About biotechnology
 

As the title says, this is a discussion about biotechnology. To be more specific, gene treatment and stem cell treatment/research. Gene manipulation of plants and animals is also a topic as well as so called traditional ways of plant and animal mutation/manipulation.

What are the ethical problems involved? Why? That is what I want to discuss most of all.

To give you something to start of the discussion from:

Are you against groving/cloning/harvesting embryos for stem cells? No matter what the answer, why?

Personally I am for it. I see no real gigantic problem as some people do. The topic is in some ways difficult in terms of ethics I admidt. But I do not consider a blastokyst(the state of the embryo stem cells are harvested from) to yet be human in any way.

I would never condone something that could put THAT MUCH power into the goverment's hands..

Don't you ever worry about fascist rule? What better way to do that then to use trial and error with human embryos and thier dna? Slowly create the perfect human being, then geneticaly clone that human to build an indestructable army. Think about a suicide bomber that was always precise with his plans, was better, faster, and stronger then the average human, and who's immune system could stomache viruses we cannot..

And if you don't think our goverment wouldn't consider it, then you're living in a world where Michal Moore is riding unicorns naked and carbs are good for you..

So simply put: No, and my reason is cause I question authority.. Afterall, I'm not a mind-reader, how do I know they don't intend to screw me over?

If you're making a suicide bomber, WHY would you genetically manipulate 'm to be faster and stronger (better is... well, there IS such a thing as talent, so, it's debatable) than the "average" human. More importantly, why the HECK would you give them a stronger immune system? You should just ignore it. Actually, you should just go get some random passerbyer, brainwash them, then attach a bomb onto them.

I am against harvesting embryo's for stem cell research. I believe that a human life starts when the sperm meets the egg. So... yeah. Call it "Religious brainwashing" if you will, but I think I'm old enoughto make my own ideas, and that's my twenty five cents.

Oh, and Michael Moore on a unicorn... naked?

... Get some help.

I've read some stats somewhere about this, and Blastocysts aren't the only place to get stem cells. You CAN get Adult Stem cells from fully grown adults too. Not only that, but a good bit of the adult stem cell studies have been successful compared to a very few studies using Blastocyst Stem Cells.

I too believe that life begins when the sperm meets the egg and taking the blastocyst against its will might as well be considered murder to me. Just because they can't say, do anything about it, doesn't mean it isn't alive. It's like playing a completely awesome game (like FFVI or Chrono Trigger) and suddenly just stop playing it. The game WANTS to be played just as much as the Blastocyst wants to live.

First of all, to Cheerful Coffin:
Basically, psychological traits can not be passed on in cloning nor by gene transfer. I think you are a bit paranoid on the subject.

The thing here is, that Adult Stemm Cells are Stem Cells that only develop to specific cells in the human body. For instance, stem cells taken from an adults bones can form in to different blood cells, such as white and red cells. But stem cells from an embryo can develop to any cell in the human body. Embryo stem cells also have the special abilty, that their 'biological clock' hasn't really started yet. They don't age until they turn in to a specific cell. Adult stem cells do age and live for about four months. Of course adult stem cells have a future in medicine too and infact some succesful treatments with them have allready been conducted. Embryo stem cells however just have a bigger place in the future.

Yes, here is where cloning comes in. Embryos can be cloned and then harvested for stem cells. And "dead babies" were really never used and are never used. A blastocyst is a ball containing a few hundred cells and some fluids. It's not a baby.

Fuck Natural Selection. I really don't care if we're screwing with some 'natural flow' of things by curing all these diseases and giving ourselves 'unnatural' abilities. I ain't no Bob Marley. I'm totally for biotechnology and the advancement of human health science.

I think the moral implications are irrelevant compared to the practical gain, especially since the only (most of the) qualms in the first place are minor.

Embryo stem cells can be harvested from blastocysts, which is still an embryo. How ever fetuses were at some point used more and are still sometimes used to research for example how the cells are gotten to form to different kinds of cells.

And, Locke, the thing unfortunatly is that all biotechnological... well technologies involve ethical problems that are considered very severe by some. One has to be careful with biotechnology. Personally I agree with you though.

I throw in a nother question. You can still feel free to also discuss stem cells further as well.

What do you all think about the ethical problems of gene manipulation of plants and animals?

I think Penn and Teller's episode on GE foods and other stuffs put my thoughts into perfect words. They basically argued that not only has there not been any proven health concern about GE foods today, but that there simply is not enough transportable food on the planet to feed everyone. The only option to feed everyone is GE foods. The only complaints are ridiculous ones, with delusions of massive social upheavals by plant-humans. It's nothing like that.

People have this weird aversion to synthesized things. I think it's pointless--technically, everything humans create is unnatural; it's only based, in peoples' minds, on how primitive it is. The wagon isn't an abomination but the car is. Marijuana isn't an abomination but methamphetamine is. There are some valid points in these, but I think they miss the main point: people say "natural" and "organic" without really knowing what they're talking about.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, I believe, with replicating the processes in nature. If nature stands on its head, runs around three times, and says "open sesame (on a microscopic scale, that is :P)," we can replicate it--with no ill effects. Now, the success varies depending on what extreme we're talking about.
But like I said, P&T put it well when they said that anyone who could feed millions of extra people was a hero. Farmers have already been "naturally" growing better tomatoes, better cabbages, better what have you, through vocational knowledge. And suddenly, when science steps in, with the ability to work it harder, make it better, do it faster, makes us stronger, more than ever hour after, our work is never ove--ahem.

When science steps in, with the ability to do it more efficiently, suddenly people are afraid.