A Question of Ethics

Greetings everyone!

I noticed that the question of genetic testing being ethical has arisen in many of the other topics, so I thought I'd post it as a poll here.

I won't be revealing my opinion yet as I don't want to sway anyone else's. I am very curious as to everyone's opinions. :wink:

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

Hmmm, I now just have to bring up this article.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

Very, very interesting.

Science and discovery seem to be rising to new limits. All of what used to be written fiction is starting to come to life.

Our knowledge of science and technology increases geometrically. I've been hearing murmers of nanotech manufacturing, able to build things from scrap raw materials. What does that have to do with genetics? Well now you have a doctor thats the size of a red blood cell. Nanotech medicine . . .

Of course we still have a way to go before this sort of thing becomes feasable.

Heh, looks like that article somehow made its way back to me....

Just have to wonder.. Just what -is- fiction exactly?

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

Just have to wonder.. Just what -is- fiction exactly?

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

I was refering to all the stories and movies that were based on human mutations and other "science gone wrong" stuff. It all used to be something that we would think "Ha, like that would ever happen", but now it's actually happening.

I was refering to all the stories and movies that were based on human mutations and other "science gone wrong" stuff. It all used to be something that we would think "Ha, like that would ever happen", but now it's actually happening.

Hmm... Indeed. I wonder, however, what will be next to cross from pure fantasy into science fiction, and, eventually, into science. IMO, The Rats of NIMH has went from being a story, to being more of an urban legend. Whether the story can be verified or not is yet to be seen.

Just keep in mind that in the middle ages people thought many things we consider science now was either fantasy or some work of evil or witchcraft. Chemistry, or an early form of it, was one of them.

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

i think in order to advance as a species we will have no choice but to munipulate our dna eventualy so we should research it while we have the chance.

Yo!

Personally I think that Genetics is a very important area to explor since it opens up doorways of discovery and unlimited possiblities.

As long as it is in a controlled enviroment in which the animals are taken care of I have no problem with this area of experimentation.

On a relacted note my sister is actualy applying for a job looking after animals you are used in medical experiments.

L8tr!

Jam.

but one must be willing to know which lines to cross and which not. there is a fine line between cruelity and research which is to often cross. yet sometimes not cross often enough.

One who obsesses about death is truley dead for they do not aprieciate life. but one who is obsesses with life must cause death for life and death must always exist together.

I see too many people who would really benefit from certain kinds of genetic alteration, people with terrible physical and mental disabilities who are, apart from the disabilities, are some of the most wonderful individuals in the world and deserve better.

Cheers!

mal

Yo!

Agreed, its just one of the things used and expanded apon in order to make a brighter future for others.

L8tr!

Jam.

P.S To Mal Thanks by the way I know a lot of people (including myself) who appreiciate what you have said. Yet I in my condition and cercumstance can never in my life be as strong of character and will as most of those I know. Thanks again.

Sorry if I went of topic there but I felt it just had to be said.

I would say that genetic manipulation is ethical for the most part, but one must be ever vigilant about crossing the line between research for the benefit of all mankind and outright torture. The subjects whether they be rodent, feline, canine, equine, ursine, or whatever persuasion one happens to be, must not be made to suffer needless pain and injury. I'm also in favor of using alternate methods where they exist, to achieve the same results. :D :)

That's a fascinating paper. Looks like The Secret of NIMH/Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH is indeed no longer necessarily a total fantasy. It's always an interesting one: is genetic engineering ethical? I'm one of those people who believes that the end always justifies the means. Well... almost always. Confused? I am... Let me try and explain.
If genetic engineering of animals led to the possibility of cures for diseases which have hitherto eluded science, then surely it's a good thing. If it were that simple then it must be a a good thing. Isn't it? However there would be problems of the technology being abused (think of warthog super soldiers able to operate heavy artillery!), and of course, is it right to subject the animals to such manipulation? The point becomes so muddled that it becomes very difficult to argue one way or another. Therefore I'll say that as long as the outcome of research would be beneficial then it is permissible, though I shall also insert the caveat that one should always view each case separately. Imagine, if you will, two different pieces of research, both that would potentially yield a cure that would help many sufferers, yet one requires the experimental subjects, both human and animal, to undergo terrible ordeals at the hands of researchers, while the other requires only a course of drug treatments. Which is ethical? Again it depends on your point of view, but illustrates that each case is special and should be viewed as such.
If the research would be beneficial, it should be considered, but one must always keep in mind the methods that would be employed. I guess that means I'm voting for: yes it's ethical... In some cases. I just wonder what those cases are...

I see too many people who would really benefit from certain kinds of genetic alteration, people with terrible physical and mental disabilities who are, apart from the disabilities, are some of the most wonderful individuals in the world and deserve better.

To that, I couldn't agree more. . . . .

P.S To Mal Thanks by the way I know a lot of people (including myself) who appreiciate what you have said. Yet I in my condition and cercumstance can never in my life be as strong of character and will as most of those I know. Thanks again.

Dunno why I'm quoting this other than the fact I identify with it. I would like to thank you also, Mal. . [May the meek of this world unite. .]

If the research would be beneficial, it should be considered, but one must always keep in mind the methods that would be employed.

Yes, and I agree. . Keep in mind, however, that what might be beneficial to some might seem like horror to others. It's all a matter of perspective, as is with pretty much anything of this nature. :wink:

I'm also in favor of using alternate methods where they exist, to achieve the same results.

IMO, That'd be a very good practice to make a habit of, especially in the sciences. In most cases, simple trial and error isn't the most efficient option to get the desired result. In some cases, however, it might be the only way. And that's where we have to be careful. Not just in genetics but in other types of experimentation. For some reason, some scientist seem to think that using animals for experiments somehow relieves them of responsibility of a negative result. Again, IMO, animals are no more expendable than humans. A death is a death, no matter what the circumstances. Perhaps if we started testing on ourselves instead of lab animals, we'd think a little more clearly before doing something that could be dangerous. The results might even be more accurate. I read somwhere that certain types of cancer, and a number of other dibilitating gene related diseases have already been cured in lab animals, but for some reason the data doesn't hold up when applied to human phisiology.

Well I've said enough for now. . . .

--Tzolkin

ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

Hey Tzolkin,

Since you quoted me in your last reply, I feel that it is my obligation to let you and others know how I feel about this subject as a whole. As I stated before; for the most part I do feel that genetic manipulation/experimentation is ethical, however one must be ever vigilant against such experimentation being used for cruel or harmful purposes. I would also like to say at this point that IMHO too often we place ourselves above all other beings on this planet. We brag and boast that we are superior to the "lesser" animals on the planet. I for one do not put much stock in this belief. I believe that our creator placed us here on earth as caretakers, not masters. Instead of making slaves of and subjugating our fellow creatures, we were put here to live in harmony with and perhaps even learn from them. The Native Americans understood this concept as did the various hunter/gatherer tribes in parts of Africa and Latin America. They took from the environment only what was needed at the time... Nothing went to waste. As you can imagine, this is a sharp contrast to what takes place now under the guise of progress.

Peace :)

I couldn't agree more. . .

Perhaps humanity is up for a wake up call. Perhaps we have it backwards, and we humans are the lower species. Just as an ant could walk over a human and think that it was superior to the seemingly soulless object it was crawling upon, and any microscopic lifeforms that might dwell there, so could we humans walk upon this earth, thinking we are superior to all we walk upon, and that which we share this earth with..

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

i concure Tzolkin. perhaps it is they who decided not to use the technology we use because they saw it as a useless self destructive maner. perhaps there had been at one time when each of them were the master and us the servants. and perhaps they simply gave up technology to keep from destroying themselves.

and perhaps they simply gave up technology to keep from destroying themselves.

I agree, and may eventually follow suit when dealing with certain technologies. However, there may still be need for human technology, at least for a while. It may eventually open a way that those of us who are not cruel and domineering to advance to the level our fellow man seem so bent on exploiting for some reason.

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

The last few posts in this thread reminded me of something I read/saw somewhere.

They did a study with a ferret, for which they had watch 2 different video clips on a large projected screen. The first video clip was of black and white "snow" on screen; the other was a clip from a movie. I don't recall how they "verified" this exactly, but as far as the ferret was concerned, what was on the screen, no matter what was played on the screen, the ferret perceived it all as being exactly the same in appearance.

Which lead the researcher to consider the same being true in humans. We may not even be able to see/perceive everything that is in front of us. For all we know, there could be an entire array of things we have absolutely no way to perceive with our bare senses. It could range from environmental aspects, to even beings/creatures that we can't see, hear, or feel, or potentially one or more of the above. I suppose gasses like propane is an ok example. Naturally its invisible and odorless, but it can still make a pretty good bang with an open flame. However, its not -exactly- the right kind of example, and is very much on the "small scale" of the idea.

Now that I think about it, the "alien spirits" from the movie "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" is possibly a much better example.

After all, we already know most animals can sense/detect things that humans have no hope of with just the natural body.

After all, we already know most animals can sense/detect things that humans have no hope of with just the natural body.

i agree that with our bodies alone we have no hope of survival but it is our minds that give us the advantage over all other creatures.

This is true. Humans are pretty pethedic as far as animals go. We have no fur, pitiful excuse for claws/nails, and no teeth suitable for combat. What makes humans the most dangerous thing on the face of this planet is a tool-using intellegence and hands with opposible thumbs. Seriuosly, there are only a hand full of tool using creatures that exist.

Interesting thing to think over, with all of the inherent physical deficancies that humans have, we can be extremely cruel and violent.

Excellent post, Dragon.

Ingenuity is probably the most powerful, and destructive ability humans have in terms of making up for a lack of "natural" defenses to both environment and offensive/defensively.

On the other hand, With a lack of "natural" offence and defense, this time regarding more toward combative abilities, would the world really be a better place if one person -could- kill another rather efficiently with just a slash of claws, or a powerful bite? Both of which are pretty much impossible to trace back to a "who did it" standpoint. A "bad Guy" would no longer 'need' a gun (etc.) to kill easily, as they'd be born equipped to do so, and likely in a method that’s -much- harder to track back to the person who did it.

That's all assuming people in today's world had "natural" defenses. Though, food for thought, if humans still did have more natural defenses, would the world today be a better, or worse place to live as it was shaped over time?

There was an evolutionary stage of human that preceeded us that looked very similar to us, much hairier though. They had the same skull structure but a more robust skeletal structure. They where imensly strong. Though they didn't have fangs/claws melee combat with individuals like that could result in what you where talking about. They looked like us, just bigger and if they shaved would just be mistaken as a very large man/woman. Even humans nowdays, there's some exeptions to the rule. I've seen some big dudes.

I don't think it would neccessarily be harder to find who assaulted who, but different rather. Instead of a weapon to get rid off, now your weapons are premenantly part of you, and if science is still a factor blood shows up rather nicely under a black light when it's sprayed with a chemical.

i doubt seriously any criminal would try kill thier victims with the one weapon they can not get rid of especialy since the point of doing it would be to get away with it. and the other problem with that is the person you are commiting a crime against also has dangerous weapons eqaul to your natural ones so unless you plan to attack from behind.

It's true you can't necessarily get rid of the weapon, but on the other hand, making a match to an animals claw/tooth mark is MUCH harder, practically impossible to track back to the owner of said claw/tooth than it is to trace a bullet back to the gun, and its owner. Even knives are easier to trace back to an owner than a claw/tooth mark from an animal because it doesn't so much leave a clear imprint of the claw/tooth like a human would if they bit hard into flesh. Heck, even today its extremely difficult to track back an arrow to an owner if the owner took steps (not entirely difficult ones) to reduce sources of where/how it can be traced back to them.

Not to mention, it stands to reason if they were at all sentient, it can go both ways, technology to trace claw/tooth marks, and technology to hinder tracing claw/tooth marks

As for the attacking others with good "natural" weapons, are we assuming all would evolve from predatory creatures? Not all animals have claws and sharp teeth.

true but then thier is poisin or bone crushing strength
either of wich would still leave the attacker quistioning weather an attack would be worth it for if it is poison more in likely we will be imune to its afects if its strength then the attacker has to wonder is he stronger.

This is a very interesting topic, turning out some fascinating discussion. Love some of the stuff that's been said before (Tzolkin's ant anecdote for instance), and of course the stuff about animals perceiving things we can't (my grandmother's dog would always wait by the window half an hour before she arrived back at the house. Didn't matter when she went out, it would always know when she was coming back). As a species humans are very weak. Strength to size ratio we are the weakest on the planet. However like it's been said, we've found ways around this little problem. But what if we had not needed to? This stuff about humans having claws is interesting…

i doubt seriously any criminal would try kill thier victims with the one weapon they can not get rid of especialy since the point of doing it would be to get away with it.

Xavier, I think has covered most of it. If everyone has the weapons everyone could potentially have committed the crime. Alright, there would be things like the size of the marks, angles of wounds (relating to the relative heights of attacker and victim), and a whole host of other things that a trained forensic pathologist might be able to name, but it would still be like looking for a needle in a big stack of needles. Regardless of whether the weapon is attached to you or not, they would still have to find the attacker. And once they were found and captured, because of the prolific nature of the claws, they would be of less significance as evidence.

Additionally, it is an alarming generalisation to say all crimes are committed with the sole intention of getting away with it. What about crimes committed in the heat of the moment? Not all crimes are the product of planning and forethought. It takes all sorts. Some people might actually commit a crime to be caught. You may scoff, but there are some funny people out there. Attention seekers, the mentally ill, the just plain stupid. It just ain't that simple.

and the other problem with that is the person you are commiting a crime against also has dangerous weapons eqaul to your natural ones so unless you plan to attack from behind.

As for the victim having a weapon, would they have the frame of mind capable of using the weapons? Not everyone takes to attacking and killing easily, even in self defence. Just because you have the claws to defend yourself doesn't mean you have the skill or mental capacity to actually see the defence through. This is I suppose what sets murders apart from law abiding people. Just because you can go out and buy a knife doesn't mean you're then going to go out and use it on someone you don't like. Even in self defence the very shock of being attacked (something that not everyone is exposed to on a regular basis) could be enough to surprise one into inaction. Thinking about it this is what sets thugs apart from murderers. A murderer will play on the psychological advantage they have over the victim. A thug will just wade in... Guess which is more potentially scary, not to mention dangerous.

true but then thier is poisin or bone crushing strength
either of wich would still leave the attacker quistioning weather an attack would be worth it for if it is poison more in likely we will be imune to its afects if its strength then the attacker has to wonder is he stronger.

Assuming that any "humanoid" type creatures/beings of this world stemmed from evolution of existing world wildlife, Strength and toxins are among all creatures. It stands to reason that there would be as much diversity in the "humanoid" evolution of animals as there are animal species in general. One example that comes to mind is herbivore creatures, which do not carry claws, or teeth, or otherwise any biological feature to inflict serious harm to another creature. So there is a small flaw in your theory. It wouldn't be hard to find a being that had minimal biological defenses should one desire, and seek out someone to commit a crime against without excessive trouble, or risk during the act.

Xavier, I think has covered most of it. If everyone has the weapons everyone could potentially have committed the crime. All right, there would be things like the size of the marks, angles of wounds (relating to the relative heights of attacker and victim), and a whole host of other things that a trained forensic pathologist might be able to name, but it would still be like looking for a needle in a big stack of needles. Regardless of whether the weapon is attached to you or not, they would still have to find the attacker. And once they were found and captured, because of the prolific nature of the claws, they would be of less significance as evidence.

I never intended to imply it was impossible to match a claw or tooth mark to a wound, but it's much, MUCH harder than say, matching a fingerprint. Claws and teeth tend to be used for slashing or tearing, some perhaps do both inadvertently, which means, any violent act committed, and then compared the wound to the claws/teeth which would likely be otherwise pretty close to identical, at least to species would be exceptionally difficult. Ok, so perhaps they manage to determine someone who evolved from a tiger did the crime, that is still pretty vague, and with claws and teeth being pretty much the same, and probably doing most damage to flesh, which is supple, and easily torn/sliced it then becomes very hard to match a wound to a specific set of claws/teeth unless perhaps a bite penetrated bone, or the attacker did a bite, and release on flesh. I think if it did come down to it, it would boil down to more DNA analysis rather than matching claws to wounds. In my opinion, aside from DNA analysis, any unclear (which I would say most cases would be) claw/tooth wound would leave a mark too general in shape/mark to pinpoint it to one individual, but it could be used in terms of potential motion of the strike (how one swings their claws, bites at an object) that would narrow it down than a raw claw or toot h mark. Then it gets down to instinctual, and habitual nuances of an individual.

As for the victim having a weapon, would they have the frame of mind capable of using the weapons? Not everyone takes to attacking and killing easily, even in self-defense. Just because you have the claws to defend yourself doesn't mean you have the skill or mental capacity to actually see the defense through. This is I suppose what sets murders apart from law-abiding people. Just because you can go out and buy a knife doesn't mean you're then going to go out and use it on someone you don't like. Even in self defence the very shock of being attacked (something that not everyone is exposed to on a regular basis) could be enough to surprise one into inaction. Thinking about it this is what sets thugs apart from murderers. A murderer will play on the psychological advantage they have over the victim. A thug will just wade in... Guess which is more potentially scary, not to mention dangerous.

Well, I suppose its potential that efficiency of using ones biological defense/offence mechanisms might diminish, but again assuming they evolved from real world animals, I would assume that at least some degree of instinct when it comes to attack and defense. Heck, look at humans for example, we still have a lot of minor habits that probably stem from primates, such as how we can reach out and pick something up, the way we orient our hand isn't really done by though, but more done on instinct. Same goes with say venting anger, by hitting something; at times its somewhat totally involuntary, large apes will do the same to show anger. I suppose those may not be the greatest examples, but you get the drift. As it is, all humans have some natural fighting instinct, which comes out more in times of great stress/danger, which is known as the "Fight or Flight" instinct

I used to think it was, and buy the lies that it would change the future and revolutionize life for the better, but then I read Michael W. Foxe's book

Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants, Animals, the Earth, and Humans

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558219013/qid=1112728834/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1905402-0040703?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

...and now I'm really worried for humanity. My answer is simply No. Genetic engineering is not necessary and will not improve humanity or any other lifeform and is extremely dangerous and has the potential to wreak havoc on the ecological world and crash entire ecosystems with genetic biopollution. Genetic engineering is already regularly used without government approval or regulation by greedy gigantic pharmaceutical and agriculture corporations and many of these products we consume everyday are a serious threat to our health.

I'm writing a story right now about the future in an earth with biosystems ravaged by the damage brought by out-of-control genetic alteration, it has nothing to do with NIMH or fan fiction, it's just something I'm trying to get the word out about.

genetic alteration is the future yes some people would rather have thier kids face deformity of mind or body than alter thier dna but i would not i could not ask my son go through my child hood. too much pain too much sufering. how can you force parents to acept a child who will likely have heart problems when they dont because of a recesive gene. when they can remove the problem at an early state making them not see thier child suffer. is that not what medical science dreams of a world in which they can control and remove all bad genetics how can anyone live with themselves if we dont at least consider the posibilities. i know we must also look at the risk, and the cost but

great gain can not be acheived without great cost and great risk

and i believe it would be woreth considering even if we do not decide to do it now do not ban it as too imoral for it may be looked at again in the future

our survival is writen in the dna and unless we can crack the code and read the planets evolution direction we will not be able to fully adapt ourselves ending in our own destruction do to our own fears or greed.

First off, GrizzlyCoon, when you have a long url= to put into a forum, running it through SnipURL[/ to put into a forum, running it through [url=www.snipurl.com]SnipURL is exceptionally handy. Especially when used in forums. www.snipurl.com[]www.snipurl.com

Hmm Bit of a touchy situation. In a sense, I agree both ways, genetic engineering isn't really needed in most cases, however to give a person a better life, it does have its merits. The whole thing can go either way.

I'm not entirely sure which way I lean on the whole subject, as it seems rather too early to tell. But where it will be used for medical purposes, somebody will eventually turn it into a commodity. Namely if/when used in the cosmetic surgery industry. Why surgically alter the look of your body when you could go through some gene therapy and do it naturally, with likely considerably less risk, and pain.

Genetically engineered food hasn't been fully proven that its bad for you, and frankly, we get more toxins just from our environment than you likely ever will from genetically altered food. Again it has its potential positives, and negatives, in terms of potentially replacing the "natural" version and possibly affecting the ecosystem, but the foods will be more resilient to disease etc, and possibly even become even better at providing nourishment when consumed.

In the end, it really must be explored and implemented very carefully. However, considering the amount of pollution, and economical damage humans are already doing, I find that exceptionally unlikely. If the world doesn't get its act together soon, future generations may find the world they live in considerably different than the one we have now. Whether that's for better or worse, is yet to be seen. The prospects aren't entirely looking good IMO.

i agree that pollution must be stop and is a preasing issue how can future generations even hope to be able to continue if mother earth becomes a bitter wasteland we need to stop this sinceless destruction.