I think the issues in genetic engineering are not whether it is moral or diabilical, but the introduction of hitherto unknown elements into the natural world - mixing genes from different species in one organism. It is not at all far fetched to imagine new human genetic diseases being introduced from donor species, in the process of "curing" human diseases. In the quest for perfection - but more realistically in the quest for new markets - many new problems (with which we will have no experience) will be introduced to complement the old ones that we are familiar with. David Burman University of Toronto At 08:38 AM 12/01/99 +0000, Eva Durant wrote: >I found this post informative, so I forwarded >it to you as the science is a bit lacking in fw. >Eva > > > >Kevin wrote: >>I guess my first question is: How is this diabolical genetic engineering >>any different from the time-honoured practice of breeding? Farmers, >>cattlemen, ranchers, all intervene in the "natural" order of things in= > order >>to select for certain traits that are deemed desirable. So how is directly >>altering the gene different from getting your sow with pig from a certain >>boar? > >Ludwig Krippahl wrote: >[snip] >> -In genetic engineereing you place 'foreign' DNA on an organism, >> which does not occur in breeding >> >> -To do that you need vectors, wich may be problematic in themselves, >> and are unecessary in breeding. >> >> I think that, as with any technological advance, it has its dangers >> if not used carefully. However, I feel the dangers are being blown >> out of proportion (this technology has been used successfully for >> vacine production and general protein sinthesys for some time). > >Perhaps it would be good to add a few points. > >In the place of "engineering" should be the word "art" or "science". >The only point where we can really speak of "engineering" is that >we can make any kind of protein sequence or RNA sequence we wish. >Exactly what it *does* -- if anything -- is typically another matter. >Moreover, how to target an organism in the "engineering" sense, is >still basically a guessing game. > >Breeding is usually seeking a "phenotype" (selecting a particular >"measurable" characteristic) as opposed to a genotype which my not >even be "measurable". By "measureable" I mean that it displays a >characteristic like resistance to disease, a particular color of fir, >etc. Much of breeding is aimed a visible characteristics, but in >agriculture, there are certainly plants that are breeded for >resistance to infection etc. In such cases, you might call "breeding" >a crude form of genetic "science". > >Perhaps it is important to point out the benefits of such research, >which are many I think. > >* The AIDS, hepatitis C virus, and some other pernicious vermin will >most likely be conquered only via genetic engineering (when it really >becomes "engineering"). Hence, our best weapon against pathogens >is knowledge, not fear. > >* Most cancers and chemotherapies will eventually turn to genetic >engineering (when it really becomes "engineering") to rid this >scourge. Hence, our best solution to transcriptional corruption >is knowledge, not fear. > >* Possibly when we really understand life cycles of cells, we may >even be able to develop therapies for cell regeneration. Hence, >our best "alternative medicine" is knowledge, not fear. > >Of course, without some form of ethics, we might have reason to fear >such capabilities, but once again, whether we are fundamentally >theistic or a-theistic, the best form of ethics come from a desire to >understand this world and seek to do right, not a blind fear that some >utterly diabolical boggyman (with black hat) could succede in some >nefarious scheme or a fear that some Cosmic Dictator who will become >angry if we find out how the world works. We already have plenty of >potential to destroy ourselves many times over if we want to hurry up >the end of the world. > >Wayne >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >----- End of forwarded message from Wayne Dawson ----- >
