|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
The ethics of gene splicing
THE ETHICS OF GENE SPLICING
by Andrew Boardman
Over recent history, mankind has exploded into new fields of research and
discovery, raising our knowledge of our surroundings increase exponentially.
From rudimentary knowledge in such fields as chemistry, physics, and biology,
scientists have made discoveries which have lead to the curing of large
numbers of diseases and infections, and has raised not only the life
expectancy all over the world, but has increased the standard of living
also. However, this is only the basework, these fields were already known
for centuries upon centuries and early discoverers had done work on them long
before us, which turns my attention on the newer fields. There are a number
of fields of science, be it biological or industrial, which have been
"discovered" only in recent history, some are as young as a few decades, and
some are just over a century or two old, which are in practice almost brand
new to humankind. One of these is genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is, in years, not new to humankind, the principals of the
field were discovered in the 1860's by Gregor Mendle, however, in practice,
researchers are almost brand new to the fields. Although they have had over
120 years, shortsightedness and skepticism at least halves the time humankind
has been actively researching this field. As with all new things, it has
been treated with care and many have been frightened of it, not knowing its
potential either malicious or benign.
The genetic researcher's view is this: in a brand new field, and even in some
old ones, the potential for that field is not known until the field is fully
understood. Assuming the worst just causes a panic which cannot help either
side of the issue. The genetic researcher is trying to help mankind by the
same basic methods as all industry and other fields of science: do work which
will make life simpler for humankind. They are not crazed lunatics
attempting to take over the world with mutated animals. By inserting the
human gene for insulin into an E. Coli, many thousands of lives have been
saved and costs for both the government and the patients suffering from
diabetes have been cut extremely drastically. In the researcher's opinion,
this example shows the unbelievable promise that this field shows for helping
mankind.
Now the animal rights activist: s/he is a person affected by animals,
probably has one or more in his life, who sees the humanitarian reasons for
stopping cruelty to animals. S/he has an apathy with the animal world,
considering himself a part of that, which causes them to try to get others to
treat animals as they do; as a brother. They do not believe that any person
has any right to mistreat an animal, because it is just the same morally as
mistreating a human being, and since the mistreating of a human being is
illegal, so should the mistreating of an animal, whether at home or in the
research lab.
An animal activist may see the good that may stem from genetic engineering,
but they also see, and more clearly see, the potential for harm to the
environment, to humankind, and to the animal kingdom. The potential is\j \ there, there is no ubt about that, a "bad" gene could be spliced into an E.
Coli, for instance, escape from the lab, and before anything could be done to
stop it that strain of intestinal bacteria could destroy billions of humans
and possibly other animals. They see the possibilities for an "evil"
scientist to work for a government and produce genetic warfare materials that
could send the Earth into the third world war as predicted by Star Trek.
They see the possibilities of taking an already deadly virus such as AIDS and
altering it so that it is more easily contracted.
Gene splicing consists of the transfer of the DNA of one organism, through a
virus, being embedded into the DNA of another organism. There are limitless
possibilities for this kind of research, including the prenatal curing of
certain genetic diseases before they affect the infant, like Down's syndrome,
Tay-Sachs disease, sickle-cell anemia and spina bifida. All of these
conditions can currently be spotted in the womb, but with further research an
spliced gene could be substituted in the embryo for the malfunctioned gene,
and the baby could be cured of these diseases. Those are not the only
diseases, over 250 more can be identified in the womb.
Another benefit can come from the development of new animals from splicing.
These animals, for instance the first animal which was a mouse that had no
immune system, can further research that may not have been able to continue
without the specialized animal. The new research will help out mankind and
the animal word, and could possibly lead to the cure for cancer, or AIDS, or
any future epidemic.
However, much of the research happening today is torturous and extremely
cruel to animals. For information of head injuries, scientists at the Head
Injury Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania actually had a rhesus
monkey in a tank with its head being slammed into a machine (OMNI November
1986). That laboratory, by the way, was broken into by a extremist animals
group called ALF (Animal Liberation Front), where they ransacked the
laboratory, and dozens of video tapes showing explicit torture were stolen by
the group.
Industrial (mass production) farm animals suffer too, they are ill kept,
being quartered in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and are mistreated.
Chickens, for instance, are debeaked by the millions and put into crowded and
poorly kept cages for either egg production or fattening for slaughter, and
veal calves are chained in cramped cages and fed iron-deficient diets which
can cause anemia (ALDF Newsletter Fall 1987). If genetically produced
animals are put on the market, a bigger pig that requires less food, or a
chicken that lays more eggs, conditions are bound to get worse, and certainly
won't get any better for them.
\j \
My personal opinion follows almost the same lines as this paper. I have lots
of sympathy for both sides. I can see the limitless possibilities for
genetic engineering, the idea of curing genetic diseases, of making life
easier, and maybe of even creating creatures that till then were only
mythical. I can't say I'm not tempted by the idea of actually seeing a live
Centaur. However, I do love animals, and I don't like to know that they
suffer, and I am nearly positive, in my youthful ignorance, that there has
got to be a better way, maybe not an easier way, but a better way to find out
the effects of head injuries with slamming an innocent monkey against a wall
and taking notes, I find that extremely disgusting.
I can see genetic engineering having a vast future, but I believe that there
will always have to be a opposing side just to keep them on their toes and
make sure that the scientists don't get out of hand. Unless someone is
intending to start a holocaust, mankind has a long future in front of him,
and patience is a wise lab rule of thumb.
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
