Not all boundaries are bad
Many people already recognize this. And some of them are bound to ask, "When are people going to wake up and realize that not all boundaries are bad things?"
Some boundaries are ridiculous. Some are questionable. Some are valid. An example of each:
In general, this is one of the few topics where it is safe to automatically point to the Nazis. Indeed, we learned much from their hideous experiments, but in principle we don't intend to repeat such endeavors. Or, to the other, we need not tempt Godwin by invoking the Reich, and instead turn to the United States, where doctors attempting to better understand syphilis intentionally fostered the disease in the bodies of unsuspecting medical patients, obviously without their consent.
Science, as a general assertion, is intended to advance the human endeavor. Thus, there are moral limits that do apply. Whether or not any given person recognizes those boundaries is its own question.
A dialogue, fictional in its nature but reflective of a discussion that has already taken place. The executive and the senior researcher have a quiet conference to themselves:
Not everyone would agree that fucking up the next generation of humanity in order to make things faster, cheaper, and "better" is a good idea. Someone out there who is a scientist signed his name to a report knowing that, while it told the truth in legalese, it thoroughly misrepresented the data.
I don't envy that person.
In the present day, consider the notion of a "gene spill". Many have told us it can't happen. And plenty have told us such events are harmless.
So far, we've gotten lucky.
Norsefire said:
Many people already recognize this. And some of them are bound to ask, "When are people going to wake up and realize that not all boundaries are bad things?"
Some boundaries are ridiculous. Some are questionable. Some are valid. An example of each:
• Some moralists would assert that the ultimate outcome of fetal stem cell research is a farm system by which women routinely get pregnant and have abortions to make money selling the fetuses to labs. This is a ridiculous boundary. Perhaps because of the rhetoric of the anti-abortion crowd, which often depicts women who have abortions as behaving decadently and luxuriously, many of these moralists seem to be under a mistaken notion that it isn't hard on a woman physically and psychologically to either enter or exit pregnancy. The extremity of their position suggests that women are mere sexual automatons, insensate to their own bodies and minds. This is a ridiculous reason to delay potential treatments for difficult diseases.
• I'll flip a coin over animal research. If we can get viable data by giving diseases to dogs and monkeys, there is a strong argument to be had. Many animal rights activists, however, focus on the ludicrous proposition that there is lasting, valuable science in knowing whether or not Rose Blush #4 rouge blinds a rabbit if you grind the stuff into its eyes. The boundary some would assert against animal research is often dubiously motivated, and invested almost purely in emotion. While there is a valid argument to be had about cruelty to animals, the general dialogue seems wrongly focused. As a result, the boundary is questionable.
• Frankly, no, I don't want a monkey vampire cloned from a hybrid fetus pissing in my bong. It seems a perfectly valid boundary to assert that we should not be creating new, nonviable species simply for the hell of it. I actually have an episode of Full Metal Alchemist, of all things, stuck in my head right now, the image of a little girl transformed into a chimeric dog begging to be destroyed. We would be wise to consider utility, profit, and implications alike before inventing life in a test tube.
• I'll flip a coin over animal research. If we can get viable data by giving diseases to dogs and monkeys, there is a strong argument to be had. Many animal rights activists, however, focus on the ludicrous proposition that there is lasting, valuable science in knowing whether or not Rose Blush #4 rouge blinds a rabbit if you grind the stuff into its eyes. The boundary some would assert against animal research is often dubiously motivated, and invested almost purely in emotion. While there is a valid argument to be had about cruelty to animals, the general dialogue seems wrongly focused. As a result, the boundary is questionable.
• Frankly, no, I don't want a monkey vampire cloned from a hybrid fetus pissing in my bong. It seems a perfectly valid boundary to assert that we should not be creating new, nonviable species simply for the hell of it. I actually have an episode of Full Metal Alchemist, of all things, stuck in my head right now, the image of a little girl transformed into a chimeric dog begging to be destroyed. We would be wise to consider utility, profit, and implications alike before inventing life in a test tube.
In general, this is one of the few topics where it is safe to automatically point to the Nazis. Indeed, we learned much from their hideous experiments, but in principle we don't intend to repeat such endeavors. Or, to the other, we need not tempt Godwin by invoking the Reich, and instead turn to the United States, where doctors attempting to better understand syphilis intentionally fostered the disease in the bodies of unsuspecting medical patients, obviously without their consent.
Science, as a general assertion, is intended to advance the human endeavor. Thus, there are moral limits that do apply. Whether or not any given person recognizes those boundaries is its own question.
A dialogue, fictional in its nature but reflective of a discussion that has already taken place. The executive and the senior researcher have a quiet conference to themselves:
"Did you get the data yet?"
—Yeah, it's still coming in but the trends are showing.
"And what is it showing?"
—Well, the hormone injections have tripled the infection rate in cows, over doubled the pus volume to be homogenized, and we're seeing a general increase in bovine morbidity.
"Well, they're cows. That's not important."
—I suppose.
"What about people?"
—Well, we only have partial numbers because the board cut the research period. The survey data, though, suggests that it's not the best for people, either.
"How so?"
—Well, the increased hormone levels in the milk are transferring to the human body. Children are maturing faster physically. That is, kids are becoming physical adults faster. There is no correlating acceleration of psychological development. And sociological data suggests we're seeing concomitant increases in STD transmission and psychological dysfunction among adolescents.
"Meaning?"
—You're kidding, right?
"But the data is only partial, you say?"
—Well, yes, because the board ....
"So we can tell the FDA there is no conclusive evidence that artificially increasing cows' hormones in order to up production is having negative effects?"
—Um, well ... that is ....
"I need that report on my desk in the morning. I'm meeting with regulators to go through the issues. We need to nip this one in the bud."
—Yeah, it's still coming in but the trends are showing.
"And what is it showing?"
—Well, the hormone injections have tripled the infection rate in cows, over doubled the pus volume to be homogenized, and we're seeing a general increase in bovine morbidity.
"Well, they're cows. That's not important."
—I suppose.
"What about people?"
—Well, we only have partial numbers because the board cut the research period. The survey data, though, suggests that it's not the best for people, either.
"How so?"
—Well, the increased hormone levels in the milk are transferring to the human body. Children are maturing faster physically. That is, kids are becoming physical adults faster. There is no correlating acceleration of psychological development. And sociological data suggests we're seeing concomitant increases in STD transmission and psychological dysfunction among adolescents.
"Meaning?"
—You're kidding, right?
"But the data is only partial, you say?"
—Well, yes, because the board ....
"So we can tell the FDA there is no conclusive evidence that artificially increasing cows' hormones in order to up production is having negative effects?"
—Um, well ... that is ....
"I need that report on my desk in the morning. I'm meeting with regulators to go through the issues. We need to nip this one in the bud."
Not everyone would agree that fucking up the next generation of humanity in order to make things faster, cheaper, and "better" is a good idea. Someone out there who is a scientist signed his name to a report knowing that, while it told the truth in legalese, it thoroughly misrepresented the data.
I don't envy that person.
In the present day, consider the notion of a "gene spill". Many have told us it can't happen. And plenty have told us such events are harmless.
Rosset, Peter. "Anatomy of a Gene Spill". Institute for Food & Development Policy Backgrounder. FoodFirst.org. Fall, 2000. http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/59
PDF version: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2000/f00v6n4.pdf
So far, we've gotten lucky.
