• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Genetic's!!

Zaidaco

Unregistered
Z
I was interested in hearing what people's arguments about the merits or flaws of scientist's tinkering around with DNA.

We already know what most of the religious organizations have to say about it, but I would like to hear a skeptic's take on the whole situation.

I'm personally all for it.

(I'm sorry if this topic's been discussed in the past, I'm rahter new to the forum)
 
I'm pretty new here, too. That said,

- I'm all for it.

- It could be abused like any other technology.

- I predict much more good will come from it than harm.
 
As long as the scientists in question understand the moral and ethical issues which may be raised by their research, and don't conduct any research on people until it has been tested fully on animals, I have no problem with it. In fact, I expect it will radically change the course of human history.
 
One of the difficulties in 'tinkering' is that we don't yet understand the complexities involved. The introduction of a single, seemingly harmless gene into an organism may have effects we are not able to predict in any reliable way. I am concerned at some of the garbage I hear tossed about as warnings about the dangers of GMOs, but I'm also uncomfortable with the applications some industries or individuals are pursuing. Tinkering, as the word suggests, is bad. Controlled, ethical experimentation leading to a useful, ethical application is good.

Example: Scientist creates a genetically modified crab that has eight claws instead of legs because people who eat crab like the claw meat best. This is BAD.

Scientists develop a GM mosquito that does not act as a vector for malaria. This may be GOOD. I say 'may' because we don't know what the actual outcome would be if such an insect were released. Apart from reducing malaria, what would the impact be on other species, including man? Would this insect become a vector for something else? And so on.

Sadly, can we expect all scientists to be moral people and act ethically? Why would they be any different to any other subset of the population? Abuses will happen and we'll have to deal with the outcome, but like garys_2k said, we hope more good will result than harm. :)
 
IMHO, it is a non-question actually. The morals and ethics will always flow and morph around the potential gain for technology demonstrated by science experiments done.

Humans have illegally been experimented on in the past and will continue to be in the future, in the name of some preceived greater good.

In the end might is right. What constitute's as 'moral' simply depends on how much money there is to be made.
 
Keep in mind we have been doing genetic experimentation for millenia. The mix and match of genes through crossbreeding and inbreeding of same and similar species is little different than cutting and pasting genes in a lab.
 
garys_2k: You may be talking in jest, but just to clarify, the proposed crab had no legs, only claws (I'm not sure if the work was carried out). All legs were to be converted into claws so as to satisfy diners with more claw meat and no fussy, fiddly legs. Sadly, said crab would probably be unable to ambulate around the tank or even feed itself.

And, like the story ap mentions where scientists are doing battle for us against the evils of low-grade, bitter tasting cheddar, I'm not convinced this is the kind of revolutionary progress we hope for from GMO-based technology. :)
 
spoonhandler said:
garys_2k: You may be talking in jest, but just to clarify, the proposed crab had no legs, only claws (I'm not sure if the work was carried out). All legs were to be converted into claws so as to satisfy diners with more claw meat and no fussy, fiddly legs. Sadly, said crab would probably be unable to ambulate around the tank or even feed itself.
Click to expand...

But we already treat chickens like that! Why do crabs get all the special rights?
 
The bad guys will do it.

Ergo, the good guys have to do it, better, more, and first, and understand how it all works SO much better than the bad guys that they can react accordingly.
 
gmol said:


But we already treat chickens like that! Why do crabs get all the special rights?
Click to expand...
Yeah, and turkeys, too. They're supposed to be so weird, with enhanced breasts (never mind) and other fixes that they can't even feed themselves.

Eight-clawed crabs? BT, DT.
 
Zaidaco said:
I was interested in hearing what people's arguments about the merits or flaws of scientist's tinkering around with DNA.

We already know what most of the religious organizations have to say about it, but I would like to hear a skeptic's take on the whole situation.

I'm personally all for it.

(I'm sorry if this topic's been discussed in the past, I'm rahter new to the forum)
Click to expand...

Check out this site:

I have found Mr. Suzuki's books and T.V. and radio programs insightful. Mr. Suzuki is trying to educate people about pseudo-science, the lack of procedures and scientific method that have pervaded research and the way science has been taught in school and universities . Mr. Suzuki asks questions, and a lot of them. I find his writings as intriguing and educational as Richard Leakey's and the late Stephen J. Gould's.

Of course, never limit your self to 1 perspective. Mr. Suzuki's arguments are just that, arguments. Seek out other positions on the topics Suzuki covers. Note:

Mr. Suzuki's programs may superficially seem largely anecdotal, but the anecdotes are largely to demonstrate that there are important considerations locally, and globally when it comes to scientific research. I don't know if I just hurt my recommendation or not, but give Suzuki a try.

And for goodness sake, if you visit greenpeace's web site or a "Frankenstein Foods Booth", don't bludgeon the individuals like baby pup seals (as I wanted to) for their lack of robust sources and fallible, rhetorical arguments. I am quite impressed by my restraint.



www.davidsuzuki.org/

Quote-

"I am going back to the ice-flows of Newfoundland and beating as many baby pup seals as I can find!" - said to Greenpeace protestors by a security guard who is my friend (paraphrased). He likes to push people's "buttons", because he can.
 
Agammamon said:
Keep in mind we have been doing genetic experimentation for millenia. The mix and match of genes through crossbreeding and inbreeding of same and similar species is little different than cutting and pasting genes in a lab.
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but I gather from your statement the following,:

A god/s-fearing STONE AGE community, that would sacrifice their most "valuable" lambs with the whitest fleece at the first sign of drought, is historical justification to give scientists/researchers free reign to splice the genes of lambs to get the most economically desirable traits.

There are several problems with my argument.



People, please inform me why my reasoning is faulty.

Questions I need to ask:

a) Can I compare the scientific methods used by Stone Age man with the scientific methods currently used by modern man? How do I measure the scientific capability of a past society?
b) Can I compare the economics of the stone age community to the modern community? What
c) Can I even begin to fathom the struggles that stone age people had to survive?
d) What were their motivations for breeding animals in regards to: community? culture? economy? survival? belief systems? others?


more questions to come I am sure.


Please feel free to pose your questions. Sometimes we may not get immediate satisfactory answers , but hey, its a good start.


PPG
 
Originally psoted by Agammamon:
Keep in mind we have been doing genetic experimentation for millenia.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's only in the past century and a half that genetics has emerged as a scientific discipline, however. Prior to that mankind had only a vaguew idea that physical traits were largely heritable.

The mix and match of genes through crossbreeding and inbreeding of same and similar species is little different than cutting and pasting genes in a lab.
Click to expand...

In a way it is quite different. Crossbreeding involves the transfer of a whole set of chromosomes between individuals. Genetic modification involves the transfer of a single gene. If anything conventional breeding has a greater capability to yield the Frankenstein strains much loved by green fascists.

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
A god/s-fearing STONE AGE community, that would sacrifice their most "valuable" lambs with the whitest fleece at the first sign of drought, is historical justification to give scientists/researchers free reign to splice the genes of lambs to get the most economically desirable traits.
Click to expand...

No, and where on earth did you pluck this analogy from?

a) Can I compare the scientific methods used by Stone Age man with the scientific methods currently used by modern man? How do I measure the scientific capability of a past society?
Click to expand...

The fact that we have a present day society suggests that past societies were scientifically capable. Progress came about due to scientific and technological innovation.

b) Can I compare the economics of the stone age community to the modern community?
Click to expand...

The relative prosperity of past societies can certainly be established, and improvements in their prosperity linked to scientific and technological advances.

c) Can I even begin to fathom the struggles that stone age people had to survive?
Click to expand...

That depends on the strength of your imagination and breadth of historical knowledge. What does this have to do with genetics, though?

d) What were their motivations for breeding animals in regards to: community? culture? economy? survival? belief systems? others?
Click to expand...

Selective breeding of lifestock has a more recent history than you might imagine.

Some info on Robert Bakewell

Selective Breeding = Genetic Modification

Theres evidence to suggest that genetic modification of wheat kickstarted civilization

Wild wheat gained an extra set of chromosomes by conventional breeding done by early farmers in the fertile crescent. Imagine the apoplexy you'd induce in eco-numbskulls today if you announced you'd genetically modified a strain of wheat with 50% more gentic material. :rolleyes:
 
a) Can I compare the scientific methods used by Stone Age man with the scientific methods currently used by modern man? How do I measure the scientific capability of a past society?
b) Can I compare the economics of the stone age community to the modern community? What
c) Can I even begin to fathom the struggles that stone age people had to survive?
d) What were their motivations for breeding animals in regards to: community? culture? economy? survival? belief systems? others?

In response to a) the point I was making in my post is that we've been tinkering with other organisms willy-nilly for a long time. So why the big controversy now that we have the capability to shape organisms to our needs much more efficiently. We're not really doing anything different, only much more efficiently.

s far as questions b), c), d), I don't see how they relate to the topic at hand.
 
Shane Costello said:
Originally psoted by Agammamon:


Exactly. It's only in the past century and a half that genetics has emerged as a scientific discipline, however. Prior to that mankind had only a vaguew idea that physical traits were largely heritable.



I
Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


No, and where on earth did you pluck this analogy from?



a present day society .... past societies were scientifically capable. Progress came about due to scientific and technological innovation.



The relative prosperity of past societies can certainly be established, and improvements in their prosperity linked to scientific and technological advances.



That depends on the strength of your imagination and breadth of historical knowledge. What does this have to do with genetics, though?



Selective breeding of lifestock has a more recent history than you might imagine.


Selective Breeding = Genetic Modification

Theres evidence to suggest that genetic modification of wheat kickstarted civilization

Wild wheat gained an extra set of chromosomes by conventional breeding done by early farmers in the fertile crescent. Imagine the apoplexy you'd induce in eco-numbskulls today if you announced you'd genetically modified a strain of wheat with 50% more gentic material. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Context is important.
I would like to know what motivated these societies to cross breed species to get the desirable traits they wanted (in wheat or in livestock).

What are the motivations to genetically modify species today?

If technological and agricultural developments did not happen in the past without some influence of human needs or desires I would be surprised.

I would find it difficult to accept that human accomplishments are done independent of the contexts of survival, economy, beliefs/values, culture, community, and any others.

I may appear totally fumbling and bumbling when I ask the questions I did, and they may appear irrelevent to a lot of people. I was trying to determine what is important information.

If we are comparing the accomplishments of a past society and how it applies to an argument of "it was done in the past so why make a fuss now" then I would like to determine the historical context and motivations of that society before drawing on an example of a past accomplishment.
 
2nd link; dumb arguments

There be some straw men hiding in that page:

* Imprecise Technology
Inserting a gene into an organism can certainly disrupt other genes of that organism. What does this have to do with genetic engineering animal/ plant/fungal/bacterial foods and industrial products?
We either get the food or product or we don't; if the organism health is significantly affected as to decrease the efficiency of production, no one would apply the change.

*Widespread Crop Failure

As far as I know, nobody has observed increased rates of widespread crop failure in GM crops over organic ones...

*Threatens Our Entire Food Supply

No, it ceratinly does not threaten out *entire* food supply. We are not even sure what potential threats to parts of our supply would be, if any.

* No Long-Term Safety Testing

Agreed; but the same holds true for most foods. Nobody *really* knows how safe sourdough bread is over the long term, as there has never been a study.

* Decreased Nutritional Value from Counterfit 'Freshness'
This one is just silly.

I think there are some valid points, but I just thought I'd point out a few that I thought were blatantly wrong or misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom