Limits to Genetic Experimentation or Anything goes?

[Radrook]

The question is rhetorical since obviously the sensible response would be that there should be limits placed on how far humans can go in genetic experimentation.

To say that anything goes would be to say that some animals and humans don't have rights or at least that some have more rights than others. To propose that the experimental infliction of agonies is justified in some way by the ultimate consequences.

 

[Radrook]

This article considerers the pros and cons of genetically altering animals.
To Uplift or Not To Uplift: The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation

 

[Shemjaza]

In my opinion anything to do with either messing around with humans should have strict ethical checks and balances.

The possibility of botching a designer human should be avoided if at all possible.

I think when dealing with genetic experiments possibly environmental effects should also be tested for. Super crops or livestock getting out into nature and messing up the ecosystem could be catastrophic.

Anything that dealing with modifying and interacting with diseases and viruses should be treated carefully for obvious reasons.

But, despite my pleas for caution and patience I'm completely comfortable with all these fields continuing research.

But you should avoid ruining the choices and quality of life of potential modified humans and you should avoid creating animals who suffer unreasonably.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The possibility of botching a designer human should be avoided if at all possible.

I don't see how you could make such a sweeping statement without context.
Surely there are things that would be okay in genetically manipulating embryo's?
In fact, I'ld even say that there are things that, if we have the technology, would be IMMORAL to NOT do.

Take a couple among my circle of friends.
Both the dude as the girl both are carriers of a certain gene which, if both parents have it, results in a 70% chance of serious deformity of the child, which also exposes the mother to a serious health risk during pregnancy.

If it gets activated, chances are first rather low that the baby will survive at all. And if it gets to be born, it will be seriously handicapped.

If you KNOW this, and if we HAVE the technology to make sure that the embryo does NOT have that particular gene..... why would it be a problem to genetically manipulate it in such a way that that particular gene gets removed and/or deactivated, which would result in a healthy baby?

In fact, as I said, would it not be the exact opposite? Would it not be a moral DUTY to genetically manipulate it?

But you should avoid ruining the choices and quality of life of potential modified humans and you should avoid creating animals who suffer unreasonably.

Obviously.... but I'ld think that the whole point of genetic manipulation is to improve things... not to cause additional suffering.

 

[Strathos]

Curing diseases and genetic conditions is one thing.

Trying to breed superhumans a la Khan from Star Trek is another.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Curing diseases and genetic conditions is one thing.

Trying to breed superhumans a la Khan from Star Trek is another.

To be perfectly honest with you... it's not clear to me that that is "another". Seems to me that it would depend on the motivation of doing so.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't see how you could make such a sweeping statement without context.
Surely there are things that would be okay in genetically manipulating embryo's?
In fact, I'ld even say that there are things that, if we have the technology, would be IMMORAL to NOT do.

Take a couple among my circle of friends.
Both the dude as the girl both are carriers of a certain gene which, if both parents have it, results in a 70% chance of serious deformity of the child, which also exposes the mother to a serious health risk during pregnancy.

If it gets activated, chances are first rather low that the baby will survive at all. And if it gets to be born, it will be seriously handicapped.

If you KNOW this, and if we HAVE the technology to make sure that the embryo does NOT have that particular gene..... why would it be a problem to genetically manipulate it in such a way that that particular gene gets removed and/or deactivated, which would result in a healthy baby?

In fact, as I said, would it not be the exact opposite? Would it not be a moral DUTY to genetically manipulate it?

For the most part I agree 100%. My point wasn't that tinkering with humans is potentially dangerous, so we shouldn't do it.

However, given that the consequences are producing humans with exactly the kind of disorders we are trying to cure/remove it needs to be held to an even higher standard then usual medical and scientific research.

Obviously.... but I'ld think that the whole point of genetic manipulation is to improve things... not to cause additional suffering.

I doubt anyone would create a modified animal specifically to suffer, but I can imagine many people being negligent to the fact.

For example, if a company created a super pig that grew very quickly with cheap food stock, but the creature in question spent it's short life in agony (but its meat was still edible), I feel this would be unethical even if it was perfectly profitable.

 

[Shemjaza]

Curing diseases and genetic conditions is one thing.

Trying to breed superhumans a la Khan from Star Trek is another.

I'm okay with improving on any basic traits in humans, just we'd need to be cautious.

 

[Radrook]

In my opinion anything to do with either messing around with humans should have strict ethical checks and balances.

The possibility of botching a designer human should be avoided if at all possible.

I think when dealing with genetic experiments possibly environmental effects should also be tested for. Super crops or livestock getting out into nature and messing up the ecosystem could be catastrophic.

Anything that dealing with modifying and interacting with diseases and viruses should be treated carefully for obvious reasons.

But, despite my pleas for caution and patience I'm completely comfortable with all these fields continuing research.

But you should avoid ruining the choices and quality of life of potential modified humans and you should avoid creating animals who suffer unreasonably.

Some have suggested that providing animals with enhanced self awareness might provoke a negative psychological reaction when it realizes that it has been divested of a carefree life and has been burdened with pondering its own ghastly present and imminent death.

I would take that one step further and propose the possibility that the now sentient creature might be horrified with its own appearance consider itself unbearably hideous and go gradually insane.

Just recently I read about how they were tweaking the brains of rats via implantation of human cerebral cells in order to see if they could augment its mental capabilities. Somehow I don't imagine a cute Mickey Mouse scenario developing from that tampering.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For the most part I agree 100%. My point wasn't that tinkering with humans is potentially dangerous, so we shouldn't do it.

I think you should be more specific about the kind of "tinkering". Because it seems to me that just about any medical treatment of any kind, could be said to be "tinkering" with humans.

I doubt anyone would create a modified animal specifically to suffer, but I can imagine many people being negligent to the fact.

Animals are made sick all the time, to test medicines.
Yes, it's horrible. But I don't see how else we could test medicines unless we only use humans to do it. Although I certainly agree that they should also go out of their way to make sure that the animals' suffering is minimized as much as physically possible.

But it is what it is.... if you wish to see if a certain revolutionary therapy indeed is capable of destroying any kind of tumor.... you're going to need a whole bunch of labrats with all kinds of tumors.

For example, if a company created a super pig that grew very quickly with cheap food stock, but the creature in question spent it's short life in agony (but its meat was still edible), I feel this would be unethical even if it was perfectly profitable.

It seems like you think that animals meant to become food in such breeding farms currently have a comfortable life.

Look at all these "happy" chickens:

Or all these "comfortable" pigs:

I certainly agree all should go out of their way to minimize suffering of these animals.
But honestly, it's not like they currently live in lala-land until it's slaughtering time.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question is rhetorical since obviously the sensible response would be that there should be limits placed on how far humans can go in genetic experimentation.

But the mindset is still there.

How many people had to be rescued in 1865 from rich people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1945 from scientists whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1965 from average people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people need to be rescued since 1972 from the medical profession whose conscience is stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

Reducing people down to genes and tissue and molecules can lead to holocausts.

This is what happens when technology advances over Bible-respecting individuals.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But the mindset is still there.

How many people had to be rescued in 1865 from rich people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1945 from scientists whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1965 from average people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people need to be rescued since 1972 from the medical profession whose conscience is stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

Reducing people down to genes and tissue and molecules can lead to holocausts.

This is what happens when technology advances over Bible-respecting individuals.

Any excuse will do for you, to dehumanize biologists who don't agree with your rather insane ideas about origins, it seems.

No, AV... nazi fascism, stalinistic communism, extreme capitalism, etc have nothing whatsoever to do with a theory of biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, AV... nazi fascism, stalinistic communism, extreme capitalism, etc have nothing whatsoever to do with a theory of biology.

What about genetic engineering (a.k.a. Aryan supremacy), cladistics (a.k.a. racism), and reducing children to fetal tissue (a.k.a. murder)?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What about genetic engineering (a.k.a. Aryan supremacy), cladistics (a.k.a. racism), and reducing children to fetal tissue (a.k.a. murder)?

Let's just make it clear from the get-go:

Not a single human activity of any kind has any bearing on the accuracy of a theory of biology

Evolution theory is just a model of explanation of processes that life is subject to.
No matter what people do, no matter what anyone believes, no matter how society is organized.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

But the mindset is still there.

How many people had to be rescued in 1865 from rich people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1945 from scientists whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1965 from average people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people need to be rescued since 1972 from the medical profession whose conscience is stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

Reducing people down to genes and tissue and molecules can lead to holocausts.

This is what happens when technology advances over Bible-respecting individuals.

To me, any alteration of humans on a genetic level is ridiculous.

You are going to trust imperfect, sometimes immoral and/or unethical humans - that are capable of lies deceit, murder and other horrors - to manipulate your genetics, believing that they won't mess you up forever, or that no cliche "...genetic experiment gone wrong" incident will happen?

Talk about having faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a single human activity of any kind has any bearing on the accuracy of a theory of biology

Bologna!

Science attempts to vindicate itself with the No True Scotsman Principle.

 

[Radrook]

Genetic engineering does have its positive potential of course. For example, there is talk about using genetic engineering to produce astronauts who can better tolerate the rigors of long- duration space flight and not pose problems to other members of the crew in the following article.
Space Travelers Can Benefit From Genetic Engineering


One rather curious detail mentioned concerns the drastic reduction of gas-producing microbes in the gut in order to prevent a crisis from occurring within stifling enclosed environment of a spacecraft. That concern is totally understandable since a deep hatred of the gaseous offender could easily ensue and endanger the mission.

BTW
Photosynthetic epidermis is one not included in the article but which sounds useful if you don't mind being green.

 

[Radrook]

To me, any alteration of humans on a genetic level is ridiculous.

You are going to trust imperfect, sometimes immoral and/or unethical humans - that are capable of lies deceit, murder and other horrors - to manipulate your genetics, believing that they won't mess you up forever, or that no cliche "...genetic experiment gone wrong" incident will happen?

Talk about having faith.

But unfortunately we are forced to trust humans for the sake of enhancing survival potential.
The construction of society with its rules and regulations is based on the trust that the vast majority will abide and assure a survival supportive environment. We trust that humans have set up the traffic lights right. We trust that the drivers will not plow through the crossing people. We trust that the surgeon assigned to perform heart surgery isn't going to castrate us as a freebee. So trust in the not totally trustworthy humans becomes an unfortunate and sometimes costly necessity.

 

[Radrook]

What about genetic engineering (a.k.a. Aryan supremacy), cladistics (a.k.a. racism), and reducing children to fetal tissue (a.k.a. murder)?

I would say that viewing humans as animals or viewing them as mere products of evolution might indeed lead some individuals to extreme criminal behavior. Hitler seemed to feel that it was a matter of survival of the fittest. In fact, he was willing to attack his own people at the end because he deemed them unworthy of survival because they had proven unfit.

However, please keep in mind that prior to Darwin's theory we see people slaughtering one another and finding other convenient justifications for all kinds of mutually inflicted atrocities. Many, in fact like the Inquisition, and the Crusades were religiously motivated.

So it seems that the flaw is not just in the theory itself but also in the condition of the fallen human heart which has a strong propensity to use such ideas as convenient excuses to satisfy selfish needs. Agreed?

 

[Radrook]

Let's just make it clear from the get-go:

Not a single human activity of any kind has any bearing on the accuracy of a theory of biology

Evolution theory is just a model of explanation of processes that life is subject to.
No matter what people do, no matter what anyone believes, no matter how society is organized.

But it isn't the accuracy that he is focusing on. It is the use of the theory to perpetrate and justify injustices such as slavery as it was extremely inhumanely practiced in the USA and Hitler's ' master race idea which led to extermination camps.