Slashdot Mirror
Harvard to Clone Human Embryos?
Lifix writes ""Harvard University scientists have asked the university's ethical review board for permission to produce cloned human embryos for disease research, potentially becoming the first researchers in the nation to wade into a divisive area of study that has become a presidential campaign issue."
...they just can't use federal money to fund it.
If you've read the article, you'd have seen this -
None of the proposed experiments involves attempts to produce a cloned person.
So, no. They're not going to have clones, atleat not yet.
Goodluck on your search, though.
Human cloning is scary stuff. What happens when we start to clone the "perfect" human for soldiers? Or when we clone too much that it leaves too little genetic diversity? Or worse, combining genetic manipulation with cloning, creating "super-humans", so-to-speak?
Personally I think those are questions best left to speculation, and not ones that should ever have their answers truly known by anyone.
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
"We must allow this research, I mean some day this could allow Chris Reeve to.. oh.."
"Michael J Fox, you know him right? Well someday.."
I believe they should talk to people about the issues and the benefits instead of the constant name dropping of a few celebrities stem cells and cloning could *magically* heal. And since when is scientific research in line with religious dogma or morality? Science is the terrier that tugs at the great curtain. As we legislate based on dogma, many other countries are passing us by in science and technology.
It will be stem cell research. Then again, with overcrowding in the world, I don't even know if that's the best good idea. It's going to be a long century, and at the moment, this kind of thing isn't safe either privatized or government regulated.
can't they just pray to have our Lord who ar't in Heaven deliver the knowledge unto them?
Maybe if some of us took a few days off from praying for the President, and his children, and their peace of mind, and Iraq, we could pray for the researchers to happen upon a divine epiphany, and if they were good, God fearing servents of our Lord, he'd just write it on up and send it on down via an Angel.
I bet we could get that on the 700 Club!!! Think of how much money would be saved by not wasting any of it or the time on science, and better yet with the donation to the 700 Club we could feed poor kids in Africa, or by the Church a Holy 120' Conversion Vessel of The Lord, with day spa!
I for one welcome our cloned human embryo overlords...
You mean these ones?
Here're the Yahoo! blurb and the NZ Herald stories.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My point is that as long as we keep the clones somewhat small - say less than 1024 cells, I have no moral problem with disposing them - that I'm not killing anything. Yes this has a HUGE grey area, but I think that a reasonable compromise can be reached.
Let the flame/holy wars begin...
..........FULL STOP.
The question here isn't "Can we do this?" but rather "Should we do this?", and I just don't think we know enough to answer the 2nd question yet. After all, what are we (as a culture, people, race, as well as individuals)going to think if further research reveals that Life begins at conception? Will posterety record us a a generation that created an entire class of people for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation? And philosophical considerations aside, with all the cloning errors with Dolly (dozens of attempts, one "success") and other issues (genetic diseases present in Dolly that weren't present in her "mother") is any research we perform on a human clone going to have any medical validity?
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
For those of us born without evil twins, cloning is the best way to protect ourself against conviction based on DNA evidence. It musta been my clone.....
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I'm guessing that their goal is to cull stem cells from the cloned embryos, and use those for disease research, as a team in South Korea did in February.
If they're allowed it could free up stem cell research in general by providing "victimless" stem cells.
With all the talk of "super cures", it's about time somebody got the ball moving.
Cannibals need tasty breakfast food too---
JIMMY DEAN BREAKFAST EMBRYOS!
What crap.
:)
There is enough and more space in the world. It's just our cities which are crowded. Next time, take a drive around to the wilderness and outlands a few miles off your city and you'd notice how much free space is out there.
The only thing of worry is the crunch it may have on our natural resources, but I'm sure we'll find a way around it. Afterall, our species has shown the most resilience only when pushed to our limits.
It's going to be a long century, and at the moment, this kind of thing isn't safe either privatized or government regulated.
Yes, that's why they have bureas of ethical issues regulating this stuff. They have not even approved this, and it is not known if they will - this is merely an application seeking permission for _research_.
And read this (emphasis mine) -
Jennings said Harvard had raised "substantial" funds for the experiment from private philanthropies, but declined to name them. "There are a lot of people who have the resources and who are very keen to see this sort of work go ahead," he said in a telephone interview. "This is not commercial research."
It's just research for science's sake. I do not see anything evil in their intent, except for the fact that it may help several people with disabilities lead a normal life.
And besides, the reason I replied to your question - stem cell research is _not_ just to increase your longetivity. It can also help people with severe neurological disabilities. I've a cousin who has not gotten out of her bed ever since she has been of 4 years of age, for the past 18 years. I would do anything to see her walk, so would her parents.
For that reason alone, I would like to see this work progress. Go science!
Why is it that cloning so controversial?
Because of what might happen? Because we've seen some crazy science fiction movies?
It's ridiculous that people who least understand the research hold the strongest opinions about it and try to stop it from happening.
Now why exactly is any research involving embryos controversial? People aren't lining up at abortion clinics to make an easy 50 bucks by donating their unborn babies to research. Is it better to put the embryos in a landfill than to make use out of them?
Politics should not dictate research. It certainly should never prevent research.
The flip side is that people use superman as a political tool on the opposite side. "Let us do research. We'll make superman walk again!" I guess that won't be happening. If only he could have held out 'till election day...
It's quite amazing the hysterical reaction people have to clones when natural clones - also known under the technical term "same-egg twins" - are neither freaky nor the harbingers of a brave new world.
Anyone who is against cloning has to come up with better arguments than "it's unnatural".
Personally, I feel the discussion about cloning is largely provoked by people with political agendas, as are many divisive arguments around the world. People who have true feelings about the value of human life should better try to help the victims of war and famine, man-made disasters that kill millions.
But, I guess one clone is more of a danger to our claims of moral superiority than a million dead Sudanese or Congolese.
Call me a cynic but this debate is full of shit.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Remember, the goal of this is not to clone entire humans (although, someday, who knows what will happen) but instead to perfect genetic engineering.
People will likely look back one day on the movie Gattaca as amazingly prophetic. For those unfamiliar with the film, it did an amazing job portraying what society may be like when genetic engineering becomes perfected. Coming, sooner than many think, are the days when we can engineer the child of two parents; not to be a perfect child, but instead to be the "best" of those parents. The child is more intelligent, stronger, etc. than the average child produced by those parents would be, and will have a much lower likelihood of diseases and other problems. This will be a fantastic thing, but those children born the old-fashioned way are likely going to be disadvantaged. Because we'll be able to weed them out just by plucking a hair and checking their DNA.
Should we forbid someone from taking a certain job based on their genetic makeup? And how long can we breed the "best" children before the best become so far ahead of the worst, that the worst no longer have any "value" to society at all? Those will be the real ethical dilemmas. The so-called ethical dilemmas we're faced with today are just temporary hurdles created by people who are frightened of progress and/or don't understand what the goals are.
Do you actually have a grasp on the subject? They're not cloning humans to create a new master-race of perfect beings (it'd be far cheaper just to educate the ones we do have - but I digress). They wish to create stem cells - that's all. Just cells. You then completely muddy the water with your final point, either deliberately, or because you couldn't be bothered reading/understanding the original article - THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO CREATE CLONED PEOPLE (you got that now?) Secondly, just because something fails doesn't mean we should stop trying. Are you under the impression that all the great advances in the history of mankind just sortof worked first time? NASA just decided to shoot Neil into space on a whim one day and it came off?
Is it, since when did an embryo become a baby?
Most places it's 24 weeks, before that, it's a womens period (menstrual cycles), with the same rights, and in most cases the same viability, without serious medical intervention, and even with that, a low chance of anything resembling a normal worthwhile life.
Before you go moving the 24 week target, have a look at what happens if you go too early, you become the Catholic Church, and then every sperm IS sacred.
I guess what you have to ask yourself, is this.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 20 million, would the research be worth it?
Most people would say yes.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 2 million, would the research be worth it?
Again, yes.
It's when we get down to
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to a disease, which would cure 201 people, would the research be worth it?
Then it's a more difficult question.
In my view, it's still a yes.
However, I'd also want some research done into pain, reaction and the like, of the stem cells, to indeed see if there was any capacity for suffering or any suffering going on.
Other than that, they are just organic matter, same as a menstrual cycles, or sperm, livers, kidneys and hearts.
I'm still amazed that the people arguing against this aren't arguing against heart/liver/kidney transplants as being traumatic to hearts/livers/kidneys.
Hmmm, would the clone then be a native born citizen capable of running for president? Interesting indeed...
I hear jesus 2.0 is gonna fix alot of the problems, instead of dying for our sins again he's gonna tell us all to stfu and stop sinning.
He's gonna be a martian though, so again the jews will get all pissy and throw stones.
at the risk of going a bit off topic here, but couldnt the same argument be used to prevent government spending money on any other arb thing, like, say, executing prisoners, because executions use tax money from people who may oppose it? (i used this as an example cos there's a significant number of people who are opposed to the death penalty).
it seems to me that the government policy on this matter is only what it is, because its more friendly towards the religious groups that are against cloning altogether, without totally snubbing the scientists altogether ("ok mr scientist, you can clone embryos, but we will not fund it")
some people have absofuckinglutely no sense of humor. It's meant to be a joke....laugh, it keeps you young.
Mod me down, and I'll pray to my merciless God to make you age faster.
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
I'll tell you what happens!
We will engineer super intelligent beings that have giant heads and perfect vision in all light spectrums. The human race will eventually evolve (die out) into this new race only to find out that genetic mutations will kill off their existence! So they develop means to travel back in time and kidnap goatse.cx guy so they can anal probe him!
The reasoning for the anal probe is obvious: It's so the future big-headed, grey-skinned, lanky humans can figure out how not to die. Don't feel sorry for goatse.cx guy either, not only has he secured the existence of the future human race; he became famous from his after-probing disorder.
It's so obvious
pfft
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
I agree from a different POV this book IS utopia.
Why do we want choice? Why do we want to be able to choose our job? Why do we want to be different yet accepted by society? I think the answer is easy:
We want the choice of job to be able to get the job that will make us happy. We want to be able to be ourselves even if we are different and still have the community's support. Because that makes us happy and content.
It all somehow drops back on us wanting to be happy. But people in BNW ARE happy. I'm not too sure if I'd resist such a world. Because right now I'm very individualistic yet I am not really happy.
Our individualism comes from remembering how we were slaves of kings, despots and dictators. But is a dictator something bad? Is it bad to be told what to do? Yes it is... unless you are told to do what you love to do. And in this book people can do exactely what they like. They couldn't choose what they like and what not but what good does choice if the outcome is killing poverty and overall unhappyness?
> At least we'll all be happy.
No, we wouldn't be happy, as we are the savages, grown up in a totally different society.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Would the world really be better of if we stopped progressing,stopped inventing? Just because these new inventions can be abused by nasty-bad evil people, should we stop advancing?
Maybe we should have stopped when we "invented" fire way back when, because it can be used for detructive purposes, but seriously, what kind of life and society would we have today if we had?
Lets try to learn a lessons from the dark middleages and maybe not fear knowledge, science and progress so much.
This is the Bush administration's policy.
...
I'll quote from the NZ Herald article -
Current law prohibits the use of federal funds to make human embryonic stem cells, and in August 2001 President George W Bush said scientists could work only on a few already existing cell lines, using federal funds.
The Bush Administration argues that people who oppose experimenting on human embryos should not have their tax dollars used in such research, but it is silent on what privately funded groups can do.
I guess they had to satisfy their right-wing supporters without openly cutting off research - that would have brought up serious opposition.
It's because our current technology can't ensure that the artificially cloned human will be healthy. Would you want to be the scientist responsible for bringing a defective (excuse the term) human being into the world? If that person had to spend their life with terrible illnesses, premature death, or some bizarre mutation? Once our cloning technology has progressed to the point where we will be confident the cloned person will be perfectly unharmed by the procedure, then maybe there will be a case for human reproductive cloning. Until then, it should only be used for creating stem cells, or perhaps even organs or body parts. It would be unconscionable to actually allow a human clone to progress to the point of viability in the near future.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Insightful?
Informative might be a stretch, but I can take it.
But insightful that the mods do not have a sense of humour?
Nothing is funnier than someone cursing the mods to an early death by praying to God in an article on stem-cell research to prolong life.
Hmmm, I'm at a loss for words.
"My mother is a testtube and my father a knife"
l ltext.html
:)
(couldn't find this searching the book at Amazon, it might have been part of a preface, introduction or similar)
The full book legally readable for free here:
http://somaweb.org/w/sub/Brave%20New%20World%20fu
Enjoy!
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
De Bono advocates the use of the Red Thinking Hat. This is where you stop thinking logically for a moment and stop being cool and sophisticated and say how you really feel: "This freaks me out". Or somehting like: "If I had an abortion I wouldn't mind them using the cells but I get a really unpleasant feeling in my chest at the idea of some part of what might have been my baby, living on, growing on..."
Yes, it's illogical, but that's hardly the point. Ask any mathematician if logic can provide all the answers. Well as a maths student (undergrad 2nd year) I'm well informed that it can't.
Even the most utilitarian morality cannot be formulated on logical principles because it requires judgements to be made to put a level on suffering or utility, and this is subjective.
There's very little to be learnt from making bad copies of people, and if I had money to invest in humanity, I'd give it to some other scientist. In philosophy of science we learnt about how it's impossible to tell the difference between an accurate theory and an "empirically adequate" one. Well, scientists keep pushing the envelope and it's not necessarily always the best idea. If science is supposed to be for the benefit of humanity then why do we push it so far we keep losing humanity?
Tests like the LD50 are sadly well out of date, yet we keep pumping animals full of drugs to see how much it takes to make them die.
And now this lot wants to make bad copies of people when they were just embryos to learn what they're made of. So that people like superman can walk again.
You know, I have this dilemma every time I take a drug. I think of all the rats and mice that died so I could take the drug. Then I think of the monkeys that died so I could take the drug. And I think of how they suffered before they died. Then I think "well, they're doing the best they know how and later I'll do my best to find better solutions." Although humanity suffers from this kind of research, it also gains years. A net gain for humanity, and a who knows what for the world. Maybe some kind of break-even.
If I meet a clone I have to be friendly -- clones are people too, poor copies though they be. Clones aren't monsters any more than frankenstein's monster was a monster. If you read the book, he was a vegetarian and just wanted to find a way to be happy. A nice guy who wouldn't hurt a cow.
But there's an obvious line here (do we clone people or not?) and I don't know where the next obvious line is at all (cloning up to a certain age, for example is not a line. It's a fuzzy blob that will be moved). A lot of people have a lot of emotion tied up in this, and you can't deny it, argue though you may.
Enlightenment values can bring us to a certain stage and then we have to decide what we value about our humanity and how we are going to behave. And for me... I'm not convinced that human cloning has any benefits that can't be found from a concentrated effort elsewhere. I don't like the idea of starting down that road. And it gives me the creeps.
Thanks for your patience.
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
Check out that link, Bush is sharing his "wise" perception with us:0 010809-2.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/2
"I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated."
Removed From Article but posted here for SlashDot readers ONLY
: "Unless that life resides in Iraq or another country inside the Axsis of Evil, because MY God said those people don't matter, nor do their children or elderly. "
I love how the people who are the most loyal to "God" are also the ones who create the most pain in this world, actually their loyality has nothing to do with God and everything to do with their "religion" and let me tell you there is a major difference between being loyal to God and to a religion...
-=Linsys=-
http://www.intrusionsec.com
In my opinion, cloning embryos is a trivialization of the creation of human life. And I see that a lack of value for human life has preceded many historic tragedies. That is, lives and their loss are being made to represent something other than and in precedence to its value as people: in war, life and its loss is made a military tool to an end; in genocide, it is abstracted as some negative impact or social obstacle that needs overcoming. Okay, so the comparisons aren't perfect because they deal with life rather than the creation of life. But what I fear is that they all constitute the use of life and the destruction of it for a secondary purpose. And it's a crucial similarity - you can't maximize for two variables, so to speak. When life is used effectively (in a way that involves its destruction) for another end, ethics and the gain compete in importance. In the case of Harvard, corporately-funded research will choose its pragmatic interests (gain and profit) over ethical concerns anytime, and so we shouldn't mix ethical dilemmas with the free market if we expect to have a well-considered outcome.
(To avoid 5, Funny posts: Yes, it's extraordinarily naive to say that conception is considered sacred. It's certainly not. But it's never been commercialized before (as opposed to what, er, precedes it, which obviously has been commercialized - i.e. pr0n.))
This isn't the same argument as the one over abortion, which is the termination of a life (whose status is disputed) for personal reasons. And IVF uses embryos to create life. What we should fear are industries made out of the use of the creation of human life as a tool to another end. Stem cells may not have any profitable purpose yet, but as soon as they do, and if we depend on cloning embryos to create our stem cells, there will be NO turning back. This is an argument to have now. Does this trivialize the creation of life? And does a trivialization of the creation of life lessen the value we place in life in general? What are the consequences of that? Think about the ultimate point to which the decision here leads, not just its immediate results.
First, let me start saying I believe life begins at the moment of conception, so i don't take *embryonic* stem cell research lightly. What bothers me is that people talk as if there's only one way to produce stem cells, through embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro.
Why other ways of producing stem cells are not beeing actively pursued, researched and advocated?
For instance, there is other kind of stem cells: adult stem cells. These are "found among differentiated cells in a tissue or organ" Of course adult stem cells are rare and embryonic stem cells are a lot easier to grow in culture than adult stem cells since "methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out", but both have advantages and disadvantages worth considering.
Surely you need to have the capacity to feel pain and fear before you can be tortured?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
"Mom, your endowment's bigger than Harvard's!"
"I think the award for best off-the-cuff remark goes to Lisa."
"Actually, I saw them in the hallway, and I've been working on it."
When I first read the book back in high school I was shocked to discover that it presented a world that most of my peers considered to be desireable. Lots of sex and drugs. Sure, not too much freedom, but lots of sex and drugs. Everything is planned out for you...but lots of sex and drugs. It has its appeal to the modern mentality. Has society changed so much since Huxley's time?
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Considering there is already a Constitutional amendment preventing the ownership of human beings, I don't think anyone would have much success trying to patent them.
Then again, I didn't think combovers, algorithms, or using a laser pointer to exercise cats would be patented either.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
With all respect, I think you missed his point. (I used italics because I'm speculating, too.)
He's poking fun at the now-blurry line between church and state in this (U.S.A.) country.
Too, he seems to understand just how intolerant the thumpers can be. "Dang it, the earth is flat. Go make a confession 'else I'll burn you at the stake."
To everyone who feels like freaking out and telling me off, let me save you all some time and lay out my actual positions on this stuff, so you don't waste time calling me a religious maniac or whatnot:
1. Stem cell research: good.
2. Cultivating stem cells acquired from IVF sources: good.
3. As I've heard suggested in the media, cultivating stem cells acquired from aborted embryos, fetuses, whatever: good. DISCLAIMER: DO NOT PANIC. I AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF DOING THIS. IT IS JUST HYPOTHETICAL FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. Sheesh, People around here are too high strung.
4. Cloning stem cells: good.
5. Cloning entire embryos: touchy ground. I think it's different from using already cast-off tissue that would have died anyway. And, the phrase "cloning embryos" is too damn unspecific anyway. Are you talking about actual cloning, or just culturing cells? If cloning, I think it's a bad idea. Which is what this whole stupid argument thread is about.
I see an embryo, and of course a fetus, as an entire unit, a potential person. Therefore, if that potential person is already dead, as with castoff IVF material, or the clinic idea I've heard mentioned in the media, I don't see any harm in it. On the other hand, if you've just created a viable embryo just to disassemble it for the stem cells, that seems kind of ugly. And I do think it would be only a few steps from some much more serious nastiness down the road. I don't trust scientists as far as I can throw them, sorry. I've read too much about what they've done in the past. Like the guy who invented the lobotomy and then proceeded to inflict it on thousands of patients because he thought he was "helping" them.
6. I am not particularly religious, I have no desire to outlaw abortion, IVF, or any other such thing, I'm not an ignorant, evil redneck, and this is all just my opinion anyway.
Slashdot, people, is an OPINION SITE. Not necessarily the news.
Now, THIS is my WHOLE opinion on the subject, everybody relax.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
You should spend an hour caring for a person with a spinal cord injury. Better, why do you not move in with such a person and live with them for a week or so. How many of you will handle it?
I am not taking this out of my ass; I have actually been around people who cannot move and have no hope of improvement because of their conditions. My best friend has a mild-form of CP; the guy has been suffering all his life because his fucking legs are crooked and there is nothing he can do about it! Do me a favor, look into his eyes and then tell him that you are against stem cell research. Tell him that it sucks to be him because he was born different. Then visit a nursing home and try to take care of patients with Alzheimer's....
I still do not realize why this issue is an issue for our presidential candidates... This is a no brainer that should not be discussed in a country where religion is separate from the state. Then again, just like Kerry I am a liberal guy from Massachusetts :)
Sexual reproduction as a method of survival (considering evolution) has in my opinion become obsolete. Weak individuals are allowed to survice and by helping them we are seriously hindering evolution and making things worse. So I disagree, technology is definitely needed to help evolution since we are currently hindering the natural process.
To be perfectly selfless some people should also consider NOT TO REPRODUCE or atleast not to reproduce naturally in order to strengten the next generation. Some carry dangerous genes that might lead to extinction of human race if allowed to pass over to the next generation.
I believe science can help. You might consider it next level of evolution.
Professor Melton, the person asking Harvard's permission to make embryonic stem cells, is not trying to clone humans. His research is focused on curing juvenile diabetes.
Previous research in his lab has demonstrated conclusively that there are no adult (by which I mean post-embryonic) stem cells in the pancreas which can be used to make replacement beta cells (the cells in the pancreas which produce insulin). Therefore the notion of using the approved stem cell lines to cure juvenile diabetes is a non-starter. During a talk during this year's Whitehead Symposium Melton suggested the Bush administration's policy on stem cell research would have him work using stem cells that do not exist.
Because Melton is a HHMI Investigator, he is able to do some embryonic stem cell research using entirely private funds in a lab separate from Harvard, if I remember correctly. I assume that this recent request is an attempt to expand this existing research.
Lest anyone question Melton's motives in this research, he has at least one child with juvenile diabetes, which is the reason he switched his lab's focus from straight embyonic development research to finding specific cures for juvenile diabetes.
If you really look into this whole issue of cloning or stem cell research, you obviously see two arguments at work here. The technical and (I believe) moral (non-religious) one that shows the benefits of such research on saving peoples' lives and/or giving them better quality of life as apposed to the non-technical (religious) one in which some book created thousands of years ago can somehow know the future and is able to dictate the decisions in our lives for the present day.
Of course we know that this book makes no mention of stem cells or cloning embryos because it can't. However, sadly enough, certain people use this piece of material as a means to scare and manipulate others into thinking this sort of science somehow equates to the work of the "devil" or some other "fictional" evil character that punishes those who disobey (what essentially is) another man's law.
Now, this line of thinking may have seemed legitimate thousands or even hundreds of years ago where people really believed Chris Columbus and his ships would fall of the edge of the Earth, but today, in a world where we have the capability to send robots 50 million miles away and land on other planets I think it's time that we put all this imaginary, spooky stuff to bed. We're just to intelligent for this.
This is progress folks and we need to move on. At times it seems scary, but that has never stopped us before. Put it this way, when was the last time one scientist beheaded another scientist for disproving his theories? When was the last time a group of engineers at one university jailed and then publicly hanged one of their fellow engineers for spreading an "evil" belief that Linux is a sucky operating system? Think about it and then you may laugh.
This is the narrow view of natural selection that gets people into trouble, in much the same way as when we introduce new species into ecosystems and then realize 10 yrs later the new species has dramatically altered the place and has not given us the results we wanted.
Genetics and natural selection are COMPLEX. No, not like long division or network configuration or even tensor calculus. The DNA in your body is being effected by not only the DNA in my body, but also the DNA in the trees outside your window, the salmon in Norway, and those bacteria that live in the clouds.
Claiming to know that some gene is more likely to lead to the extinction of the human race is beyond ridiculous. The whole point is that it's all one big interconnected system, and changes in one species ripple out to all the others, then those ripples reflect back, get stretched, squeezed, inverted, etc etc. In our small, personal perspectives, it's easy to say that asthma or diabetes are detrimental to our species. But did you know that sickle cell anemia, so prevalent in Africa, actually helps combat malaria? It is naive and arrogant to think that just because some genetic feature makes you unhappy, that necessarily makes it something we should change.
I am all for genetics, biotechnology, etc, but to take such a short sighted view of things as to think that getting rid of some diseases will overall strengthen the species is beyond me. The prospects of those technologies is incredibly exciting. At the same time, the attitudes we take when approaching the technology must be very carefully examined.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
If you are looking for an ethical or metaphysical meaning to take from this, it's that small bundles of cells just aren't important; it is much more important to make sure that babies, children and adults are healthy than to obsess over the welfare of a sub-microgram blastocyst.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution is a description of changes over generations. We are a part of the natural process. We cannot hinder natural selection. Whatever happens is natural selection.
It is not that we are weakening the genetic pool when some people survive who would not have lived in the past. Evolution is based on survival. The survival of such people reflects a basic concept of evolution. The world and its selective pressures are in flux. From an evolutionary standpoint, having the ability to do something is worthless if it does not lead to increased reproductive success. If a particular condition no longer hinders reproduction because some technological advance has overcome it, that condition is no longer subject to much evolutionary pressure. We evolve based on the real world with real evolutionary pressures, not some imaginary world based on ideas of strength and weakness.
What are these dangerous genes? Do you know anything about population genetics? Look up Hardy-Weinburg. Although it is just a simple mathematical model, it provides a good argument against the rapid spread of a particular gene outside exceptional circumstances such as a genetic bottleneck.
Everyone has heard the arguments about how those little embryos are not really little people but just 'embryos.' I'm sure the Romans had really great arguments about why it was fine to kill slaves in their Coliseum in Rome because the slaves were not really people but just 'slaves.' And those many civilizations which practiced human sacrifice in the name of spiritual good for the whole were certainly convinced that they were doing no wrong. But try as we might to obscure the issue, those little embryos of a handful of cells are just as much a human life to be protected as the person sitting next to you...and deep down we all know that. Killing embryos to obtain their stem cells to improve our health is no different than killing prisoners to extract their organs so that others might have better health. It is immoral to improve our own health at the expense of other lives. Stem cells may have therapeutic value but they need to be obtained from methods other than breeding people to obtain them.