Stem Cell Research, Genetic Engineering (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

Doctors 'grow' bladder
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18705512-23109,00.html

Abbott to block cloning
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18514317-421,00.html?from=rss

Abbott tries to block abortion drug, AND stem cell research...yet denies influence from his Catholic upbringing? :rofl:

Stem cells help paralysed rats
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18641902-1702,00.html?from=rss

It has been in the news a lot again lately. Stem cell research and genetic engineering and the like. Should we come out of the ice age, and support stem cell research, or do you think it's going too far in 'playing god'.

As far as I am concerned, if 'God' allows such debilitating diseases to exist, and we have a chance at reversing them, then really science is one step above 'God'.

Apparently there are 'ethical' concerns surrounding stem cell research, but if we're going to discuss ethics in medicine and science then we may as well debate everything.
IVF can be seen as unethical in the same light, because it is using an unorthodox approach to reproduction, to allow infertile couples have children. Etc...

 

[ur_inner_child]

technically taking anti-biotics is also playing God
going to chemotherapy when you have cancer is playing God
getting a heart transplant from a doner is playing God
anything that helps you body recover from any sickness that was not presently available in your system is playing God
anything scientific or medical is playing God
You psycho extreme Abbot loving Christians and your inconsistancies.

 

[katie_tully]

I think the anti stem cell research advocates feel threatened. They've relied on the notion of this all powerful god to get by in life for so long, and now we have technology which goes a step above God.
Technology which if nurtured, can relieve us of some truly horrendous diseases.

 

[sam04u]

Stem Cell research should be conducted... however... the idea of;

Cloning;
Or harvesting organs, or blood or vestiges;

Should be restricted untill solid benefits of the research are established. Also; alternate methods which are more effective.

It's not the idea of "playing god", but diseases in these "cloned" body parts could effect actual individuals; Also the reproduction of these genes;

Example; "A rabbit has a bad heart"
The rabbit reciived a more efficient heart constructed genetically (through stem cell research);
As a result he can breed more efficiently; alnd impregnates half of the rabbits in his little rabbit village.
His children also; impregnate other female bunnies.

Then when they reach an age of maturity; suddenly they all develop this genetic heart defect.
And the next generation does as well.
Etc; Etc;

It results in the weakness... of allele combinations in the gene pool; eventuall man kind will rely on these organs and vestiges... making us weaker and less tolerant to diseases which may develop. (which could potentially wipe out human civilsation);

Think of the 28 Days Virus; but more airborn; more contagious and people with weaker genetic immune systems.

Basically... it needs to be done slowly and efficiently....

 

[davin]

to more or less echo the views about playing god.... humans have been playing god as long as we've had agriculture and domesticated animals.

 

[katie_tully]

Honestly, which of you Mods is it that deems it necessary to omit certain posts from this thread?

 

[Generator]

The only active mod, of course.

This has the potential to be a good thread, and I really didn't want it to be hijacked by a petty little troll from the word go. Those posts that were deleted were of no relevance to the issue at hand.

 

[katie_tully]

Should be restricted untill solid benefits of the research are established. Also; alternate methods which are more effective.

And what alternative methods are these? What is a more effective alternative to growing brand new, disease free cells?

 

[katie_tully]

Example; "A rabbit has a bad heart"
The rabbit reciived a more efficient heart constructed genetically (through stem cell research);
As a result he can breed more efficiently; alnd impregnates half of the rabbits in his little rabbit village.
His children also; impregnate other female bunnies.

Then when they reach an age of maturity; suddenly they all develop this genetic heart defect.
And the next generation does as well.
Etc; Etc;

How is this detrimental to the cause?
Scientists are only going to use rabbits as test subjects, for as long as we restrict the use of such measures on humans.
If a human is given a new heart, (as many do with transplants), and then had offspring, the children could be scanned for this "genetic" heart defect and treated for such. Human's don't breed like rabbits, so I don't see how your analogy works?

 

[loquasagacious]

Personally I found Sam's analogy to be his first meaningful contribution to discussion - ever, anywhere.

It points to the daners of having a homogenous population, the dangers of implementing things whose long term effects we are unsure of and usefully applies darwinism to people.

Moving along from this, I am in favour of genetic engineering, stem cell research and 'cloning', however there are some qualifications which I must apply:

A homogenous population (be it of people, wheat etc) is a bad idea however in crops it is already a fact.

We are not talking about cloning entire people as in say star wars and then harvesting their organs - not only would this be immoral it is more expensive and less efficient than the alternative of cloning/growing individual organs.

Genetic engineering holds out the promise of better food, we can engineer larger, hardier, etc crops. We could develop crops for specific environs, etc.

The exclusive control of the Intellectual Property rights of this sort of technology by large corporations (eg Monsanto which has now withdrawn from the industry) is disturbing and gives them a monopoly power of sorts which is bad.

As an interesting tangent to this debate;* what are peoples opinions on genetically engineering humans? What are your thoughts on the intentional creation of humans v2.0?

 

[katie_tully]

I agree with you that companies having a 'monopoly' power over the industry could be potentially bad. However I also feel it may be unavoidable.
The technology is not cheap, and unfortunately those who can afford it will basically own it.

I also totally disagree with the cloning of humans. Reminds me of the movie 'Godsend'. I don't know if there are many people who advocate entire human cloning, except those who are not of sound mind.
That would be a gross misconduct of ethics, and I hope it never happens.

People use the lack of knowledge of long term effects as an argument against stem cell research, but that is what THIS argument is about. If we don't support research into stem cell research, are we shooting ourselves in the foot?

 

[AntiHyper]

Personally I found Sam's analogy to be his first meaningful contribution to discussion - ever, anywhere.

It points to the daners of having a homogenous population, the dangers of implementing things whose long term effects we are unsure of and usefully applies darwinism to people.
...
As an interesting tangent to this debate;* what are peoples opinions on genetically engineering humans? What are your thoughts on the intentional creation of humans v2.0?

Well I guess Darwinism will be changed to include survival of the richest, whoever can afford to pay for such therapy most times in their life will survive best

Homo Sapien 2.0 heh, maybe it would be a good thing to create a few humans to "live forever" just for the sake of human exploration of outer space, the galaxy and even beyond. Also don't just think that "ooo only the united states are researching into genetics", beware with other groups such as terrorists might as well have researched into it as well.

Maybe if not from the well known western science, human genetic manipulation can arise from the (so called) "bad/evil people". I say, get the technology before the evil people gets it.

 

[MRCUNT]

technically taking anti-biotics is also playing God
going to chemotherapy when you have cancer is playing God
getting a heart transplant from a doner is playing God
anything that helps you body recover from any sickness that was not presently available in your system is playing God
anything scientific or medical is playing God
You psycho extreme Abbot loving Christians and your inconsistancies.

u can play whatever u want, u can play games, u can play power rangers>>>.

i dont get u>


remember god created everything , including all the cures, everything. we humans havent found them all....

 

[sam04u]

Thats a bit... bullshit... what cures? God created man with a brain to make cures...

I disagree with complete human reconstruction... or even minor reconstruction... eventually though i would agree with such things as lung; liver; tissue and organ construction.... but only if correct research was made.

The idea is we don't want to make man "weak" and thinking we can construct more efficient humans!? IS STUPID STUPID STUPID... we are perfectly engineered for our environment...

Either if you believe;
a) We were created by a celestial force
b) We are the result of billions of years of "evolution";

Currently though there is a way in which aging can be stopped; (there is a specific kind of worm which produces some sort of glue which ensures that mitosis and cell division doesn't decelerate... "not exactly sure how it works"; however incorporating that "gene" into humans for the sake of "space exploration" may be beneficial in the future... currently though... i would not agree to any HUMAN modification...)

To the imbeciles who argue;
"This is playing God";
If god didn't want us to do it he would have said so; or made it impossible.

Human V2.0? What do you think this is a game? Firstly; I wouldn't want a version of human to be more efficient then i am.... call it a superiority complex but i would never accept a modified human....
And if i wont... i doubt others will... such research could also be the cause of more advanced diseases etc;

Basically... the major issue with "creating beneficial genes" is that in can be a cause for diseases... also those which were created artificially to an extent are not human...

The idea is of "natural selection"; if a man can't impregnate his wife... they have things available to the couple... like artificial insemenation... which again... advocates the weakening of human beings....


Slowly but steadily... we will be reversing the factors which make us "survive" the ability to survive; the survival of the fitest and the ability to "reproduce"....

So, In a sense... this research is reversing the billions of years of evolution...

(It's common sense)

 

[loquasagacious]

I would contend that far from reversing evolution this is accelerating and directing it.

Evolution is the product of random mutations some of which may be beneficial and thus may become prevalent and a species wide change be affected. Genetic engineering is in a manner of speaking forcing specific mutations for specific outcomes - just like in nature if it doesnt work then the change will not become species wide.

Humans v2.0, I mean why not? Beyond our own inferiority/superiority complexes are there reasons for not creating 'better' homo sapiens (perhaps homo sapien sapien sapiens...). Afterall if I said that with abit of genetic engineering we could make people live longer healthier lives would you be in favour? How about being naturally stronger, faster and more resistant to damage? What about a second heart? Or maybe some gills and extra eyelids? Or maybe even abit of photosynthesis action?

Yes this is 'playing god(s)' to the extent that it is grabbing hold of our destiny in ways we never have before, by deliberately changing our very makeup but I ask why not?

I think the 'long term effects' argument against stem cell research is a smoke screen - I can think of no rational long term effects. Genetic engineering however is a different kettle of fish and an area in which we must tread carefully lest we change things and create unwanted side effects...

 

[thejosiekiller]

at any rate for the time being it is still research, some people and scientists jump the gun when exploring the potential of stem cell research, genetic engineering or any other new field of science like nanotechnology...we are far off the notion of human v2.0 and it really becomes a what if notion of sci fi

i firmly believe in improving people's health as a matter of our own free will- furthermore those who feel morally opposed to the issue are entitled to, likewise the risk a patient faces undergoing new treatments is of their own concern.

at times i feel its hard to detach what is best for society and what the individual feels is their health

 

[katie_tully]

I feel evolution has been slowing down for some years. Originally, natural selection was survival of the fittest...the strongest of the species will survive, and will pass on the more desirable traits to their offspring.
We've been controlling this for some time with medicine. Instead of letting the weaker humans die from disease, so that the stronger humans would pass on their genes, we've been trying to save everybody, thus choosing the direction of evolution.

Human V2.0? What do you think this is a game? Firstly; I wouldn't want a version of human to be more efficient then i am.... call it a superiority complex but i would never accept a modified human....

Then define 'modified'. Pace makers are an artificial modification in humans. Organ transplants, blood diffusions, IVF... all of these are processes which 'modify' the human from their natural, original state. Do you accept these as people? What about Isabelle Dinoire? She had an entire face transplant, taken from a brain dead girl. Technically she is a modification.

Genetic engineering is an amusing ditty. If I recall properly, genetically engineered food was going to be the saviour of the third world nations. Instead stockpiles of genetically engineered food is destroyed, because it costs too much to deliver.
Thus far, genetically engineered plants such as BT cotton have proven to be very safe and viable. The only problem being if the insects evolve to develop an immunity to the BT poison, then another plant will need to be developed to counteract this change.
However that is yet to be seen with these plants.

 

[katie_tully]

I disagree with complete human reconstruction... or even minor reconstruction... eventually though i would agree with such things as lung; liver; tissue and organ construction.... but only if correct research was made.

But that's what this is all about. Scientists have to turn to large companies to fund their research, because governments will not support it.
As much as it pains me to say, Bob Carr was Australia's biggest advocate of stem cell research. Howard supports stem cell research, but is reluctant to publically support it.
The tests, thus far, have not shown there to be any serious adverse side effects. We can transplant organs from other humans with an 85% success rate, what is so unbelievable about growing a new organ from the cells of the host patient?

 

[katie_tully]

remember god created everything , including all the cures, everything. we humans havent found them all....

Your God is such a benevolent bundle of joy, isn't he?

 

[AntiHyper]

What about illness due to accidents, most obviously car accidents and you broke your back.
Stem cell research has shown that it can reconnect the nerves within our vertebrae, having paralysed from the neck down due to accident isn't caused by genetic weakness.
Tests on mouses have been successful all time, this is because the nerves doesn't have to grow linearly on the severed line. The nerves can intertwine with each other and so forth.