tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85746641882395449452024-03-08T00:01:06.270-08:00LB355Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-6342204565011483992008-11-22T11:49:00.000-08:002008-11-22T11:50:14.041-08:00Nov 24 Kitcher – Ch 11 (Genetalk), McGee Ch 4 (Debunking Myths)The more that I read about the separation between genotype and phenotype, nature and nurture, genes and traits, the more skeptical I become of science’ ability to predict much about human characteristics through genetic testing. I recognize we have made strides in this field over the past few years, but we still operate under great uncertainty. I don’t know that this means we ought to stop operating, but we should definitely take genetic test results with a grain of salt (as Kitcher suggests in the chapter for today). This means talk of aborting embryos bearing genes which could result in certain diseases ought to cease as well as genetically altering people’s DNA to ‘fix’ their genetic makeup. At the same time, genetic testing can help families prepare for the possibility of bearing children with genetic disorders and hopefully better cope with the hands they are dealt. Since nature and nurture both play key roles in development, why not alter the nurturing environment and leave nature to run its course?Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-90389867825062063282008-11-19T11:26:00.001-08:002008-11-19T11:26:22.869-08:00Nov 19 Kass – Ch 9 (L’Chaim and Its Limits); Kitcher Ch 10 (Playing God?); McGee Ch 3 (Playing God?)I am sure I have touched on my views as regards immortality and playing God in the past, but as these were the topics of our three chapters for today, I will briefly run through my perspective. I am shaped by my religious perspective and therefore see cloning and in vitro fertilization as interfering in the reproductive process and therefore condone such technologies. I also do not agree with most genetic technologies because who am I to choose those who should live and those who should die? Furthermore, I have a fundamental problem with the extent of research we pour into prolonging life on earth because we all have to die someday. If we find cures to cancer and heart attack and who knows what else, we will only begin dying of other maladies. I think life is a gift and is thereby neither ours to create nor destroy. To say that the entire medical field is obsolete is an exaggeration though, because I see no harm in treating diseases or symptoms and helping the immune system a little (after all, the people who shared these technologies with humanity may have also been sharing their gifts), but I think we put far more emphasis in achieving extensive longevity here on earth than is necessary (not to mention, could be quite detrimental based on consumption patterns and overpopulation problems).Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-15208039049341284242008-11-17T10:19:00.001-08:002008-11-17T10:19:26.974-08:00Nov 17 Kitcher – Ch 8 (Inescapable Eugenics), Ch 9 (Delimiting Disease)Kitcher’s talk of Darwin brings to mind questions about preserving bio-diversity. If we select for some genetic characteristics ideal for particular conditions, but the environmental factors experience a drastic shift, then is it not possible that all those with the previously ideal genes might no longer be the most fit for their new surroundings? This is no novel question; preservation of genetic biodiversity has been a topic of interest for years. Concerning genetically modified agricultural crops, for instance, if there is a sudden blight but all the seeds carry almost identical genetic material and are not resistant to the blight, then the entire crop will be lost. Yet, with biodiversity comes the hope that some individuals within a population are resistant, and those will live. I think there is too much of a temptation to start selecting for particular genetic characteristics in embryos unless we promote genetic diversity like we promote diversifying a stock portfolio – don’t put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-60474526302416805992008-11-12T08:50:00.000-08:002008-11-12T08:51:07.661-08:00Nov 12 Kitcher – Ch 6 (The New Pariahs); Pennock – Pre-existing conditionsThe question of health insurance is quite difficult when it comes to genetic testing. This is because I feel health insurance should be provided to all people, not just those who can afford to pay for it. In this way, I suppose I agree with Pennock that we will need to completely re-vamp the structure of the current health care system. Also, I feel you should not be able to charge higher premiums for people whose genetic test results indicate greater risk for disease. I think the CaSE model clearly indicates this would be imprudent in that simply having the genes for a disease may not result in phenotypic expression of that disease unless certain environmental conditions allow for that expression. I would also say that we cannot relate health care to gambling as we currently do, but must instead relate it to a more socialist care for one another. I cannot afford my own roads or police force, nor can most of my peers; yet we all pool our money and pay for these as a social act for the good of our society. I think this should be a better model for health care.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-22271838057245817842008-11-09T12:22:00.000-08:002008-11-09T12:23:00.870-08:00Nov 10 McGee – Ch 5 (Genetic Approaches to Family and Public Health)I agree with McGee’s stance on the caution with which we should proceed while pursuing genetic testing technologies. In making these tests available, they should not be dispensed without provision of adequate information as regards risk and probability as well as accuracy of the tests themselves. I think the public often knows too little to make informed decisions and simply operates on gut instinct combined with small bits of often excessively biased information. To say that genetic testing ought not be allowed at all makes little sense based on the amount of crucial, perhaps life-saving, data one can obtain from these tests; now that the technology is available, we have a mechanism to proceed but not enough significant rationale to bring an end to genetic testing. Yes, results of genetic tests could lead to decisions to abort fetuses or to pressure children and mold them into “perfect babies,” but if we were to eliminate all genetic testing for these reasons alone, we could miss the opportunities these tests create, such as better preparing for or treating children born with genetic disorders. Guns also have the power to destroy life yet we continue producing these weapons because of their potential for defense, their potential to save lives. Likewise, just because genetic testing offers the opportunity to be used for destruction does not mean it must be a means to such ends. We can continue using genetic testing for the purpose of helping people and maximize efforts to prevent its use in the destruction of human life.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-39089200516340361132008-11-05T00:05:00.001-08:002008-11-05T00:05:44.104-08:00Nov 5 McGee – Ch 1 (Landscape of Genetic Technology)The questions of eugenics and sperm banks raise for me a question of natural selection which McGee touches on slightly here. I do not doubt that as humans, we act like all other animals and choose mates based on some perceived ‘fitness advantage’ based on good looks or intelligence or prestige which we somehow think make them our ideal companions; we do this just as the peacock chooses her fat-feathered friend, etc. Yet, ugly people have sex too! Someone I might see as completely unintelligent or unattractive might seem to be your ideal companion for reasons I deem unfathomable. If then we start limiting which of our offspring live based on the ideals we hold about what their genetic constitution ought to look like, do we not do someone further down the line a disservice? After all, is not one man’s trash another man’s treasure? In addition to ethical objections based on rights to life in general, society has somehow deemed eugenics to be a bad thing – would we risk falling into a form of eugenics if we allow abortions based on genetic ‘flaws?’Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-72207886439679317802008-11-02T09:09:00.001-08:002008-11-02T09:09:35.868-08:00Nov 3 McGee – Epilogue; Pennock – Virtuous Scientist meets human cloneThe fact that cloning a sheep caused extreme public upheaval and massive media attention suggests that despite scientific arguments in favor of cloning, this may not be a path to pursue. At some level, society must allow morals and ethics to drive laws and regulations. We have, for example, decided that rape is wrong and ought not be done and rapists ought to be punished if discovered. However, those committing rape do not always see this as an immoral or wrong act but rather a right for them to relieve their sexual desires with another person. How is it that society can decide rape is wrong and punishable and thereby remove the right of people who disagree to continue raping? Somehow enough people agree that rape is inherently wrong that they feel entitled to remove the right to rape from the individuals who do not share their view. In the same way, if enough people feel that cloning is inherently wrong (even if this be for religious reasons, which Pennock so quickly tosses to the wind) then should they not also be able to remove the right to clone from individuals who do not share their view?Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-85172930555709739902008-10-29T11:48:00.000-07:002008-10-29T11:49:09.017-07:00Oct 29 Trosko and Deb & SardaAs wonderful as it may seem to build a moral code for humankind as I read Trosko to suggest, I think this is quite an unrealistic fantasy. He mentions religion extensively as it shapes the moral and ethical foundations of many people’s views. Yet, he suggests that because religious affiliation varies so widely across human-kind, we should abandon it as our guide to bioethics and adopt a new code for determining the moral values shaping the biological nature of humans. I think that the key products of religion are the moral and ethical beliefs which shape the nature of our actions. And furthermore, to suggest that simply because people participate in and practice a wide spectrum of religions indicates we ought to abandon these faiths for one unified human morality merely imposes a new sort of ‘religion’ upon society. The fact that many moral values across the diverse religions are the same or similar indicates we have already reached a point where most of humanity already agrees upon some general code of ethics so why would we need to create a new worldwide biological morality when we can just recognize the shared values and respectfully disagree with one another about our differences? To think that everyone will agree with a new ethical code is pure fantasy and to enforce it a potential infraction against one of the very codes of freedom it might seek to endorse.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-73024295636345066092008-10-24T20:37:00.001-07:002008-10-24T20:37:24.883-07:00Oct 27 Kass – Ch 5 (Cloning and the Posthuman Future)I cannot help but wonder as to the scientific research on nature vs. nurture which could develop as a result of cloning. Kass mentioned it briefly in his discussion of people wanting to clone themselves or professional athletes, etc. I think it an odd sort of argument in favor of cloning to assume that we can scientifically reproduce an exact duplicate of another person. Even ‘identical’ twins are not the exact same person because they have different life experiences and interests. Cloning would do this to an even greater extent as time will have elapsed between the individual growing and developing and the clone being produced and beginning its growth and development. Suppose, for instance, that Magic Johnson wished to have a clone of himself. If this clone were not trained in the art of basketball as it developed, it would not learn the same skill set which distinguishes Magic Johnson as an exemplary basketball player and thereby not be anything like Magic Johnson despite sharing an exact replica of his DNA. I could continue with further examples, but I suppose that my point is clear enough; cloning could lead to many scientific studies about the nature of nurture. <br /><br />Despite the previous paragraph, I agree one-hundred percent with Kass that cloning ought not be allowed throughout human society. As he lays forth the arguments for this quite well, I feel no need to repeat his work. I share his opinion primarily for religious reasons but acknowledge that others may need to hear convincing arguments which go beyond religion if they do not share my particularly faith-filled upbringing. Kass kindly provides such reasons as well while not failing to articulate the religious notions behind resistance to cloning. Should Kass present religious reasoning about scientific research though? Yes; as religion so significantly shapes morals and ethics, I feel some of Kass’ strongest arguments concerning bioethics will be those which appeal to religious ideals.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-12363245271390264162008-10-22T10:54:00.001-07:002008-10-22T10:54:19.549-07:00Oct 22 Kass - Ch 4 (Age of Genetic Technology Arrives); McGee – Ch 2 (Hope for Genetic Cures)I really like Kass’ statement on page 133; “It turns out that even the more modest biogenetic engineers, whether they know it or not, are in the immortality business, proceeding on the basis of a quasi-religious faith that all innovation is by definition progress, no matter what is sacrificed to attain it.” I have mentioned before that I feel we are unduly striving to prolong life on earth when we should perhaps exert efforts elsewhere. If we find a cure to cancer, we will undoubtedly find some new malady killing us in turn. Humans are not meant to live forever here on earth. Biogenetic engineers are looking for ways to genetically alter individuals making them more fit for their environments and therefore prolonging their lives. While this would indeed be a feat, we must pause to ask whether it is truly a good idea to progress in such a manner or if the short-term benefits might be insignificant compared to the long-term effects of permanently altering a genetic sequence. One of the most controversial long-term possibilities is for genetics to spiral from recognizing and treating particular diseases to removing or repairing the genes for potential diseases or else destroying fetuses with ‘bad’ genes. As McGee points out on page 34, “proactiveness with genetic disease is not the same as maintaining a balanced diet. It is interventionist medicine, good old repair, only extended to diseases you do not yet have.” We have to keep technological advancement in check and question whether we should proceed for the sake of science or hold off on moral grounds. As Kass says on page 135, “everything depends on whether the technological disposition is allowed to proceed to its self-augmenting limits, or whether it can be restricted and brought under intellectual, spiritual, moral and political rule.” If we can manage to cautiously proceed with genetics technology, constantly questioning the ethical dilemmas of each advancement, I think we stand to benefit humanity while limiting potential for moral disaster.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-59341229121294831582008-10-20T09:49:00.001-07:002008-10-20T09:49:57.543-07:00Oct 20 Kass - Ch 3 (Meaning of Life—in the Laboratory)Kass raises very important issues within this short chapter. I find his question of respecting life particularly interesting. If in respecting life we feel that human beings, or fetuses or blastocysts depending on their stage of development, should not be destroyed yet we also believe that using extra blastocysts for experimentation disrespects life, does it not stand to reason that either all blastocysts formed through in vitro fertilization processes must either be raised to fruition or not fertilized at all? In this regard, I believe I agree with Kass and morally go even further to discard in vitro fertilization altogether on the basis of not technologically orchestrating the glorious blessing of joining together an egg and sperm cell to form new life. Kass’ statements as to the moral questions arising from keeping all fertilized cells alive further drive me to this conclusion, especially those concerning women selling their bodies to grow the fetuses. As to supporting government funding of this controversial research, I again agree with Kass’ arguments about not using taxpayers money to fund something which they deem morally unethical. Of course, if this were the case, we should also significantly reduce military spending, etc. If a political leader or party has a clear platform on funding this type of research and they are voted into office, then according to our political ideology they have authority granted by their constituents to approve government funding for things many people may deem morally unethical. This brings us to minority rights though, because in the case of a majority, how are you to uphold the basic rights of those in the minority; if a majority of the population deems slavery acceptable, how are you to grant the minority opposing slavery their basic human rights to life and liberty? Clearly the system thus has some flaws which we must overcome. Kass tries to bring to light the inherent rights of in vitro blastocysts such that we might recognize some form of regulation to override majority rule and protect a minority which has absolutely no way to speak for itself. I agree that this is indeed a crucial issue and deserves the attention of our legislators.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-38050255460297419872008-10-09T12:38:00.000-07:002008-10-09T12:39:21.933-07:00Oct 8, 13, 15 Huxley - Brave New WorldOct 8 Huxley – Brave New World (Ch 1 - 6)<br />Oct 13 Huxley – Brave New World (Ch 7 - 11)<br />Oct 15 Huxley – Brave New World (Ch 12 - end)<br /><br />In writing this blog, I fully intend to address issues, raise questions, and analyze concepts covered throughout all of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. As such, I am a day late for the October 8th blog posting and well ahead of schedule for the two following posts. I apologize for any inconvenience, but in beginning writing, I felt it best to just finish the novel as I had already passed the required portion for the first assignment. This should hopefully provide a more congruous approach to the work and will hopefully not lose aspects I would have addressed in breaking apart the blog into sections based on the assigned chapters.<br /><br />First, a word on the notion behind this novel – The idea of creating an entire ‘civilization’ which reproduces based primarily upon cloning instead of sexual reproduction seems quite odd at first glance. However, after reading Ridley’s chapter on death, I realize that Huxley drew many comparisons between civil society and a human body. Just as cells must sacrifice for the good of the body and each play a designated role based on some environmental conditioning from surrounding cells, so too must Huxley’s citizens sacrifice certain freedoms for the good of society and accept their conditioning into roles as alphas, betas, deltas, etc. A liver cell has just as much potential to become a kidney cell based on DNA, but signals from the surrounding cells trigger it to carry out its role as a liver cell. Similarly, individuals of Huxley’s novel are all fertilized with the potential to become any normal human being, but through chemical injections and conditioning, the embryos and children develop according to environmental pressures to fill predetermined rolls as deltas or epsilons or gammas or what-have-you. Such may be the reason this fictional account challenges our ethics so strongly, because Huxley’s societal model is so readily seen in any multi-cellular living organism such as ourselves.<br /><br />Is not the analogy often applied relating a community or civil society to a body; or perhaps this concept is just from my Catholic upbringing and references to the church community as the Body of Christ? What is it then that sets society apart from a human body? What makes people different than individual cells aside from sheer magnitude? Ridley tried to explain the difference in terms of ‘free will’ which he defined in describing how a person may choose when to eat based on their hunger or food availability, etc. but is constrained by a necessity to eat as a fundamental basis of sustaining life. Ridley states, “this interaction of genetic and external influences makes my behavior unpredictable, but not undetermined. In the gap between those words lies freedom.” (Ridley 2006, p.312) This is just the sort of ‘freedom’ that Huxley tries to create in his fictional civilization. People can choose with whom they sexually interact, how they socially entertain themselves outside of work, what clothes to wear (provided they follow the color coordination of their caste), but none of these decisions really affect their overall roles in society so long as they continue to do their jobs. <br /><br />If this were the extent of his thoughts, I would have a bone to pick with Huxley, but he develops his ‘argument’ further in presenting characters such as Lenina, abnormally content with having only one man for months, Bernard, who abnormally enjoys being alone and thinking about philosophical matters, Helmholtz, who also abnormally seeks solitude and searches deeper emotions than basic sensory feelings. These characters are somehow not content with the social constraints of ‘civilization’ and as such, Huxley is suggesting there could be innately something more to human existence than ‘happiness’ and working for the good of society. The fact that they turn to soma whenever they feel the slightest form of discontent or unease and have their merry little drug trips to cope with unhappiness suggests happiness is merely the product of a false state of reality rather than being truly pleased with your conditions and Huxley uses the idea of retreat through soma to directly challenge contemporary society’s tendency to retreat from their unhappiness to drugs or alcohol or other means of escape from reality. If we continue using such vices, are we not risking falling into a trap similar to that of Brave New World? <br /><br />Even beyond the suggestions of soma, Huxley challenges us to rise above conformity. John ‘Savage’ played a key part in this challenge. In his upbringing as a societal outcast on the reservation, he longed for conformity and membership in society, but when he reached ‘civilization’ he was disenchanted by its constant communal aspects and conformist upbringings. John’s argument with Mustapha Mond brought religion and emotion and history and passion to the table as one by one Mustapha Mond thrust these aside for the sake of society. If society is to have peace and happiness, his argument was to eliminate reasons for tension and sorrow. These are exactly what Lenina and Bernard and Helmholtz and John all intrinsically sought, even if they did not realize what they were seeking. In the end though, Bernard and Helmholtz head off to an island and Lenina is chased back into the crowd and John hangs himself. How is it then that we cannot equate Huxley’s society with a body – where it flushes out poisons to the liver and embeds abnormal cells amongst so many normal cells that you can barely find them and cancerous cells trying to be selfish turn on a self-destruct mechanism committing suicide just as John did? Herein lies Huxley’s challenge to his readers. It is precisely because of this factor that we must not let such strivings for conformity dictate our lives. We cannot remove ourselves to an island or retreat to the crowd or kill ourselves when we feel individuality, when we feel pain or sorrow, unhappiness; these are the very factors which separate us from cells of a body. Is it better to live in happiness and achieve peace through ultimate conformity or to suffer sorrow and pain and the ills of discontent but live to know the triumphs of joy and cooperation? I would argue for the latter, and I think Huxley’s Brave New World urges us to do likewise.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-13662833889163835242008-10-06T10:24:00.001-07:002008-10-06T10:24:47.092-07:00Oct 6 Ridley Ch 21, 22 (Eugenics, Free Will)As my webpage for the class addresses the topic of our first chapter for today, I will leave only a link: http://sites.google.com/site/lb355wilson/. As for the chapter on free will, I find the philosophical discussion in this chapter quite stimulating. Hume’s Fork is particularly interesting in that it fails to recognize any third alternative aside from chaos and determinism. I think Ridley argues that the world in fact functions through a combination of the two. If we reflect back a few chapters on those concerning stress and personality, we will recall that Ridley had suggested a sort of inseparable connection between nature’s genetic ‘determinism’ and nurture’s environmental ‘chaos’ which only worked in conjunction with one another. In the chapter on free will, Ridley seems to just extend this same argument onto a broader spectrum, but I think it still applies. I would even suggest that he adequately addresses infusing a religious appeal with this concept of entwined chaos and determinism, nature and nurture, genes and environment. At this point I deem Ridley’s point well argued and have little to counter against it.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-47860985326448419972008-10-01T08:54:00.001-07:002008-10-01T08:54:26.230-07:00Oct 1 Ridley Ch 18, 19, 20 (Cures, Prevention, Politics)At the very end of his chapter on using genetic testing to develop and administer cures, Ridley states, “Genetic diagnosis followed by conventional cure is probably the genome’s greatest boon to medicine.” (257) I think I have to agree with him here. At this time I cannot wholeheartedly say that I support using genetic engineering to modify humans so they are resistant to particular afflictions. The effects of genetically modified crops demonstrate why we should proceed with caution. As Ridley declares, “Roundup-resistant rape may be eco-unfriendly to the extent that it encourages herbicide use or spreads its resistance to weeds.” (253) I think most genetic engineering is just a short-term solution to one or two specific problems rather than looking at long-term alternatives. The effects of genetic engineering are still largely unknown, and even if you can make an organism resistant to one particular malady, that just exerts pressure for co-evolution of the parasite or virus or what-have-you such that you will only have another problem down the line. Ridley urges against conservative stances such as my own saying, “I believe we are in danger of being too squeamish and too cautious in using knowledge about the genes that influence both [coronary heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease], and we therefore stand at risk of committing the moral error of denying people access to life-saving research.” (259) To combat this front though, I again question Ridley – at what point do we draw the line? People are not meant to live forever. I think these are difficult questions indeed because on the one hand, we are ethically driven to care for one another and save lives, etc. At the same time though, we must acknowledge that all things eventually die. It is the natural order of life. Given reproduction, the world’s resources cannot sustain unlimited population growth if every organism suddenly has the ability to sustain life forever. Thus I return to my original claim in this post – we should use genetic diagnosis to adopt conventional cures, or treat the symptoms I might add. We should use extreme caution though, in adopting genetic engineering to modify organisms to make them resistant to a particular pathogen.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-5630465569959671222008-09-28T19:46:00.000-07:002008-09-28T19:47:08.248-07:00Sept 29 Ridley Ch 15, 16, 17 (Sex, Memory, Death)I had no problems with the chapter on sex while it was discussing disease nor even genetic sexual promiscuity in mice. I thought the implications of extending P. polionatus and P. maniculatus to humans might explain a lot about the wide variety of sexual characteristics across populations. For example, Mormon and Muslim religions generally discourage marriage outside the faith and encourage polygamy. Most faiths urge monogamy though. Yet, many people are increasingly flocking to atheism or agnosticism or just falling out of practice in general. Perhaps there is a relationship between ‘moral corruption’ so to speak and the spread of a gene similar to that causing sexual promiscuity in mice. If the spread of this gene were originally quarantined primarily to people of specific religions advocating polygamy and urging to marry within the faith, then the slow spread throughout humanity makes sense. Even as I write this though, I am highly skeptical of the ideas I myself am generating. Likewise, I am highly skeptical of assertions such as those made at the end of the chapter on sex stating that males and females have sexually linked differences in interests such as machines and weapons for males versus clothes and words for females. Too many people have been exceptions to such observations for this sort of claim to resonate well with me. I, for example, am female but could really care less about clothes and find machines far more fascinating. Does this make me a mutant somehow? I think it is more likely that if at one point such interests were once tied to sex chromosomes, they have since experienced widespread mutation, and in any case can not be associated with one particular chromosome as several genotypic segments may result in the aggregate phenotypic expression of interests. This seems especially plausible considering the information presented in the chapter that follows; if you recognize that certain genes code for learning ability, then should you not also recognize that sexual practices such as monogamy or promiscuity are influenced by social learning?Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-11692967547285134992008-09-22T22:13:00.000-07:002008-09-22T22:14:26.065-07:00Sept 24 Ridley Ch 12, 13, 14 (Self-Assembly, Pre-History, Immortality)I had never thought about bugs developing upside down before reading about the Hox genes but now that I read it, it makes perfect sense that their anatomy just flipped over so they walk on the other side of the body from elephants for example. This strikes me as quite funny because I cannot see how one alignment could be more fit than another. Although, the fact that both have prevailed contemporaneously suggests neither was more fit than the other; some species just followed one path and many another. <br /><br />On a completely different note, I am not sure how I feel about this telomerase issue. Ridley seems to suggest that advances in understanding about telomerase and increased ability to manipulate it could lead to enhanced cell replication, extended longevity, and maybe something just short of immortality. I often hate to throw religious arguments about when so many scientists are around, but as my faith strongly influences my take on ethics, I feel I must bring it up again here. To what extent in science do you reach the point where you are playing God? If life were meant to continue forever on earth, then would our already impressive systems not include code for such properties? I think we all have a natural tendency to yearn for and seek after eternal life; we just look for it in the wrong place. We are not meant to live forever in this world, but the next. While I recognize God’s gifts to us in the knowledge and intelligence of scientists working diligently to unleash the magical world of telomerase or find cures for cancers or undertake any number of life-prolonging activities, I think we must also seek after our vocations and discern whether these advances will truly benefit humanity or if we could better spend our time helping with some other dilemma. If we discover a cure for cancer, we will surely discover a new malady to plague our societies and kill off our populations. People were not meant to live forever any more than a flower is meant to bloom for eternity.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-9521826809170646042008-09-21T19:59:00.001-07:002008-09-21T19:59:47.040-07:00Sept 22 Ridley Ch 9, 10, 11 (Disease, Stress, Personality)The experiment with men and women choosing which t-shirt smelled best after others had slept in them raises some interesting questions for me. Perhaps this is because I am usually very conscious about odors or perhaps because this is not my first introduction to this particular experiment as I heard about a similar experiment (maybe even the same experiment) when I was in high school. In any case, I find it very intriguing that people preferred t-shirts of those with very different MHC genotypes than themselves. Does this work with other genes as well? If they say that opposites attract, is this because people with different genes smell drastically different? Does it only work with the MHC genotype sequence? Which genes makes us attracted to one another in the first place? One of my questions about choosing a mate based on strength or perceived fitness is how is it that the ‘ugly’ or unfit people still manage to reproduce? This can offer some insight into why people who may appear physically unattractive somehow find mates if they are ‘attractive’ in odor or personality thereby making their genes more ‘attractive.’ Of course, as the two following chapters pointed out, personality is as much a reflection of genetics as it is of external factors because the brain has such a complex reaction network of chemical and electrical signals. If we are attracted to someone based on their personality then, are we really attracted to the environmental characteristics in which they choose to surround themselves? Maybe even these, as the mice with levers example illustrates, are affected by some chemical reactions stimulating positive or negative response to stimuli and therefore also genetically determined.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-40987508057068142862008-09-17T07:16:00.000-07:002008-09-17T07:17:08.528-07:00Sept 17'Ridley Ch 7, X & Y, 8 (Instinct, Conflict, Self-Interest)Before I begin, I would just like to say how privileged I am that I did not live my life in such seclusion the first thirteen years as to only know the words “Stopit” and “Nomore.” How one human can treat another in such a manner is unfathomable to me. On a different note, we have landed at last upon what I see as one of the greatest redeeming qualities of genetics: its use in forensic science. While its utility to the medical field is, I grant you, great indeed, I am often uncertain whether the moral nature of genetics carried out in the name of advancing medicine is truly in the best interest of the human race. Forensics, on the other hand, seeks to identify and thereby stop the ill-natured members of our species from committing such heinous acts as that mentioned above. There are far fewer ethical dilemmas I can generate concerning the use of genetics in forensics than medicine.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-14019449023346871872008-09-14T16:52:00.000-07:002008-09-14T16:53:15.234-07:00Sept 15 Ridley Ch 4, 5, 6 (Fate, Environment, Intelligence)I apologize in advance for how disjointed this response is; I wish to react to a particular section of each chapter assigned and thus will jump from one thing to the next showing little if any correlation. I find it very sad that the woman would choose to kill herself rather than live with Huntington’s Disease. While she had to watch her relatives live through it to their deaths, would it not be better to experience life in whatever aspects it comes at you than to self terminate and not experience anything? It is interesting to me that asthma, eczema, allergies, and anaphylactic shock are all caused by the same genes. This explains why I suffer from eczema and allergies while my mother and sisters suffer from asthma and different allergies and one sister got rushed to the hospital for anaphylactic shock to a bee sting this summer. I think one of the biggest messages to take home from this diverse representation of the same genetic trait is how much we don’t know about genetics. Scientists have developed multiple theories of what causes asthma, for example, but none of their support seems strong enough to claim they’ve discovered the mechanisms at work because there have been so many exceptions to their proposed theories. Perhaps this is one of those cases where theorizing then testing is less efficient than collecting information with an open mind and then stepping back to interpret it in a grander scheme. I want to know where they got all the sets of twins for testing the hypothesis about nature vs. nurture with regards to intelligence. How many parents are so supportive of science that they willingly separate their twin children? Or, if the twin children are orphans to begin with, whose idea was it to tear them away from one another? Most orphans are lucky to have a brother or sister stay with them because most are alone and know absolutely no family. The psychological benefits of knowing a twin and sharing a sibling bond would, I think, far surpass the benefits to the scientific community about intellectual similarity of separated twins.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-46389120676544937492008-09-10T06:23:00.000-07:002008-09-10T06:24:19.853-07:00Sept 10 Ridley Ch 1, 2, 3 (Life, Species, History)This reading selection included a vast amount of information about the rise of genetics through the scientific undertakings of its early fathers as well as some of the glaring genetic similarities between humans and other species in the context of ecological evolution understood in a new light so that bacteria are higher evolved. I wish to ignore all of this though and address Ridley’s choice of repetitively drawing upon ‘the word.’ “In the beginning was the word,” says Ridley, and in the cultural context of a Roman Catholic reading this, I understood him to be quoting the first passage in the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Bible. The next piece that should have followed was “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) Ridley took a different route. By page 17, he claimed, “RNA was the word.” While I understand he is trying to make the point that RNA preceded DNA and proteins and is, in his mind, the origin of life, I was so thrown by his unexpected twist to this beautiful, sacrosanct description of my belief that I grew angry with Ridley. I do not require that he share my belief in God; I do require that he respect my belief and, in so doing, not mock what I happen to deem one of the most beautiful expressions of the character of God.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-41600080390772482302008-09-07T14:53:00.001-07:002008-09-07T14:53:48.669-07:00Sept 8 Kitcher Ch 2 (Our Mortal Coils)This particular reading is loaded with technical information about genetics and DNA, taking me back to high school biology lessons. While some passages are more complex than others, I can generally remember learning most of the information already; granted – this version is ‘dumbed down’ for an everyday reader. The point is, since 1953 with Watson and Crick’s revelation about the double-helix structure of DNA, scientific advancements have made genetics increasingly available to everyday people and significantly increased the amount of information available concerning the microbiology concepts of what makes us tick. With this increase in information comes an invitation to us to use it as we see fit. Does that mean we should genetically modify and clone hardy plant species in attempts to fight world hunger? Does that mean we should start making decisions about which fetuses are allowed to grow to maturity and which should be destroyed? In the eloquent words of Kitcher, “Will the hundreds of tests developed by probing particular regions of DNA prove liberating—or painful?” (Kitcher, p63) He did not mean ‘painful’ in the sense that the tests would physically cause pain as much as he meant that because of the array of tests available and the decisions we will face, we may experience emotional pain and internal struggles over ethical dilemmas.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-32128593114749346352008-09-02T08:09:00.000-07:002008-09-02T08:10:01.409-07:00Sept 3 Kitcher Ch 1 (The Shape of Suffering)I will take a moment to respond to two controversial decisions presented in this chapter, but then I think a quotation from the last page deserves most of my time. One argument Kitcher seems to make is that genetics technologies should be used to abort fetuses with disorders. He says, “even if doctors cannot yet treat the genetic disorders that affect some of the boys and girls of Children’s Hospital…genetic tests are rapidly becoming available, enabling pregnant women to discover whether the fetus they are carrying is afflicted with any of the growing number of severely incapacitating conditions…Scientific knowledge will not eliminate the tragedies of Children’s Convalescent Hospital, but by reducing their number, it can soften the edges of human suffering.” I apologize for the long quotation, but it illustrates my understanding of Kitcher’s take on the importance of genetics; if we can use genetics to determine certain disorders or other maladies of a fetus, we can reduce the number of those fetuses born into the world to suffer (i.e. abort them). I feel this is taking away the unborn child’s freedom to live and pursue happiness based on hasty decisions formulated from the results of genetic testing. Why is it that Children’s Convalescent Hospital exists in the first place? Most likely it is to care for convalescent children because society decided long ago that killing humans is wrong. I urge that killing a human fetus is just as wrong as killing the newborn infant or the two year old or the five year old or the fifty year old. <br /> The other controversial decision presented in this chapter to which I wish to respond concerns a mother working in a factory who is fired based on genetics knowledge suggesting she is more likely to contract cancer. I understand that the company is arguing it is in her best interest to fire her, but she is aware of the risks and should have the right to choose for herself whether she continues working there. Firefighters, for example, probably have a higher risk of death due to the nature of their work than does this woman. I think that genetics in this case can help inform her decision-making, but the decision is hers to make, not her employer’s (provided of course she will not be a liability to them should she contract cancer). <br /> Finally, Kitcher makes an excellent point on the last page of this chapter stating, “without reflection and exchange of ideas, we shall surely lurch into the future blindly; while forethought does not guarantee that we shall do better, it surely raises the chances that we shall avoid the deepest pits.” This, I feel, is the purpose of our course. Already I have disagreed with two proposals Kitcher presents, and surely others share his views. Even if society does not accept my positions for every issue, the real potential for genetics technologies to force these decisions upon us is at hand; we must consider, discuss, and CHALLENGE such possibilities rather than blindly follow the advance of technology.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574664188239544945.post-23272967105465770082008-09-02T08:01:00.000-07:002008-09-02T08:02:56.288-07:00Aug 27 Bill Joy "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us"While I find this piece a bit excessive in its pessimistic view of potential technological advances, I cannot argue without a doubt that we will never reach a time when Joy’s concerns are valid. I think it very unlikely that we will create super-robots capable of replacing ourselves, nor do I think all the contents of our being could be downloaded onto any form of mega-hard drive. I think machines are only as smart as the people operating them (although this leaves much room for negotiation as the levels of human intelligence vary significantly). I would posit that the most important part of this work is Joy’s references to Attali and the Dalai Lama actually; we must look to the best interests of others instead of ourselves to further human society. I am quite pleased actually that this is the conclusion and not something crazier than robots with human thoughts downloaded onto hard drives killing off all the humans and replicating with their grey goo matter. It brings the readers back to reality and to what ought to matter – human interaction instead of human/machine interaction.Wilsonaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15088389183038616762noreply@blogger.com0