Playing God with Monsters

Howard writes "Horrified by "There Be Monsters Here" tales, some members of Congress called for a ban on DNA research in the mid '70s. Because those calls were rejected, millions of people around the world can now hope for DNA-based vaccines against AIDS, malaria and other deadly diseases that have destroyed lives, communities and nations. Here's an illustration: The name of Joseph DeRisi keeps coming up in connection with deadly diseases. No, he's not a modern-day Typhoid Mary. Just the opposite. The University of California, San Francisco researcher is using his own custom-built DNA microarrays to look inside the "minds" of some serious serial killers. The "minds" are genes, and his home-brewed gene chips helped solve the SARS mystery earlier this year. Now, DeRisi has chosen malaria as his next victim. For the complete commentary, please go to Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

Comments

Stem cell research

[knodi]

Perhaps some observant legislator will draw a parallel between the benefits of DNA research that have already been reaped without any of the scary "uber-monster" side effects, and use that to help lift the ban on human stem cell research?

(hint hint)

Re:Stem cell research

[the_flatlander]

Our Fearless Leader told us stem-cell research and human cloning would be morally wrong. (Dropping bombs on Afgan and Iraqii civilians, well, that's okay.) The first thing moralist do is attack any new science. Galleo wound up in trouble for proposing that the Earth orbited the sun. (Oddly, eventual wide acceptance of that information did not lead to the fall of the Church.) It is the [unpleasant] duty of scientists to ignore the politicians, and pursue the clues Nature provides.

Re:Stem cell research

[Rostin]

Actually, it was Copernicus that first championed that idea, and he was not condemned by the church for it. In fact, the majority of the people who didn't like the idea, the people who Galileo continued to contend with, were academics who held that the earth had to be the center of the universe because of their adherence to Aristotelean philosophy. Galileo did have a run in with the church, but it had nothing to do with geocentrism, and it was a far cry less serious than has been popularly portrayed. The story about Galileo, representing Science, vs Big Bad Irrational Religion, protrayed by the Catholic Chruch, is a myth. I leave you to speculate as to why it is such a popular one.

Re:Stem cell research

[rjmx]

> Actually, it was Copernicus that first
> championed that idea, and he was not
> condemned by the church for it.

...probably mostly because he wouldn't let his book detailing his theories be published till he was on his deathbed.

Safer that way.

Re:Stem cell research

[Ken Broadfoot]

"I for one want a leader with the balls to stand up for what s/he thinks is right."

It would be nice if "what s/he thinks is right" had ANYTHING to do with reality. In our case, we (USA) are fscked. I feel sorry for the Brits too.

--ken

Re:Stem cell research

[Khomar]

With the very real possibility of earning a flamebait or troll....

The moral issue with stem-cell research and cloning cannot possibly be compared with Galileo. The science Galileo offered threatened the misguided establishment at that time that taught that earth was the center of universe. It isn't the "new science" that is problem. It is the known facts and the resulting concerns for the sanctity of human life that are at issue.

Cloning is very much in its initial stages of development, and it's early results with animals have been very questionable. Most animal clones either die quickly or are found to be deformed. Given the current track record, to attempt to clone a human would be to produce an individual whose life would be filled with pain and probably an early death. It is these very considerations that require massive amounts of testing on animals for any medical products to protect human lives.

Stem-cell research is questionable due to the source of the material: abortions. While not composing all of the source of stem-cells, it certainly is a contributor. In this country where close to half of the population opposes abortion, I think it is reasonable to restrain public money from going toward something that so many find objectionable.

When comparing these two issues with the war against Afganistan and Iraq, let me ask you a question. Is it better to attack aggressive nations and cruel dictators or to inflict suffering and death upon innocent children with unproven science? While there are certainly some who fear these developments for more dogmatic reasons, it does not mean that there are not rational arguments against them.

Re:Stem cell research

[dreadnougat]

In that case, feel free to try to vote him out next time and let democracy work instead of whining.

Re:Stem cell research

[cens0r]

Stem-cell research is questionable due to the source of the material: abortions. While not composing all of the source of stem-cells, it certainly is a contributor. In this country where close to half of the population opposes abortion, I think it is reasonable to restrain public money from going toward something that so many find objectionable.

I would agree if people were having abortions just to provide stem cells, but that isn't the case. No one is repeatedly getting pregnant and having abortions just to provide stem cells for research. The abortions are going to happen anyway. It just doesn't make sense to throw away the stem cells when they have value.

Re:Stem cell research

[cens0r]

I agree, but the problem is that it adds some legitimacy to abortion: "Well, at least some good comes out of it." The fear is that by having this extra "excuse", more people will find reason to choose abortion as opposed to other options (raising the child, adoption, etc.)

That might have an effect on whether someone decided whether or not abortion should remain legal, but I gurantee that it rarely if ever enters the mind of someone contemplating an abortion themselves. That is going to be the least of things on a woman's mind when she is considering an abortion.

Re:Stem cell research

[quantaman]

I for one want a leader with the balls to stand up for what s/he thinks is right.

I do too, I just don't like it when they impose their views on their country. Recently the mayor of Edmonton Bill Smith had a press conference. He was very emotional and went on about how he felt homosexulality was morally wrong and went against everything he was brought up to believe in. He then said it was his duty as mayor to have gay pride parades. Similarly with gay marriages quite a number of officials from the Catholic church said that any politicians who allowed gay marriages would burn in hell. Prime Minister Cretien said that his first duty was as Prime Minister and is in the process of allowing them (well the courts already did that parliment is drafting legislation now, it's a long story). The thing is that in both cases the leader stated their beliefs and stood up for them but did not impose that belief upon their constituents, that's the kind of leader I feel most comfertable with.

Re:Stem cell research

[Lars T.]

Very nice. Now for some facts. [Excerpt]

In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -- Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:

"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]

The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]

The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]

Sure, compared to burning him at the stake, this was a nice treatment. And not only was he on "at the top of the seventeenth-century bestsellers list", but also on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Last but not least, it took the Roman Catholic Church until 1981 to finaly pardon Galileo. Sure, some church officials including the Pope liked him - yet they didn't do much to help him, nor did they prevent that no Catholic was allowed to read his work for 200 years.

Re:Stem cell research

[captainktainer]

Respectfully, I disagree. I think Chretien's approach, and Bill Simon's, is entirely consistent with moral behavior, even though homosexuality may be (is, in my opinion) wrong. Why? Separation of church and state. If it is your belief that governing on the basis of strict Christianity or another religious framework is wrong, and that the rule of law is paramount, then it is vital that you govern according to that rule of law. Bush and the Republican party are not governing by rule of law- they are governing by rule of Christianity.

It may tear at a leader's heart to know that the people he represents are looking at pornography, having homosexual sex, swearing, and expressing beliefs that don't accord with his own... but it is that leader's paramount duty to maintain the freedom of the people to make choices, even when those choices seem wrong to him. It is not man's role to come between man and God.

Re:Stem cell research

[Golias]

"Obviously - I am not concerned about the welfare of balls of cells roughly a millimeter in diameter."

Pardon me for asking, but why is it obvious that an athiest/humanist would hold that position? I would think that there are probably a lot of athiests out there who feel very strongly that all human life, which faces total annihilation upon the moment of its death, should be cherished and protected. In fact, abortion might be seen as far worse than murder to a person who does not believe in the existence of some kind of eternal "soul" or "spirit", because the aborted person is not even being allowed to live long enough to even actualize their existence.

Likewise, there are probably a lot of religious people who believe in some "better place" that the unborn fetus is going to, who figure that some people are better off going straight to the Promised Land anyway, and aborting them may very well be doing them a favor.

Far be it from me to start a flame war here. I've seen the futility which is an on-line abortion debate, and I'm one of those "between" people that the grandparent post was talking about anyway, but I'm just curious why you seem to believe there's an automatic correlation of atheism/humanism and the opinion that the fate of a zygote doesn't matter.

Re:Stem cell research

[danguyf]

Similarly with gay marriages quite a number of officials from the Catholic church said that any politicians who allowed gay marriages would burn in hell.

Not true. The Catholic Church does not tell people they will burn in Hell; quite the contrary, it decrees that the afterlife is entirely up to God and entirely unknowable by the living (short of that rare divine revelation where God appears to tell you personally that you're going to burn).

What the Church said was that (A) Catholics should take it upon themselves to understand their belief system well enough to comprehend the validity of its arguments for why homosexuality is a disordered state and (B) Catholic politicians have an obligation to vote their conscience and not according to popular opinion. The implication being, obviously, that a Catholic politician will not vote to advance same-sex marriage.

As for the seperation of church and state, the Church views it as a complete non-issue, unrelated, because Catholic theology in such matters (it claims) is based on "a right understanding" of the universe derived from examining life rather than from scripture. For the Church, then, its anti-SSM stance can be expressed as purely philosophical.

Banning Research

[darkstar949]

With any luck these advances can be pointed out to those whom want to ban various froms of research in the future. Hopefully, people can come to realise that no research is "bad" or "evil", it just depends upon how the research is applied.

Re:Banning Research

[GlassHeart]

no research is "bad" or "evil"

I disagree. Modifying DNA is a dangeurous matter.

Dangerous does not imply "bad" or "evil", so I don't see how you're disagreeing at all.

*Where* there be monsters?

[watchful.babbler]

While it's true that Congress wanted to ban (or sharply curtail) genetic research in the 1970s, it was the self-policing of the scientific community (at the Asilomar Conference) that convinced Congress not to enact legislative bans on the research. Asilomar showed that scientists were concerned about the ethical and public policy effects of their research, rather than being the Dr. Frankensteins so many members of the press and the anti-scientific left painted them to be.

What we lack today is the same kind of scientific consensus-building process in ethical and policy matters. The inability of the research community to show that it cares about the moral, legal, political and social effects of its work has led to greater political scrutiny of that research, and acts such as the Executive Order limiting research into stem cells.

So, to raise the obvious question, what chance do we have for another Asilomar? Can the scientific establishment convince the public that it's not hell-bent on progress at any price, or is modern bio-science too fragmented, too much a creature of academic, corporate, and social specialization to speak with a united voice again?

Re:*Where* there be monsters?

[clary]

The problem now isn't ethics when it comes to genetic research, as those have been already established.

That's just a little bit bold, don't you think? I don't know what you mean by "established" but if it includes having any general agreement on what is right and wrong on issues like cloning, human genetic manipulation, harvesting stem cells from embryos, etc., then I think you still have a bit of work to do.

On the other hand, if you mean that you have all the answers to ethical questions when it comes to genetic research, then that sounds very much like one of those "strong opinions" you mention later. You'd better be ready to supply very good arguments for your ethics if you expect to be taken seriously.

A third possibility is that you mean that the ethics of genetics has been addressed in academia. I don't pretend to have read the latest journal articles on the subject. However, I will say this: Ethics is a domain for every person. Each of us is responsible for his own ethical decisions, right or wrong. Ceding that responsibility to authority figures, whether scientists or priests, is not good.

The problem is that people representing the religious right stay in power by scaring the prudish masses they represent into taking strong opinions on issues they don't understand.

I'm not in the religious right (I don't think), but I don't consider all of these ethical issues closed. In fact, some of my opinions are a bit tentative, precisely because I don't want to have strong opinions on issues I don't understand.

I suggest that to paint all people who do not approve of everything being done or proposed in genetic research as prudish masses, afraid of Tokyo-destroying monsters, is to prop up a nice strawman just so you can knock it down.

What is humanity?

[TuringTest]

Is humanity determined by the specific genotype you happen to have now? Any more that by your fenotype? If you do a aesthetic surgery, you are changing yourself into something that you couldn't naturally be. That too would make you less human?

Changing your life habits to live longer and healthier don't make you less human. If that goal is achieved by changing your genes, would it be different? Or if you are made physically stronger so you don't need a fork lift truck to carry packages and now can do it manually, is that so important?

Care to bet?

[Henry V .009]

Anybody willing to make a bet with me on whether more people will be killed by genetically engineered weapons than are saved by genetically engineered cures during the 21st century?

Re:What an unbalanced pile of propaganda!

[glwtta]

All of these claims are completely unproven, and man has a track record of blowing stuff up when given the opportunity. Military people are already talking about bioweapons engineered to only kill one person or maybe a certain ethnic group. These monstrosities maybe don't look like Godzilla, but they are reality, unfortunately.

Oh, so it's only the scary, bad scifi movie stuff that's proven, not the benefits?

I only have two questions for you: one, what is your relationship to the pharmaceutical industry? You seem to know an awful lot about us. And two, what exactly is it that you are proposing? That we forget what genetics is?

Sad, that.

[No Such Agency]

They killed a perfectly good baboon (of which there are few) to temporarily prolong the life of a human infant (of which there are very many).

Yes, but

[charon_on_acheron]

if it was your human infant, you may have a different concern.

Re:We nearly eradicated malaria, remember?

[barawn]

Borneo is not bad science. Nor is it hype. Nor is it something that someone can claim "ooh, the big bad environmentalists did it to us!"

It's an ecology lesson, that's what it is.

For those who don't know the story, here's the short:

Yah, DDT killed mosquitos. It also raised DDT levels in caterpillars. Which raised DDT levels in geckos, making them slow and easy to catch. Which raised DDT levels in cats, which killed them. Which brought in the rats.

Which brought bubonic plague.

Which kills many more, and much worse, than malaria.

So the WHO, which sprayed DDT in the first place, parachuted cats into Borneo (hence the name of the children's book, "The Day They Parachuted Cats Into Borneo". This isn't a joke - there are about a billion resources on the Web to back this up.

So what, you might say. At least they got rid of malaria. Yah. Sure. Except afterwards, their thatched huts caved in as well, because all the geckos - which ate the caterpillars - were dead. (Plus the fish in the rivers were dead, killing the livelihood of many people there, and much more...)

The WHO made a decision because one exercise of DDT went horribly, horribly wrong. You have no idea what introducing DDT into ecosystems would do. "Ecological engineering" is one thing that we just plain do not know how to do. We're awful at it.

DDT is a very powerful killer, and it can be useful. But we are simply far too bad at ecosystem modeling to use it. We chose to not use DDT because we don't understand ecosystems, and it was a good choice. You can only look back and say "ah, if only we had used DDT, life would be happy, and rainbows would spread over all tropical regions!" Sorry - Murphy's Law would've intervened, so the WHO smartly said "look, this stuff is powerful, and we're not smart enough to use it." Good choice.

Came a bit too late for Borneo, though.