Arthur,
I've tried to place amniocentesis into a broader context in my reply to
Karen ("The beginnings of Eugenics").
Keith
At 12:01 18/09/02 -0400, you wrote:
>where does amnioscentisis fit in this? it seems a first modest step toward
>modifying/aborting if conditions indicate.
>
>arthur
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:19 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Keith Hudson
>Subject: RE: Nature vs. Nurture (was RE: Blank Slate
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
