what's your guy's take on this genetic research stuff?

[troysvihl]

what's your guy's take on this?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/032801/cloning_kehnemui.sml


Is it just me, or has the federal government really been preoccupied with stupid issues lately? One of my professors has a theory that the reason the Sp Ct has struck so many federal laws down recently, is because Congress keeps passing stupid laws. (violence against women act, federal regulation of guns near school zones, regulations on school uniforms, et al.)


I don't know about you, but I want genetic testing to continue unfettered. Even if I didn't, I certainly don't have the right to stop another human being from pursuing research. The parallels between this and the European nation's ban on the steam engine back in the 15th and 16th centuries is amazing. Not until the steam engine was used in the relatively governmentless new world, were those stupid laws abolished. And only because the Europeans were loosing so much economic growth relative to the steam-engine-using North Americans. Just think how much farther along the world would be technology-wise if the steam engine had been implemented two centuries sooner! So much lost potential, it makes you want to cry. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself. (again)

[drisley]

I think this has a different twist and is in no way a repeat of history. We're not talking about a new steam engine or anything like that. We're talking about human cloning, messing with the genetic code, etc. Even in animals, the failure rate of cloning is drastic. I oppose it altogether anyway because I don't think mankind is sane enough to handle it.

[bob]

troysvihl I agree with you 100% - Am I becoming consertive or you becoming Liberal.

Education of our current laws is better than new laws.

My proposed change in law would be that if one could prove (big if) that they did not know an act was illegal then they could not be breaking the law. That would work IMHO.

[troysvihl]

I am a liberal bob. a classical liberal. And as far as your proposal is concerned, the standard answer is that ignorance of the law is no defense. (usually) Also, a criminal statute that requires someone to prove a negative is almost always struck down, because proving a negative is practically impossible. How do you prove that you DIDN"T know? It's impossible. Try proving to me that you DON"T know how to construct an atomic bomb? You can't.



drisley - sure it could be a repeat of history. genetic research is something that could benefit mankind greatly, and the government may attempt to stop people from using this new technology. (just as in the example of the steam engine)

[StuartW]

Originally posted by troysvihl
The parallels between this and the European nation's ban on the steam engine back in the 15th and 16th centuries is amazing. Not until the steam engine was used in the relatively governmentless new world, were those stupid laws abolished.

Not quite. The modern steam ENGINE as we now know it was invented by James Watt in 1763/4 based on earlier work by Newcomen and Thomas Savery (1698).This led to the English Industrial Revolution, which I think you will find predates the use of the steam engine in the USA.I am not aware of the ban on the use of the steam ENGINE in Europe in the 15th/16th centuries.

[troysvihl]

yes stuart, james watt made some pretty decent advances to steam engines by perfecting the Carnot heat-cycle steam engine (which was the most effecient type of steam engine for many decades), but a carnot steam engine is only one of many different types of steam engine and he wasn't the first to put a steam engine to good use. they were being used quite effectively in the new world for a few decades before. in fact, the first recorded steam engine was detailed in a book dated 300 AD, however, no one knows if it was acctually built. (illustrations and all) Then in the 15th century, a steam engine was used to power a ship around the harbor of Barcelona in a display for the royalty at the time. The governments at the time, being the predictale technophobes that they are, issued the ban and it remained in place for almost two centuries.

[troysvihl]

oh one more thing drisley, you said:

"Even in animals, the failure rate of cloning is drastic."


That's acctually a bunch of hype. Take the cloned sheep Dolly for instance. To get dolly, they took a bit over 300 genetically modified eggs, and around 120 of those were successfully fertilized to form a zygote. Of those 120 zygotes, about 30 of them reached embryo stage. Of those 30 embryo's, 3 of them reached the birth sage. And one of those 3, one died at birth leaving two that were born successfully. (i believe one of those two died of some sort of infection, leaving the one sheep we all know as dolly)

Now, the important numbers to look at IMHO, are the zygotes, b/c I don't believe unfertilized eggs constitute life. I think that even the stuanchest pro-lifers (which I am) would agree that zygotes are the important numbers, not unfertilized eggs. So you're talking a success rate of 1 out of every 60 zygotes. That's pretty close to the success rate of the standard artificial insemination process used in animals and humans. (and it isn't much less successful than normal sexual reproduction) So this notion that the failure rate is too high is just bunk. If you're against genetic research because of the failure rate of zygotes, then by the same standard, you have to be against artificial insemination.

[drisley]

I don't care about the zygotes. Whats the point of worrying about that when most of those die anyway. I'm more concerned about when the fetus is born (which only a few ever make it this far). Then, even at this stage (and you said so yourself), they have a very slim chance of surviving, as they are prone to strange diseases, etc. It is NOT successful at all. Using your own stats, 1/300 actually make it. The failure rate of cloning is now in the 95%-99% range, actually. Come on.

Yes, genetic research does have its merits. But, cloning human beings? Quite frankly, whats the point anyway? While some could find legit benefits from this, I consider it like playing with gun powder. Yes, gun powder was a great development, but in the hands of insane people, it can be used for horrible things.

Its like giving a bunch of chimps the button to fire off our nukes, IMHO.

[troysvihl]

>>Then, even at this stage (and you said so yourself), they have a very slim chance of surviving, as they are prone to strange diseases, etc. It is NOT successful at all. Using your own stats, 1/300 actually make it. The failure rate of cloning is now in the 95%-99% range, actually. Come on.<<

My point is, the failure rate for cloning is the same as natural reproduction!



>>But, cloning human beings? Quite frankly, whats the point anyway?<<

The point is to further science. And the benefits are potentially huge.


>>While some could find legit benefits from this, I consider it like playing with gun powder. Yes, gun powder was a great development, but in the hands of insane people, it can be used for horrible things.<<

Drisley, I must say I'm surprised at your stance on this.



However, it probably doesn't even matter much. Congress lacks any constituional authority to regulate cloning, and I'm fairly certain the Sp Ct would strike any such ban immediatly.

[drisley]

I didnn't know there was a 95% failure rate in natural pregnancies. Hhhmmm.....

I'm looking at a larger pattern here, Troy. Of course I recognize benefits in genetic engineering to some extent. I don't see a benefit in artificially creating human bodies (assuming it can be done at all). But, to put it simply, I don't trust mankind to do the right thing on this. Mankind is always trying to survive, but due to weirdisms in the human mind, man is quite good at screwing himself over. He is best when figuring out how to destroy something. We got into nuclear research to further science, and, yes, there are major benefits in it. But, of course, it didn't take long for man to use it to create a nuclear bomb.

A technology that allows certain people to clone human beings and fashion them to any type they want can be a very dangerous thing. If it falls into the wrong hands (and it will), just imagine.

I don't know if I'd go so far to ban research in the U.S., but, I do have concerns with how far this will go.

[troysvihl]

>>I didnn't know there was a 95% failure rate in natural pregnancies. Hhhmmm.....<<


yes, that's pretty much the natural failure rate.


>>He is best when figuring out how to destroy something. We got into nuclear research to further science, and, yes, there are major benefits in it. But, of course, it didn't take long for man to use it to create a nuclear bomb.<<

So you think atomic research should have been outlawed?

[jessho]

Genetic research is neccessary. Cloning is a step to determine if genetic mapping and manipulation is progressing. Ultimately, genetic engineering will allow humans to prevent and cure many diseases that are debilitating because of genetic weaknesses.

The abuse of cloning is a moral consideration. I can envision many abuses including genetically manipulated individuals used in warfare, but these abuses need to be addressed only if and when they happen. Science does not need to be crippled because of fears of the unknown.

[drisley]

Well, I believe it will happen should this research progress. Man cannot help himself. There are many things done in the name of "science", but not all of it is a good idea. It needs to be properly balanced with sanity and morality, especially a technology that gives man the capability of messing with the natural way. Science, especially these days, is devoid of morality or spirituality, and I believe this element is necessary when delving into the key components of the human body.

Something tells me Congress will temporarily ban this. I might be wrong. But, regardless, I am looking at the big picture and with a spiritual and historical perspective in saying I see an innate danger lurking at the other end of genetic manipulation and cloning. I am all for progress in the medical arena, but I think it should be handled with care.

[bob]

drisley, What exactly has been done in the name of "science" that was bad. The A-bomb was done in the name of war.
Watching to many mad scientist movies? ;)

[bob]

No answer....... Hmmmm.