[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Mice given bat-like forelimbs through gene switch



"The point has already been made that we've been doing it for 
centuries in any case. We just have a more powerful method now." -- JC

Excluding mice, cloning and morals:

"The point" has indeed already been made, so I am not just picking on
 John here. In terms of assessing gene technology relative to the probability,
 severity and characteristics of the potential ecological consequences,
 there is no useful comparison to made between selective
 breeding/hybridization (even using mutagens) and combining the genes of very
 distantly organisms. Heh. "... just ... more powerful", indeed! Like nukes are 
just
 more powerful than firecrackers.

Don

----- Original Message ----
From: John Conway <john.a.conway@gmail.com>
To: villandra@austin.rr.com
Cc: david.marjanovic@gmx.at; DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:31:23 PM
Subject: Re: Mice given bat-like forelimbs through gene switch

While genetic engineering demands careful ethical considerations, I 
can't see any reason that it should be considered  _fundamentally_ 
wrong. The point has already been made that we've been doing it for 
centuries in any case. We just have a more powerful method now. Surely 
that demands more ethical care, but saying it just wrong "just because 
it is" isn't reasonable, and ignores it's potential benefits.

Cheers,
John

Dora Smith wrote:
> Genetic manipulation, as in cloning, or producing new organisms by 
> combining the DNA of one organism with that of another, is morally
 wrong 
> and ecologically extremely unwise.   Anyone who doesn't know that 
> probably isn't going to be convinced by me.
> 
> One poster has his issues mixed up.   The use of stem cells in
 medicine 
> has nothing to do with genetic manipulation.

Palaeontography: http://palaeo.jconway.co.uk