DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> What do you think about genetic manipulation?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/16/2005 04:08:25 AM · #1
I don't know if there are any other threads about this issue (if so, please forgive me), I'm just curious to find out what are your opinions about this. Recently, I participated to a public debate about cloning and stuff and I was amazed to see that so many people are deeply concerned about the possibility of human cloning but still think that genetic manipulation should be permitted. They think it's not ok to make a genetic copy of yourself, but it's ok to design your child features the way you wanted. That sounds weird to me...
12/16/2005 04:11:49 AM · #2
Know more about genetic manipulation first before throwing opinions or jumping to conclusions.

As far as I know, human cloning is an entirely different thing.
12/16/2005 04:17:07 AM · #3
Originally posted by crayon:

Know more about genetic manipulation first before throwing opinions or jumping to conclusions.

As far as I know, human cloning is an entirely different thing.


I don't think you're reading the original post accurately; Montague's point seems to be that he finds it surprising that people who are anti-human-cloning can be pro-genetic-manipulation. I don't think he's saying they are the same thing, but just that he's have thought those who think human cloning is a no-no would also be hestitant about genetic manipulation.

I'm not sure that follows, mind you, but I don't think it's an irrational expression, so to speak.

R.
12/16/2005 04:23:11 AM · #4
IMHO natural selection still does a great job, if it aint broke etc etc..
12/16/2005 04:23:37 AM · #5
Hi Robt :)

I do understand what Montague said in the first post. And my point is, it's not suprising at all, because human cloning AND genetic manipulation are both entirely different thing, so what is wrong with many people condemning cloning but agree to genetic manipulation?

It's just like, I dont like you to copy my work, but I agree to let photolabs modify my prints.
12/16/2005 04:27:33 AM · #6
Originally posted by crayon:

Hi Robt :)

I do understand what Montague said in the first post. And my point is, it's not suprising at all, because human cloning AND genetic manipulation are both entirely different thing, so what is wrong with many people condemning cloning but agree to genetic manipulation?

It's just like, I dont like you to copy my work, but I agree to let photolabs modify my prints.


Look, it's like I can expect people who believe in "right to life" also to oppose human cloning. There's a strong statistical correlation there, it's been studied. The two have nothing to do with each other, but there's a correlation. In the same sense, one might expect that those who oppose human cloning would be more likely to oppose genetic manipulation.

Robt.
12/16/2005 04:30:58 AM · #7
Originally posted by crayon:

Know more about genetic manipulation first before throwing opinions or jumping to conclusions.

As far as I know, human cloning is an entirely different thing.


I don't get your point here: genetic manipulation is indeed different from human cloning (I didn't said otherwise) but not "entirely different" as you say. Both involve genetic engineering.
12/16/2005 04:35:33 AM · #8
some study cases on correlation:

1. I like to take photos, but dont mean I like cameras
2. I drive like a pro, dont mean I know how a car works

some "opposing" samples:

3. I dont like the law, dont mean I will break them
4. I'm against abortion, dont mean I believe in "right to live"

ah, nevermind. I like you, Robt :) You always give good advise.
12/16/2005 04:36:40 AM · #9
Originally posted by crayon:

ah, nevermind. I like you, Robt :) You always give good advise.


eh this is another example too on correlation. I like you, but dont mean I will ALWAYS agree with you :p

Just have a nice day, guys.
12/16/2005 04:36:47 AM · #10
Originally posted by james_so:

IMHO natural selection still does a great job, if it aint broke etc etc..


Do the rules of 'natural' selection still apply to the human spieces?
12/16/2005 04:40:58 AM · #11
Originally posted by Jammur:

Originally posted by james_so:

IMHO natural selection still does a great job, if it aint broke etc etc..


Do the rules of 'natural' selection still apply to the human spieces?


Fair point, but generally speaking I think they do.
12/16/2005 04:41:23 AM · #12
Originally posted by crayon:

Hi Robt :)

It's just like, I dont like you to copy my work, but I agree to let photolabs modify my prints.


This analogy doesn't work here. I wasn't talking about letting other people to make a genetic copy of me versus letting other people to manipulate my genetic traits to get a modified individual. This is something else and I think it's obvious that both are immoral if done without your consent. I was talking about the right to make a copy of yourself versus the right to manipulate the genome to get your dreams child.
12/16/2005 04:42:38 AM · #13
Originally posted by Montague:

I don't get your point here: genetic manipulation is indeed different from human cloning (I didn't said otherwise) but not "entirely different" as you say. Both involve genetic engineering.


If my examples above still dont make it clear enough, well... Even if both involves genetic engineering, they are still very different. It's a matter of how you look at it, and thus, that is why those protesters and people acted in that manner - a manner which amazed you. While you see it as something related, they see it as something different.

another example: the public may oppose hanging of a drug traficker, fighting for his rights to live, etc... but they may fully agree with the death punishment with a terrorist - eventho both is directly linked to bloodshed.
12/16/2005 04:46:18 AM · #14
Originally posted by Montague:

I was talking about the right to make a copy of yourself versus the right to manipulate the genome to get your dreams child.


Got your point. I guess it's because they see cloning as a violation of their existance (they see as a bad thing), while they see genetic manipulation as the next step to longer living humans, less sickness prone humans (they see as a good thing).

12/16/2005 04:47:52 AM · #15
Your examples are not clarifying because they don't apply here. Using analogies is a good thing, but they must be connected to the initial case.
You compare babies with photographs and this is not useful because photographs are not human.
12/16/2005 04:50:30 AM · #16
"I guess it's because they see cloning as a violation of their existance (they see as a bad thing")

I understood this, I mean I understood that they think cloning is wrong and genetic manipulation is not, but why do they think that cloning (made by my own choice, not by others) is wrong, that's my question here.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 04:50:50.
12/16/2005 04:51:17 AM · #17
Originally posted by Montague:

Your examples are not clarifying because they don't apply here. Using analogies is a good thing, but they must be connected to the initial case.
You compare babies with photographs and this is not useful because photographs are not human.


This is how those people must be looking at it. One looks like a bad thing, the other sounded like a good idea. The idea of a duplicated YOU sounds creepy, while the idea of having kids that never falls sick, dies of old age of 100 sounds like a good idea.
12/16/2005 04:59:26 AM · #18
Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Montague:

Your examples are not clarifying because they don't apply here. Using analogies is a good thing, but they must be connected to the initial case.
You compare babies with photographs and this is not useful because photographs are not human.


This is how those people must be looking at it. One looks like a bad thing, the other sounded like a good idea. The idea of a duplicated YOU sounds creepy, while the idea of having kids that never falls sick, dies of old age of 100 sounds like a good idea.


That's the whole point (I should say here as you said before: know more about cloning!): cloning doesn't mean that you make a copy of yourself, only a genetic copy of yourself. An individual is more than his genetic structure, so to speak, you can make a genetic copy of Hitler, let's say, but that doesn't mean that the copy will necessary act like Hitler or become a mean person. What an individual become depends on more factors than simply genetic factors (education, culture, etc.) In other words, genetic determinism is false (as is now widely agreed). In this context I see the objections against cloning as weak.

12/16/2005 05:14:08 AM · #19
What worries me is that by dwelling on the science fiction aspects of genetic manipulation and stem-cell technology, the public miss the potential near-future health dividends of this work.

There is no publicly funded, legitimate attempt anywhere to clone a human being in the sense of creating a fully developed (baby) copy, an identical twin if you like.

It is impossible (on two levels) to genetically manipulate characteristics that parents might want in their unborn child. a) features such as intelligence, height, facial development (beauty) etc are all due to the myriad actions of many unknown/uncharacterised genes. b) we don't have the ability to safely manipulate such genes before or during development.

Therapeutic cloning (replacing functional cells in diseased organs, growing replacement organs, agricultural development etc) is what's likely to happen...the media should confine ethical debates to these realistic aspects.

edit spelling

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 05:16:55.
12/16/2005 05:18:33 AM · #20
[quote=bpickard] What worries me is that by dwelling on the science fiction aspects of genetic manipulation and stem-cell technology, the public miss the potential near-future health dividends of this work.

Totally agree with that.
12/16/2005 09:54:31 AM · #21
I don't see too much issue with cloning in it's current form (extract two sides of the DNA from adult cells and insert into egg to create zygote, it still pretty much grows as a natural human being).

I don't see too much issue with genetic correction of life-threatening or disabling defects.

I do have issue with growing human organs on rats.

I do have issue with gene-splicing (the merging of two species DNA) when it involves human DNA

I do have issue with DAMN STUPID genetic manipulation. (a.k.a. recent breeding of rats with out fear. it's obvious this is a research project that falls under the "super-soldier" policy and should be abolished.)

I also do not believe we should save life at the expense of life (fetal stem cell research for example, especially since basically zero successes have come from it, almost all successes are derived from adult stem cells research or the umbilical cord, and the fact that it is pretty well suppposed base on our current findings that with just a decade or so more work we'll be able to likely do everything with adult stem cells that we could with fetal stem cells.)

I do believe there is great risk and great potential benefit. I don't think man's wisdom or mores are currently at a high enough point to realize the differences.

12/16/2005 10:27:35 AM · #22
Originally posted by theSaj:



I do have issue with gene-splicing (the merging of two species DNA) when it involves human DNA



A mouse strain with an extra human chromosome 21 was generated recently to study the heart and gut abnormalities seen in Down's Syndrome individuals. Is that bad? No such animal would ever be allowed to be released into the wild (anyway, lab mice are pretty dumb and would never survive in the wild...one hundred years of inbreeding).

Originally posted by theSaj:


I do have issue with DAMN STUPID genetic manipulation. (a.k.a. recent breeding of rats with out fear. it's obvious this is a research project that falls under the "super-soldier" policy and should be abolished.)



This wasn't anything to do with gene engineering...it was a drug treatment during pregnancy that had an effect on the offspring. I doubt the military would be interested as pregnant mothers are unlikely to sanction it and previous super-soldier drugs have led to psychosis. Maybe this is more applicable to studies of stressfull events during pregnancy that can affect children in the long-term...studies have shown this to be the case post 9/11.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:09:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:09:10 AM EDT.