new to say with any certainty. I seem to recall reading of some modest success treating Cystic Fibrosis, and something else that escapes me at the moment.

In all, I would say do not have your hopes too high just yet, and proceed with caution. But there is research out there, a lot of it, that does not require fetal tissue. In fact, no stem cell research requires fetal tissue. It is just that fetal tissue is one of the easiest resources to work with, and I believe there is political motivation behind the hype with an ulterior motive pushing for fetal tissue research.

After all, they tell us, all those embryos are just going to waste anyway...

Maybe that was out of line, if so, my apologies. But I am equally adamant about the sanctity and value of human life.

 

[suanni]

I'm all for it. There are many genetic disorders that can not be cured, some are barely managed. GE gives the hope to the sufferers that one day their children will not suffer the agonies that they have lived with. GE may also give the answer to curing/preventing many cancers and the answers to aging related illnesses.

The biggest fear mankind seems to have about it is cloning but for anybody to believe that they can make a carbon copy of themselves are deluding themselves. A person is created by many factors, DNA is just one part. Society has a role to play in moulding that person in being what he or she is.

In the arguments that I have read against here, constant reference to films crops up. Fiction portrays mankinds hopes and fears, very few of the sci-fi films will become a reality. Or are we going to admit that blood sucking vampires really do exist? If that's the case and you know where they are, gimmee Lestat

This whole argument of man playing God came into play with transplantation surgery...Frankenstein's monster would soon be created, has he been? And once again when test tube babies were first delivered. Mankind seems to forget the arguments that came into play for these procedures.
Mankind has argued tooth and nail about any scientific invention, from the steam train to space travel.

Mutant babies are unlikely to be born. Regardless of how the genes are modified the babies still have to grow invitro and Mother Nature has its say there. If the baby isn't viable it will be aborted. Saying that Mother Nature does from time to time boob. Babies are still born with tails from time to time, webbed feet, 2 heads.... and that's without any modification. I'm sure that when we were all first created we were 'perfect', without any genetic abnormalities, its been the millenia of breeding that has produced the abnormalities in the genes that has produced illness. So maybe God has given us the key in order to rebalance.

I'm not so sure on the modification of plant species, not so much for the possible implications on human life but on the delicate balance of nature overall.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Luna!

It's going to be a mixed bag for certain as we learn more and more about genetic disease. The chance for therapies is hopeful, but there is the danger of creating a genetic underclass who have difficulty getting insured. Can you imagine being denied health care for a child if you choose to have a biological child knowing they have a 25% or 50% chance of having a genetic disease? Let's hope we never see that day, but in this world of profit over people I sometimes fear the worst.

I had forgotten this aspect. Thank you for the reminder.