GameBanshee Forums

We've had cloned sheep, now (no Waverly jokes, please). There is more than talk about cloning animals for spare body parts--and there's even discussion about altering the human DNA to fix diseases--or perhaps just to create different color eyes. Genetically engineered produce has become a major subject of debate in Europe, sparking fears that major changes to the crop and habitat patterns across the earth.

Is there a reason to fear any or all of the above? How far, in your opinion, should humankind go in pursuit of genetic engineering? What steps, if any, do you think can and should be taken to either encourage this research and development, or limit it--or eliminate it, altogether?

Holy Crap, is this a debate topic fable?
I thought we had outlawed these things in September and only spam could be a topic

BUT...
As you said no spam so here I will proceed to lay down my opinion which is superior to everone elses.

I believe that cloning human organs is okay as long as it is only organs that could not act by themselves, not that any can. I believe this because organs, in my opinion, are no different from a pacemaker or any other artificial limb. They can save lives without reproducing what makes us human. I do not believe that we should ever try to recreate a human mind or clone or genetically alter humans.

To clone a human is to remove an individuals individuality, an aspect of them that no one, before this clone, could replicate. Althuogh this clone would not have the same experiences as the original it would have the same physical appearance which is enough to drive most humans towards the edge.

I also believe that we should not genetically engineer humans unless it is to solve certain genetic disorders such as Down Syndrom. This alteration as soon as it begins people would be "engineering" their children with a scientist rather than let nature take its course. This would be much like the movie GATTICA(sp?) in my opinion and people would become bigoted in the realm of genes.

Human cloning, I believe, should not be preformed because then it would be scientifically proven if human's have "souls" or not and if not the hope that keeps most people living for something better in an afterlife could be destroyed.

Although cloning offers unique medical possiblities we have yet to discover if two individuals can truly be exactly alike, there is thin line we must walk. Besides most people of the world claim that it is what's on the inside that counts so how can you replicate that?

It seems like we both got the same idea simultaneously Fable - that the board needed some serious discussion threads

IMO genetic engineering is a wonderful area with great promise, and also a really frightening prospect. Cloning of animals like cattle and mice are done almost routinely now, by several labs. Cloning of human beings is already possible, but international agreements has halted the development (for now) by limiting the time for how long a fertilized egg cell is allowed to divide. It is certain that both cloning of animals (us included) and plants, will continue to rise more and more ethical questions. We constantly increase our control of the fundamental life processes for both ourselves and the environment we live in.

I think some fears of mankind altering and disturbing the balance in complex eco-systems, are valid. There is still so much we don't understand fully, and changes in one end might result in unexpected and unwished effects. But there is also much irrational fear. Genetic engineering in food production has been around since the dawn of agriculture, it's just the methods that have changed.

The cloning of animals for spare body parts can be viewed in the same context as keeping animals just to eat them, or to carry out medical experiments and beauty-product testing on them. How much should mankind be allowed to exploit other beings for his own purposes? Is there a limit? I have a lot of opinions, as always, but to me, there is no difference between cloning animals for spare body parts and the use of transgenic animals (like knock-out mice, mice with a specific gene removed) in medical research. Or the mass production of meat that we see in industrial farming.

Genetic enginering in humans is a heavily loaded issue, and IMO media is making things worse by chosing to focus on certain aspects while not discussing others, sometimes more fundamental questions. I personally think that the fear of "custum-made" children is exaggregated by many. Genes coding for eye colour are easy to located and probably also to alter, but on the other hand, eye colour isn't a terribly important feature in an individual (hopefully). Genes coding for personality, temperament, intelligence, learning ability etc, are totally unknown, and most geneticists are convinced that there are no single genes that determine these things, but a combination of many different genetic features that interacts with the individuals environment. "Post-genetics" are far more important in determining that kind of individual features.

The greatest promise that genetic enginering holds for humans, is perhaps the hope to cure severe diseased with genotherapy. With today's known techinques it's terribly difficult to alter the DNA of an adult individual (I had a recent discussion about why with my brother in law recently, he is working with production of DNA sequences), but in babies, it's much easier. Wouldn't we all like to have healthy children? Wouldn't we all like a future where all the hereditary diseases are gone, and we can even remove genes that makes us vulnerable to for instance cancer, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, etc? I'm sure most of us would, but it's still a utopia, and if it is to be reality, we will face the potentially dangerous side of the coin as well.

One such dangerous effect IMO, is an increase of class society. Genetic enginering is expensive, and will continue to be so for a long time. Let me take an example: a by-pass surgery of the heart is viewed as a simple routine procedure in all of the Western world today. The technique was invented in the early 1970's I think, and in 30 years this life saving and/or life prolonging technique has become an everyday medical service.
For a certain part of the worlds population.
With genetic enginering, we might be healthier and live longer. This will increase our power, and it will also make each and every individual consume more during his/her lifetime. When do you think by-pass surgery will become available to people with heart diseases in Somalia? A century has passed since penicilline was invented - still, lots of people die from common diseases easily treated with antibiotics, while we in the industrial world overconsume antibiotics to the extent that we create antibiotic-resistent lines of bacteria. I foresee a similar problem with genetic enginering - it will only become avaible to certain populations, and it will probably increase the power, wealth and resource consumption in this groups.

Anyway, research cannot be stopped by as long as finacial interests exist. Personally, I don't think it should be stopped either, but I think that global, all inclusive (not only partly, as today) regulation should be introduced. I think I posted previously that two researchers, an American and an Italian, stated last year that they will move their labs to some state that has not yet signed the international agreement on banning human cloning, an carry out their experments as a means of curing infertility. They stated they would start this project this year. IMO, this demonstrates the need for a truly global regulation.

Is mankind ready for the knowledge we have? No, I don't think so. I hope the utopia/dystopia I described above is still far ahead, because we need both deeper understanding of the processes, and, most of all, we need to adjust our minds and our society to these possibilitites.

*sigh* this discussion taps questions I'm asking myself about my own research about neurotransmitters in the human brain. It would be a dream to be able to cure or at least decrease the symptoms, of severe neuropsychiatric conditions that cause much suffereing. But it would be a nightmare to imagine a future where people can take a pill to increase their learning ability or change their personality. *double sigh*.

Originally posted by Word
Although cloning offers unique medical possiblities we have yet to discover if two individuals can truly be exactly alike, there is thin line we must walk. Besides most people of the world claim that it is what's on the inside that counts so how can you replicate that?

We certaintly can't make two individuals identical with cloning - we can only make two people with the same genes, just like identical twins, who are naturally occuring clones. The moment a cell starts to divide, it also interacts with it's environment. Lots of environmental factors affect our biology already prenatally, for example virus infections, different substances and nutrition. Our genetic constitution is only the first chapter of the story. Post genetics, ie everything from intracellular events to what people we socialise with, can't be replicated with any technique even remotely known today. Perhaps one day we can make a perfect replica of a whole person, not only his genes but all his learning, memory, experince, his billions of brain synapses, and his individual response system. Then we might face the problem of having two identical individuals, but they would actually cease to be identical the moment they were created, since both would be interacting with their biological and psychosocial environment.

Good lord people! I think we're all forgeting something... A little thing called "Jurassic Park"! Do we really want that to happen?

Seriously though, I beleive it boils down to two things. First, what do you beleive as a person. Do you think it is morale, or ethical? How would you feel if you were the clone? And mostly, is this thing really alive, or is it just that, a thing.

Second, what is society's outlook on it? Is it frowned upon, or embraced? The general reaction of the population can determine many things, and whether that is good or bad is up to you.

Personally, I think it is right, but only to an extent. We weren't meant to play God, but we were also meant to find advances and techniques to continue the species. So, where does line get drawn?

Playing God, aren't we?

@Word - it's GATTACA. The letters stand for the 4 nucleotides that make up DNA :Guanine, Adenine, Thymine and Cytosine. Adenine pairs with Thymine and Guanine pairs with Cytosine. RNA does not have Thymine, instead it has Uracil.

------------

I have no objections as to the benefits mentioned by all of you.

I'm just skeptic about how OTHER people will use this method for their selfish reasons/goals. *shudders at the thought*

Can we deal with such ramifications?

I dont think any area of knowledge should be forbidden for us only beacause it intrudes on what in the past have been belived to be gods domain.

Now, Genetic Engineering can be used for many purposes and in many ways. It is imo foolish to say the Genetic Engineering is either "good" or "bad". Instead you have to look at the different uses and decide in each case if you think its ethical use or not. This is true for any kind of science and any kind of tool.

Genetical Engineering will most likely be used many times for purposes that i would deem "bad" but this is not cause to try to stop any resarch on this subject but rather we should try to controll its uses.

What uses that are Ethical is unfortunatly a far to complicated matter for me to express my thoughts on here and in english

it's been a while since fable's stirred the pot . . .

The problem with genetic engineering is that we cannot eliminate Down's Syndrome, the predisposition to alchoholism, etc. without also bringing about the ability to create the "Ubermen" and Khan Noonian Singhs that science fiction fears.

Science is, in and of itself, an amoral discipline. This discussion is also going on over on C Elegans's The purpose of science thread. While it would be nice to be able to pick things like the eye colour of our children, there are malcontents and rogue governments who will use this same knowledge to create projects like the Dark Angel "Manticore" program.

So should we pursue areas of knowledge which can be used destructively? Of course we should. Many of the advances in technology and science we take for granted in our daily lives started as military projects. The first digital computer, ENIAC, was a military project designed to plot solutions for artillery. Where would we be without computers today? Certainly not engaging in this discussion. Would we have pursued civilian satellites and other space technologies as aggressively as we did if not for their military applications? Probably not.

There are many potential advantages to genetic engineering and cloning. Our friend Word rightly points out that the ability to generate a replacement organ for a specific individual (and thus with no change of the body rejecting that organ) is one of the prime arguments for continued research in cloning. If we could eliminate genetic predispositions to diseases and conditions, we should pursue genetic engineering for that purpose.

Should we enable potential parents to pick their child's hair colour, shoe size, IQ etc.? Of course not. That is a frivolous use of technology. Children aren't custom-built cars or computers, but if we can ensure that those same children aren't born with genetic birth defects, we should make every effort possible.

I've said before (I think in one of fable's other threads) that the best way to make sure that the nogoodniks don't use cloning for its more sinister applications is to fund and conduct the research in the open, under the scrutiny of the press and the worldwide scientific community. Science may be amoral, but scientists are not.

It seems that there are always some scientists out there who are more concerned with the discovery instead of worrying about its ramifications. If we ban cloning and genetic research in the United States and the West, those scientists will seek out patrons in countries which do not have the oversight to control them or may want the technology for its more sinister applications. We must avoid this at all costs. If we are going to pursue genetic engineering, with all of its benefits as well as its pitfalls, we must retain that knowledge in a context that can be controlled and monitored.

HMMM

CE, I agree--my little brothers are identical twins, and while they have a lot of things in common, they are really different. Environment not only affects the personality, but also the physiology. One of them is bigger than the other--they started out that way. One of them got a better blood supply than the other, and was born one pound heavier. One of them thinks intuitively, while the other is much more analytical. Their temperaments are different, too. After seeing what my brothers go through, I can't see why anyone would want a clone! Being an identical twin is hell, unless you're the type of twin that loves to dress alike, etc.

What scares me about genetic engineering is that it would throw off the natural balance of the human race. I foresee that most people, esp. in non-western parts of the world, would choose to have male children rather than female. Unfortunately, most people would choose light-skinned rather than dark-skinned children (although the genetics for that would be very complex--they've figured out that about 10 different genes interact to produce skin color--it is actually possible for 2 fair-skinned parents to have a darker complected child). Also, the thing that I think about most is that every time I've heard a parent of a child with Mental Retardation talk about their child, they've said that that child was the best thing that ever happened to them, taught them a lot, etc. Our society does not value people who cannot work, and fails to see what else they have to offer the world.

BTW, have any of you ever read Ursula K. LeGuin's, The Lathe of Heaven?

Two cents

Wow! Everyone has put up such long answers! I feel a little embarassed that all I am going to say is:

I have no problem whatsoever with genetic engineering.

Gattaca, anyone? I disagree that that movie was a damnation of genetic engineering. It's point was that genes can only change so much. Human will is the final determinant of an individual's life.

Re: Two cents

Originally posted by der Moench
Wow! Everyone has put up such long answers! I feel a little embarassed that all I am going to say is:

I have no problem whatsoever with genetic engineering.

Gattaca, anyone? I disagree that that movie was a damnation of genetic engineering. It's point was that genes can only change so much. Human will is the final determinant of an individual's life.

Don't worry... I posted a short response, as I don't feel very strongly about this. I beleive cloning is something that should be left up the one being cloned, and I mean the process, and what happens to it.

Just thought I throw in a few little things about cloning feel free to say if you have heard otherwise but as far as I know this is the current status of it.

1. Its impossible to make a perfect clone because the mitochondria ( seperate organisms that live within every
cell of our body to provide cell energy, kinda weird knowing you have seperate organisms living in you isn't it? )carry some of the genetic package and so far cannot be copied

2. You know that sheep dolly? well it took close to 100 or 200 unsure which but 200 i think is the more likely, trys before they made ONE clone so no worries so far.
Also Dolly has arthritis at a very early age which has spread loads of doubts about genetic engineering, it maybe just a family thing in dolly but thte point is they didn't know it was there
I don't like the idea of messing around with something several hundred times more complicated than my computor before I understand each of its workings.

And finally on the subject of a persons spirit, soul or personlity matrix whatever you want to call it, we still have feck all idea how the brain really works and only explain the damn thing through its sensory imput and its output.
We have no clue what thinking is, odd your doing it right now and science doesn't know how to explain it ain't it

Thanks for the correction Maharlika

C Elegans- I agree, basically with you on the fact that it is nearly impossible to create two humans EXACTLY the same. However if a person was not exposed to someone who looked EXACTly like them once they were born it would definetly present a sppecial challenge to that person to come to terms with losing their physical individuality.

Also in reference to the comments made by Kayless I simply disagree. I believe that transgenetics only produces quicker and more drastic results while the human race continues to evolve. Over time technology has become our key to the evolution of the human race not our bodies. This is what has made the human race so resilient and populus, we manipulate our enviroment to adapt to us. In ancient China we produced terraces to produce more rice on limited land. In Utah the Mormons developed irrgation systems to farm the desert in order to survive. Air Conditioning allowed the person from cooler climates to live in tropical areas in comfort.

This is a process of evolution mostly of our minds not usually of our bodies. This is what makes the human race competitive against nature so why do we need to genetically enhance a process that may only be used in war and athletic competition. And in the Olimpics is altering your genetics any different than taking steroids?

I think that while genetic engineering is a great thing, we should stop short at attempting to alter any part of our genetic code until we know the consequences such alterations would have on the human race. There is still a lot we do not know, I would stop short of changing things until we are sure that we are not putting our foot in the pot as they say. Changing the very thing that makes us human is stupidity personified, at least wait until we know a little more about the consequences of such technology.

Incidently Cloning of human beings is no more then a artificially induced version of what nature does anyway with twins, there is no more problems then with test tube babies. A clone is just another human being, no matter how much we try that person will grow up in a environment separate from it's orginal genetic donor, so a clone is just another person, twins deal with their sameness and yet still retain their individuality, it is just a question of changing perspectives.

Originally posted by Word
Also in reference to the comments made by Kayless I simply disagree. I believe that transgenetics only produces quicker and more drastic results while the human race continues to evolve. Over time technology has become our key to the evolution of the human race not our bodies.

Technology is what has made humans the superior race of our planet, but is has also prevented us from further physical evolution (changing the environment, developing vaccines, etc. all bypass the normal evolutionary routes). But now technology has finally reached the point where it can get us back on the road again. Technology is the instrument in which mankind will continue to progress biologically, which in turn leads to faster technological advancement. Our minds are part of our bodies, and is precisely where all our wonderful technology springs from. A culture consisting of all geniuses will advance much faster than ordinary joes. Genetic engineering is the result of technology, so I see your comments on human technology as merely illustrating my point that transgenics is the fitting road for humanity to take.

Originally posted by Word
This is what makes the human race competitive against nature so why do we need to genetically enhance a process that may only be used in war and athletic competition. And in the Olimpics is altering your genetics any different than taking steroids?

The drive to be the best is what has gotten us where we are today (A contented world is a stagnant one). As for the Olympic issue, steroids are something you take, whereas transgenics will be built in since birth. Should we penalize a man because he was born bigger or smarter than someone else? Will there be such a thing a racism against transgenics?

Because of my major interest in the human autonomy, this subject is rather important to me because i may be one of those people manipulating genes......

Anyway, here is my take on it: Genetic engineering has wonderful possibilities, such as creating new organs, the ability to cure genetic diseases, and other issues.

But as always, the good comes with the bad. I would hate to see this go into commercial use (which I think may be inevitable, because more parts of this world are becoming market economies) and for other uses.......

If you think about it, perhaps this is what evolution wanted from us. They gave us the capabilities and mental capacity to do such a thing, and perhaps the next step of evolution is in our hands.

And btw, even though I am a republican, I do have some democratic views such as: Religion (I'm agnostic), cloning (It may be my job in the future, i'm not going to get some political view get in the way of it) and abortion (same reasons as cloning, I may be performing abortions) so I guess it may be time to persuade my parents to vote democratic

I have no problems with GE but I wouldn't like to be the kid on the block who has been 'aesthetically' engineered. If a parent tried to 'build' their child into some kind of perfect child, it would,IMO, be shredded by society. Not a prayer. Suicide. Oh by the way , Manchester United for the title.

I personnally believe that genetic engineering of our race should not occur, or only occur on very small levels, such as saving someones life by making them immune to a disease, etc. I have glasses, but I would not go through genetic engineering to make my eyesight "normal". Sentient life should not be tampered with. Let evolution decide. However, engineering, say, a plant to provide food for people in Africa, is fine.

(Pretty contradictory, I know, but thats how I feel.)

All that, with the exception of dying. I, right now, do not want to die. Ever. I may change my views as I grow into an adult and beyond, but right now I do not want to die.

Originally posted by Kayless

The drive to be the best is what has gotten us where we are today (A contented world is a stagnant one). As for the Olympic issue, steroids are something you take, whereas transgenics will be built in since birth. Should we penalize a man because he was born bigger or smarter than someone else? Will there be such a thing a racism against transgenics?

My problem is not with the transgenics recieving hate but the disadvantage that "regular" humans would be put at, a GATTACA scenario of predeterming someones destiny by their genetic make-up, while ignorig will and desire. These are the incredible human characteristics we would put on the self for superior genes.