cyber_indian
Registered Senior Member
I guess you preffer laws - so people with money can get around them. And politicians make excuses for certain type of people or leave back doors.
Last edited:
Human Genetic Engineering
- Thread starter Truenemo1889
- Start date
while i suppose employing gene therapy to treat or prevent diseases could be of some use, assuming people knew all the outcomes of their modifications [i.e. don't want to remove susceptiblity to influenza along with someone's ability to grow eyebrows], i want to remind everyone; if there were no stupid or ugly people, who would we make fun of? so, limitations are a good thing, i believe. 
cyber_indian
Registered Senior Member
This one was refreshing ...
Yes, I greatly prefer the rule of law to the rule of dictators. But you are getting way off topic here.cyber_indian said:
The relevant point to the present thread is that what is needed is an ethical standard for genetic engineering (GE) and GE research. A committee like you describe decides what can be done based on its own whim. If someone proposed the "kill a clone" therapy and your committee agreed, then they could kill the clone. Obviously there would need to be some ethical standards to guide the committee, in which case there is no need for the committee's guidance.
I still don't understand why you think "medical purposes" is what makes the difference. Let's say that some new GE is completely ethical, no clones, fetuses, or embryos are harmed in any way. Let's suppose that it has two applications 1) it heals sunburnt skin and 2) it produces a clean-burning fuel from sunlight and municipal waste. Your approach would not permit 2) simply because it is not a "medical purpose". How can you possibly justify that? I challenge you to try and justify it.
-Dale
cyber_indian
Registered Senior Member
No, if there was "1) it heals sunburnt skin" and "2) it produces a clean-burning fuel from sunlight and municipal waste" - the research would have been done, because of the medical benefit. Now if the second is totaly unethical (not in the case) - only the aplication would have been bann.
The other thing is that it's much safer to bann everything and one by one ruled if they can be moved over the border of the "granted".
The other thing is that it's much safer to bann everything and one by one ruled if they can be moved over the border of the "granted".
I have to agree with Dale here. What in the name of Surtur makes it ok to use something for medical purposes and not for some great and noble, but admittedly non-medical, purpose such as the perfect fuel? Both help people and the non-medical one does so much more. Does the fact that it isn't taking place inside the human body cause some great horror or sin we ought to know about?
cyber_indian
Registered Senior Member
I guess I have to draw it ... at first everything is banned - then you start "pulling out" the ethical purpouses ... do you understand it now ? in other words "Guilty Until Proven Innocent"
So now you are banning everything, including all medical purposes, until they clear your GE committee? At least that is a consistent approach which recognizes that there is nothing inherently special about medical purposes.
So, back to your committee. This is a terrible way to run things. Besides the usual hassles, corruption, and inefficiencies of beauracracy you still have the problem that they could OK the "kill a clone" therapy. You would therefore still need the ethical standard in order to guide the committee. But if you have the ethical standard then you don't need the committee, you just need to enforce the standard.
I for one don't understand your desire for more bearuacracy and I don't think you have done a good job of justifying the need for it.
-Dale
So, back to your committee. This is a terrible way to run things. Besides the usual hassles, corruption, and inefficiencies of beauracracy you still have the problem that they could OK the "kill a clone" therapy. You would therefore still need the ethical standard in order to guide the committee. But if you have the ethical standard then you don't need the committee, you just need to enforce the standard.
I for one don't understand your desire for more bearuacracy and I don't think you have done a good job of justifying the need for it.
-Dale
cyber_indian
Registered Senior Member
Hey now is your turn to enlighten us about your "ethical standard" view.
And maybe there is need for bearuacracy when we are talking about something risky subject like this. If you ever head about GE grass threaten to suffocate natural ecosystem if let loose, that's one example - but nobody thought would happend before it's too late. Maybe we'll give the company a fine - that might fix it.
And maybe there is need for bearuacracy when we are talking about something risky subject like this. If you ever head about GE grass threaten to suffocate natural ecosystem if let loose, that's one example - but nobody thought would happend before it's too late. Maybe we'll give the company a fine - that might fix it.
Sure cyber indian, I have no problem discussing my point of view.
Currently there are essentially two ethical standards for in vivo research: one for human research and one for animal research. There are some specific ways in which each standard is more restrictive than the other. For instance, in human research the researcher must show good reason to believe that the treatment will be beneficial to the individual, not just for the advancement of the field of knowledge. So obviously that excludes any fatal research. On the other hand, because humans can give informed consent, you can ethically conduct research which causes pain and suffering on humans, but not on animals. Sacrifice experiments etc. would therefore not be appropriate for human GE research nor any research that requires informed consent. Basically, any human GE research would have to use the most restrictive portions of both ethical standards.
As far as the GE grass you describe; that is a completely different matter. There are no ethical concerns in GE plant research. What you are citing is a safety concern, not an ethical concern but I am willing to address it anyway.
There are risks to any technology e.g. fire has wiped out many cities and caused enormous loss of human animan and plant life. Does that mean that fire should not have been developed and used? Obviously, extensive research needs to be done on any GE'd organisms before introducing them into the environment at large, including research on the impact on other species. The current standards have worked well so far. GE'd crops now represent the staple worldwide and have been used for decades now in modern agriculture. The only noticable effects are larger crop yields, more arable acres, reduced pesticide use, and less starvation.
You make snide anti-industrial comments which you do not back up with any logical arguments. You propose useless and intrusive bodies of government which you similarly (and repeatedly) fail to justify. You try to move the argument from ethics to safety in the hopes that it will hide the fact that you can't defend any of your points. I do, however, appreciate the opportunity that you have given me to express my ideas and contrast them to yours.
I think the fundamental difference between you and me is that you are a pessimist (as evidenced by your "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" comment among others) who believes in authoritarian government and I am an optimist who believes in free people.
-Dale
Currently there are essentially two ethical standards for in vivo research: one for human research and one for animal research. There are some specific ways in which each standard is more restrictive than the other. For instance, in human research the researcher must show good reason to believe that the treatment will be beneficial to the individual, not just for the advancement of the field of knowledge. So obviously that excludes any fatal research. On the other hand, because humans can give informed consent, you can ethically conduct research which causes pain and suffering on humans, but not on animals. Sacrifice experiments etc. would therefore not be appropriate for human GE research nor any research that requires informed consent. Basically, any human GE research would have to use the most restrictive portions of both ethical standards.
As far as the GE grass you describe; that is a completely different matter. There are no ethical concerns in GE plant research. What you are citing is a safety concern, not an ethical concern but I am willing to address it anyway.
There are risks to any technology e.g. fire has wiped out many cities and caused enormous loss of human animan and plant life. Does that mean that fire should not have been developed and used? Obviously, extensive research needs to be done on any GE'd organisms before introducing them into the environment at large, including research on the impact on other species. The current standards have worked well so far. GE'd crops now represent the staple worldwide and have been used for decades now in modern agriculture. The only noticable effects are larger crop yields, more arable acres, reduced pesticide use, and less starvation.
You make snide anti-industrial comments which you do not back up with any logical arguments. You propose useless and intrusive bodies of government which you similarly (and repeatedly) fail to justify. You try to move the argument from ethics to safety in the hopes that it will hide the fact that you can't defend any of your points. I do, however, appreciate the opportunity that you have given me to express my ideas and contrast them to yours.
I think the fundamental difference between you and me is that you are a pessimist (as evidenced by your "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" comment among others) who believes in authoritarian government and I am an optimist who believes in free people.
-Dale
Last edited: