[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
more powerful than firecrackers.
----- Original Message ----
From: John Conway <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; DML <email@example.com>
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.
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
> 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
> has nothing to do with genetic manipulation.