Keith, I was going to ask you to enlighten me as to just how much of the western, industrialized population was actually using eugenics options available to them, presumably for the most part in artificial insemination. Maybe I'm just not in the right circles or haven't read enough, or it is more widely discussed and used in the UK and Europe, but I don't' see much evidence of it being a growing tool of science with patients in the US. Someone please correct me here. I'm aware there has been quite a fuss made about growing replacement organs, but perhaps HMOs and health insurance are inhibiting public demand? Then, checking the local news for the special election results from last night, I ran across an article that indicates Oregonians, at least, have concerns about their DNA being used in medical research. I think the wonders of science and the issues of privacy will continue to clash for some time. Of course, Oregonians like their progressive image when it comes to allowing the terminally ill to choose to end their life, and continue to be forward thinking for the most part on the environment, BUT Oregonians Wish to Control their DNA http://www.oregonlive.com/science/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_st andard.xsl?/base/science/1032263783164423.xml excerpt: "The results of the survey were quite different from what I would have imagined," said Ted Falk, a lawyer who is co-chairman of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Privacy and Research, which advises the state Legislature. "I think the survey might have really changed our thinking." Falk said he had assumed that most Oregonians didn't care whether their DNA was used in anonymous medical studies. In such studies, researchers don't know the identity of tissue donors. The survey may be the first covering Oregonians' views on genetic privacy issues, said Greg Fowler, executive director of Geneforum, the nonprofit genetic education organization that commissioned the study. Those opinions are important, especially as genetic research becomes more common and more sophisticated -- meaning that more information is potentially available about more people. "Everybody's in somebody's refrigerator," Fowler said. "We get 20 million samples a year in this country" from doctors taking bits of blood, tumors and other bodily tissues containing DNA. That means there is "an increasing need for oversight" of how genetic information is used. Fowler said no national law covers that topic, although Oregon passed a genetic privacy law in 1995 that put the state "at the cutting edge" in the nation. The law was amended last year to make it more clear that a person's genetic code is not "personal property," as it was listed in 1995. The amendment also said that scientists who want to anonymously research samples taken after the law passed could only use those from patients who had been told that their tissue might be studied." Administrative rules are just now being passed to put that part of the law into effect, Falk said. The law says samples taken previously can be used in anonymous research without getting permission from the donors. In most cases, the law forbids researchers from finding out the identity of donors who gave anonymous samples. State laws provide civil penalties for most violations.
Keith wrote: I think the public is a great deal more discerning than the leading protagonists on either side (in both the above cases) are prepared to grant. The public tend not to get into a verbal lather about these matters. While the public is supposed to be anti-science, yet it will buy the most sophisticated scientific products when it suits them. While the public is supposed to be against genetic engineering, yet increasing numbers of parents to-be are electing to have genetic tests in order to weed out embryos with deleterious genes. While intellectuals are earnestly debating about the ethics of eugenics, it is already here and quietly growing in a voluntary way. And if it is outlawed in one country, then the parents will go to another country for such services.
