Genetic Engineering--would you?

[Sevenless]

"you don't know what can happen"

It's also false when it comes to genetic engineering. We do know the consequences now a days. The layman doesn't know the consequences though, so people against the technology have really used that phrase to beat in propeganda.

That's not to say there aren't risks that need to be managed. Definitely precautions over certain types of research (like that plastic eating enzyme if we ever figure it out) are very important.

[Kaios]

I am still waiting for the magic pill that increases my longevity +100 years

[spawningmink]

i think the issue is what happens if we make a mistake, then what do we do? i mean i personally dont care if something happened id be fine with slaughtering it and trying again but then again you have the people who say " its a life we cant kill it" i think if humans would stop with the "oh i dont want to do it because its not right" act i think maybe we could advance much quicker

[LadyV]

The "Don't play god" argument isn't an argument, and the "you don't know what can happen" can be applied to literally every other branch of science and that didn't stop us from advancing in them, so why should this be an exception

Because a chemical spill can be cleaned up. Radiation can be reduced or cleaned up. A computer virus can be rooted out and eliminated. A mistake with genetic engineering can devastate and have the potential to never undo. Some things should be left alone because the risk is to high or to unethical.

[Sevenless]

i think the issue is what happens if we make a mistake, then what do we do? i mean i personally dont care if something happened id be fine with slaughtering it and trying again but then again you have the people who say " its a life we cant kill it" i think if humans would stop with the "oh i dont want to do it because its not right" act i think maybe we could advance much quicker

We're talking bacterial and yeast modification to use them to make proteins. Ain't no ethics needed for microbes last I checked.

[LadyV]

We're talking bacterial and yeast modification to use them to make proteins. Ain't no ethics needed for microbes last I checked.

The original question was what would you do with it if you could learn it. Choosing to not do anything is a valid option.

[Sevenless]

We're talking bacterial and yeast modification to use them to make proteins. Ain't no ethics needed for microbes last I checked.

The original question was what would you do with it if you could learn it. Choosing to not do anything is a valid option.

I know, but the person I was replying to was talking about the ethics involved in animal experiments. However, this technology is primarily applied to microbes which has (outside a very few belief sets) never required any special ethical concern.

[Kaios]

Some things should be left alone because the risk is to high or to unethical.

I am not so sure about that. If nobody took any risks because they might prove fatal for themselves or others life would be fairly boring and I doubt we would be at the stage we are today in terms of technology, medicine and science.

Sure, there are plenty of negative aspects in relation to this type of research but despite this it is also a positive force for change. As an example, the creation of the atomic bomb (not exactly genetic engineering related, I know) is quite clearly in my view a negative outcome as a result of someone taking a high risk but for that outcome to have occurred they had to develop more advanced methods so that they would be capable in producing enough amounts of enriched uranium which I would consider a positive change as these methods can and were applied towards other uses as well and of course improved upon over time.

Without taking risk, there is no chance for meaningful change.

[NOOBY93]

The "Don't play god" argument isn't an argument, and the "you don't know what can happen" can be applied to literally every other branch of science and that didn't stop us from advancing in them, so why should this be an exception

Because a chemical spill can be cleaned up. Radiation can be reduced or cleaned up. A computer virus can be rooted out and eliminated. A mistake with genetic engineering can devastate and have the potential to never undo. Some things should be left alone because the risk is to high or to unethical.

Radiation can be "cleaned up"? Really?

[Cajoes]

In a manner of speaking. Radioactive fallout and contaminated objects are usually just gathered up, sealed in lead lined copper tubes and buried in a salt-mine.



Bacteria that eats polymers is not all that new, - we got strains that are being developed to clean up oil-spills. Imagine if some enterprising eco-terrorist managed to sneak a few phials of the stuff into a country's strategic oil reserves. But thats a rather moot point, a stick of C2 would do far more damage and in a much shorter amount of time. (Oil is hard to clean up, GM-bacteria-solutions or not)

As for genetic material ending up in human organs... That happens with pretty much any ingested organic matter, Genetically Manipulated or not. From my point of view, modern day Genetic Manipulation™ is just cross-pollination and selective breeding, but in a lab, with better fine tuning controls.

To wit: Belgian Blue cows... Not one ounce of Genetic Manipulation, - it was all old fashioned breeding. And that is terrifying.


Edit: Funny how people are outraged over mostly harmless genetically modified foods, while bread made from 40% wood-pulp gets a free pass.