Genetic Engineering-your thoughts?

[maniaco_risa]

I'm doing an essay for my A level biology about the social and ethical issues of Genetic engineering. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issue...on any area, from genetically modified food, to cloning and all the ones in between!!

 

[Allister]

Im all for all forms of genetic engineering

 

[Chajara]

Just as genetic engineering could be used for great good, in the wrong hands it could be used for great evil and wrong. I think good uses would be genetically altering vegetables and fruit so they would provide maximum yield without filling them full of fertilizers and using pesticides. Another good use would be to prevent genetic defects in babies. Wrong uses would be things like trying to create some sort of superhuman or animal (think of how the military would /love/ something like that) and altering certain foods to be harmful, perhaps as some sort of biological weapon. It's a longshot, but it could happen in the future.

 

[Dennis Moore]

Like all advancements, genetic engineering has the potential for awesome good. I'm all for the responsible application of it. Of course, society is there to curb abuses and the like, and I'm all for that, as well.

 

[Donut Hole]

Humans should use this technology, like all technologies, responsibly.

One such responsible use of Genetic Engineering may be to genetically engineer humans to make them look like Me, a Donut Hole. Other such responsible uses may be preventing children from getting horrible diseases and things.

 

[CuteAlien]

I'm a little torned apart in my opinion about genetic engineering. On on hand i think of it as one of the most interesting and maybe most useful technologies which are currently developed. On the other side i'm perplexed that a technology with so many unresolved questions is already used, for example in food production. I think that the urge to make money out of this technology completly ignores it's risks. Therefore i'm all in favor of researching genetic engineering, but i'm completly against using it already to clone people and i just don't want to eat food with modified genes. Also i can't understand that genetically modified plants are already grown in open fields. It's just way to early for this in my humble opinion. You should think people learned about the risks of indroducing new things in ecosystems by now. Well, i guess we have to wait for the first time something goes awfully wrong before people realize that this is really a dangerous thing to do :-(.

 

[James T]

Try having a look at what is done with ordinary foods in terms of the complete lack of health value and ask whether you would like an industry driven on the cheapest way to make a dollar deciding on the safety and value of genetic engineering.

In the past I've been a stauch ally of development in all it's forms. However it seems that we have been losing the ability to put rational controls on greed. Until we manage this I'd hinder further developments to the maximum extent possible. After all, for how long did industry hide the negative effects of tobacco smoke.

 

[Phinehas]

In the past I've been a stauch ally of development in all it's forms. However it seems that we have been losing the ability to put rational controls on greed. Until we manage this I'd hinder further developments to the maximum extent possible. After all, for how long did industry hide the negative effects of tobacco smoke.

I agree completly.
I think that genetic manipulation of animals and humans (in particular) is much like the development of the atomic bomb. It's scientifically very interesting, very cool, very useful, and very, very dangerous. As long as somebody sees aquisition through it, there will be no ethic limits they'll set. Oh sure, there'll be some token laws, but people will always do what they do best- whatever they want.

So the real question is, why should there be limits if there is no God? Who is anyone ultimately accountable to that makes any difference in how genetic manipulation is handled?

What moral/ethical boundaries will people/organisations set on themselves when they think that there's really no good reason for them to do so?
Answer:
What- ever- they- want.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I say take a look at genetic engineering of food. A genetically modified corn crop wiped out a native form of maize that took centuries to develop. There is good and bad, you can splice some genes that make foods, and maybe soon people, more resistant to disease, but if a mistake is made, or something is tampered with in the wrong way, you set yourself up for disaster.

 

[Strange_Wonderer]

I'm all for it. I'd like to see what outcomes it would bring.

 

[Gaston]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I can't stress it enough.

Corporations look for little more than the bottom line. If it means making a buck or doing what's right, they'll make a buck. Genetic modification is in that vein however it's a heavier dose of a the problem that extends basically into man's fascination with playing God.

I say, if you want to mess around with nature in a lab go ahead. But it's when it starts to seep into culture that we should worry. Companies like Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, and especially University researchers are bound and bent on "stretching" the limits of science but what's happening is much like a selfish young spoiled little brat with God powers. They know no end to their greedy dabblings and that's when their tepid fingers reach into society. Just recently we learned that Monsanto was going to demand that the government approach local farmers that had their crops contaminated with genetically grown material and make them pay for it! That means, say you're a farmer going about your business dum dee dum in my corn field and suddenly wham! There's this strain of crazy resiliant corn that looks the same as your crop growing in your field. Well Monsanto claims that the spread of "their" strain of resistant corn growin in "your" field is actually "theirs" and YOU'VE got to pay up.

Great awesome America for you. That's just the tip of the iceburg. Go here ->
http://www.organicconsumers.org

The problem with all of this is that usually western civilization has something sinister up its sleeve when it comes to convenience/lazyness, etc. That means that if you're better off not knowing what or how a certain drug works or a specific strain of genetically modified product reacts with your dna, the better. So if people continue to do things like, oh say, vote the current morons back into Washington for a second term they deserve everything they get when it comes to the environment, the moral issues of how western civilization is rich and basically the rest of the world isn't and that the rest of the world isn't because we are.

The fact that there's thousands of starving children in Africa yet billionaires in western hemisphere shoud tell you a little something about our stupid double standards. Any world system that allows that type of gulf between the haves and the have nothings is completely corrupt.

Why trust any tampering with God's creation that this same system is allowing? It's obviously going to come out wrong.

Everything they touch turns to, pardon my french, ****.

[/rant]

Genetic modifaction is bad, m'kay?


Gaston

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm doing an essay for my A level biology about the social and ethical issues of Genetic engineering. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issue...on any area, from genetically modified food, to cloning and all the ones in between!!

Well, given that they some scientists have speculated that genes may dictate deviant behavior, orientation, and even a "God gene", perhaps you would ask those that qualify if they would like their genes 'tweaked' so as to 'fix them' from their abnormalities or normality - pending viewpoint.

I doubt that 'they' would be too receptive of the concept. I also hear that food items that have been changed to produce quicker and bigger is less nutritious... an irony that isn't lost on me.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I also hear that food items that have been changed to produce quicker and bigger is less nutritious... an irony that isn't lost on me.

Well it works that way with many foods that grow quickly. Look at poultry and especially cows. Cows have their diets altered (corn fed) to the point where they need antibiotics to keep them alive, yet the cow reaches full size in half the time. But the meat is less healthy than regular grass fed cows.

 

[Lifesaver]

I think genetical modification of crops and maybe even animals (though not sure here) can offer many possibilities to make human life easier and bring poverty down.

It may even have its place in curing genetical diseases in men; if an embryo can be cured from such problems as Down's Syndrome or Taysachs, that would be a great thing.

To choose merely desirable traits goes too far. It will only encourage people to be more vain, more attached to shallow and unimportant concerns, if not create a whole new racist movement or even GM "castes".

And as far as experimentation is concerned, any experiments with human embryos must be completely banned.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I used to be all for genetic modification in all its forms. That was, of course, before I knew anything about the matter.

There are some real dangers with any sort of genetic tampering. As has been noted, genetic crops, if they are allowed to spread, can outcompete with native crops and perhaps drive them into extinction if they are allowed to spread. When we also consider that genetically engineered crops can be patented, this leads to ridiculous situations, as when someone is using someone elses patents because some of the genetically modified seed just happened to blow into their fields (in the case of wind-blown seed).

Bacteria and the like are much more frightening. Because they are simpler, they can adapt drastically on a much shorter time period. We also have the trouble that they are so small as to be impossible to find; if gentically modified crop seed gets thrown into the wild we might be able to find and recover (or destroy) most of it. If a gentically modified bacteria gets out in the wild, that's pretty much it, we're never containing it again. The thought of a genetically modified disease; either an engineered one, or one modified for some benevolent purpose that nevertheless becomes deadly, getting into the wild is a frightening thought, for me at least.

But both of these pursuits have good uses. Genetically modified crops let us produce more food, more reliably. Gentically modified virii or bacteria have a variety of health related uses. But there are dangers that come with both.

When we get into genetically modifying humans, I am especially worried. I feel that this practice views the human as a commodity; even if we are doing the modification for their own good. For example, suppose that we modify an embryo so that it will grow to be a good athlete. Then we are not viewing the child as a person into themselves, but rather as a thing that we hope to be a good athlete, for whatever purpose. I think it is, perhaps, difficult to explain what I am trying to say here, but the basic point is this: when we genetically modify a human (with the possible exception of removing genetic diseases) we are not viewing them as a complete human being, but rather as a list of good qualities and negative qualities. This is contrary to human dignity, as far as I can see.

 

[Ampoliros]

I'm not in favor of human genetic engineering, mainly because I watched Gattaca too many times (okay, not really) - but to put it simply, the societal aftereffects of creating a superior form of human would be rather immense.

As to GM crops, I say not only go for it, but do so with zeal. Why? Simply put, there isnt enough farmland currently in use to feed the 6 billion humans using organic methods (I believe we can feed approximately 4-5 biilion with organic methods). This is all if there were significant ecological or health risks - which I'm not sure has been conclusively shown by the anti-GM crowd (seems largely anecdotal). As well, that native plants are displaced by GM crops - thats what they're supposed to do. The GM crops are supposed to grow faster and produce more while being less susceptible to cold temperatures or other forms of damage; so, throw in some of that natural selection, and the native plants are, well, selected out. I'm not sure exactly why this is a bad thing - its what we're wanting to do.

While I won't argue that Monsanto is a wonderfully nice corporation (from whats posted above) - neither is Microsoft, but we're not exactly going to ban computers over one company's actions. Not to mention, I find that some statements in regards to biologists wanting to 'play God' to be completely unfounded - from what I see, biologists are trying to help make sure that people get food. There is a stringest testing process, biologists aren't simply willy-nilly growing GM corn and then selling it to your local market. Yeah, they make money off of it - but can you blame them? Biologists need food, too .

 

[Ninja Turtles]

As to GM crops, I say not only go for it, but do so with zeal. Why? Simply put, there isnt enough farmland currently in use to feed the 6 billion humans using organic methods (I believe we can feed approximately 4-5 biilion with organic methods). This is all if there were significant ecological or health risks - which I'm not sure has been conclusively shown by the anti-GM crowd (seems largely anecdotal). As well, that native plants are displaced by GM crops - thats what they're supposed to do. The GM crops are supposed to grow faster and produce more while being less susceptible to cold temperatures or other forms of damage; so, throw in some of that natural selection, and the native plants are, well, selected out. I'm not sure exactly why this is a bad thing - its what we're wanting to do.

Well the GM crops won't really have as much genetic variability. Introduce a new disease into the population and you could wipe out a whole crop, unless they are able to modify the crops to deal with the new disease. With the native population, when crops were wiped out, you could still have crops surviving because a certain strain could withstand the disease and win out. Artificial selection is a two-edged sword. Domesticating animals is one thing, but with food I feel differently; given the speed that disease can spread around the world, I would exercise more caution.

 

[tcampen]

Virtually everything we eat has been genetically engineered, just that most of it took centuries to do. Cows, chickens, corn, wheat, you name it - if it's been domesticated - THAT's genetic engineering.

The difference is we can do it much faster now, which gives consumers and the environment less time to adapt. Small changes are easy to absorb, while big changes can have devistating effects.

With that said, I'm all for genetically engineered...whatever....just so long as we are careful about it.

 

[HRE]

Does it occur to you that what we think of the ethical implications of this and the things that should be done are entirely irrelevant?

If there is anything history has taught us, it is that human knowledge is an unstoppable, unquenchable juggernaut. We can ban it and regulate it as much as we flippin' want to, but all it takes is some intelligent, wealthy bugger with too much free time on his hands.

So, this bugger makes the breakthrough, and then what are we to do? Slap him on the hand and hope that the knowledge goes away?

No, then we have to understand that it is here and it is here to stay, and we have to figure out the best way to deal with this technology in the hands of both the good and the bad guys.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Virtually everything we eat has been genetically engineered, just that most of it took centuries to do. Cows, chickens, corn, wheat, you name it - if it's been domesticated - THAT's genetic engineering.

The difference is we can do it much faster now, which gives consumers and the environment less time to adapt. Small changes are easy to absorb, while big changes can have devistating effects.

With that said, I'm all for genetically engineered...whatever....just so long as we are careful about it.

I've already touched on the idea of domestication, which still takes hundreds of years. Accelerating a selection process can cause many problems.

And HRE touches on a the idea of should we do it. I say we have to have guidelines, but we also have to be very careful about affecting the indigenous populations of our food. I just read an article on chimeras, and basically when does the amount of changes to animal with human organs, blood, and DNA become too much? We can take rats and grow them with all human brain cells. It is a difficult question, when is it too far? Is there ever something too far?

I thought it was funny that a regular rat, they have no problem hacking it to pieces. A rat with a brain of human brain cells, people suddenly become weary of their actions. I don't know if I care about that line; however, with food, they have to be very careful especially with plants that will wipe out 3000 year old crops that are more differentiated and may whether a blight much better than any GE modification.