Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I usually find your articles interesting, but.. (Score 1) 473

I would have to agree with you on this one, DanaL. I found the theses of the article interesting statements, but the evidence for them was sorely lacking. I am not always quite sure where I stand on most genetic research involving alteration of genes (i.e. genetically engineered crops, gene therapy, or creating new life using the 300 essential building blocks (genes that code the polypeptides absolutely essential for autonomous, open-system, cell function and replication) of life) but I do know that this research will go on in any case, because that is the nature of human society. If Craig Venter doesn't do "it", then someone else will, and not too long from now because science is at that point.

I feel that when arguments like this come up, however, at least the scientist have thought out the reasons for why they are doing what they are doing. Modern science may well be short-sighted in many respects, but science-fiction like GATTACA is so long sighted (and possibly just blowing smoke up our collective arses) that I can't believe its cautionary statements, like those loosely referred to in the article, are qualitatively better reasons to stop what we are doing than the short-sighted goals of understanding the next step in some obscure molecular pathway are to keep forging ahead.

Besides, Katz's research this time seems to be based entirely on what he has read in news releases, and he doesn't seem to understand the biology behind it at all. In fact, he might be shocked to know that many scientists consider viruses to be the most simple form of life, and reasearch teams have been constructing their own viruses for reasearch purposes from the known essential building blocks of that life form for quite a while now, with not much press or ill-effects. Or he might do weel to consider that GATTACA was way off base for many reasons, but the main one being that who each person fundamentally is, that is their phenotype, results from a 50-50 interaction of genes and environment. How one develops depends on your environemntal factors as much as your genes starting from day one (conception). He points out that Victor or whatever his name is is excluded from being an astronaut for having a heart condition - well big whoop, astronuats are excluded from going into space for this today, and weel they should be! If he only had a predisposition for a heart condition, then that is different, but things wouldn't be like they were in GATTACA because people with "perfect" genotypes would develop heart disease all the time, and non-perfects, like Victor, would be beating their odds, just like all of us non-perfect people do today. Also, scientists know that a homogeneous population is bad news, man, because it opens your population up to any disease that may come along - you may all be resistant to this new thing, or conversely, you will all not be.

My point is not that genetic modification is good. For goodness sakes, picking the genes for your baby is not just unethical, its downright retarted, unoriginal, arrogant, and an admission that you want to make some sort of super race just like Hitler. My point is, however, that you should understand what you're knocking before you ignorantly strike fear into the hearts of others.

Slashdot Top Deals

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz

Working...