Sept 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.

Sept 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.

Sept 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.

Sept 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.

Sept 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.
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).
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.

Aug 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.