Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

William Phillips' Presentation Outline: Fairness&Equality


By William Phillips

May 2013

Article I.           Definitions

Section 1.01 Fairness

(a)     Merriam-Webster -   “marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.”

(b)    Dictionary.com – “the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness.”

(c)     Encyclopedia Britannica - “marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.”

(d)    Wikipedia – “absence of bias”

(e)   Legal – “Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.”

(f)      Philosophical – “Plato contended that justice is the quality of soul, in virtue of which men set aside the irrational desire to taste every pleasure and to get a selfish satisfaction out of every object and accommodated themselves to the discharge of a single function for the general benefit.”


Article II.        Equality

(a)     Merriam-Webster -   “the quality or state of being equal.”

(b)    Dictionary.com – “the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.”

(c)     Encyclopedia Britannica – “Generally, an ideal of uniformity in treatment or status by those in a position to affect either.”

(d)    Wikipedia – “Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.”

(e)     Legal – “equity is the set of legal principles that supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly.”

(f)      Philosophical – "Democracy comes about when the poor are victorious, killing some of their opponents and expelling others, and giving the rest an equal share in ruling under the constitution, and for the most part assigning people to positions of rule by lot." (Rep., 557a-b)

Article III.    Key Ontological Features

Section 3.01 Fairness

(a)     Objectivity

(b)    Justice

(c)     Universal; Utilitarian; Disinterested

Section 3.02 Equality

(a)     Uniformity

(b)    Non-prejudice

(c)     Individual


Article IV.     Implications of Policy-Based Adoption

Section 4.01 Fairness

(a)     Fairness is an observable phenomenon.

(b)    Fairness does not reward or punish.

(c)     Fairness absorbs all judgment.

(d)    Fairness is a natural phenomenon.

(e)     Fairness requires no input.

Section 4.02 Equality

(a)     Equality is man-made.

(b)    Equality rewards everyone without cause, and punishes everyone without cause.

(c)     Equality requires input.

(d)    Equality is institutional.

(e)     Equality is judgmental.




Monday, April 29, 2013

3D Printing Post 2 of 4

Here is my final blog post number 2. In my last post I talked about some of the dangerous implications of 3D printers and a company that was taking responsibility for those possibilities. This time I would like to show some some of the cool things that 3D printers can do and some of the developments in this field.


The above link shows some really cool developments in the materials used in 3D printing. Many of the complaints about the things created by 3D printers are the strength of those devices. After all, what use is creating your own wrench or car part if it is going to break bend or melt when you really need it.
This is where graphene comes in. According to this source graphene is "tougher to crack than diamonds and 300 times harder to tear than steel." Apparently even with the layering technique used in 3D printing graphene can be layered as thin as an individual atom.

What I have taken from this is that, where before the idea of making a whole car or a gun with a 3D printer was something of a novelty, it is now a very real possibility. However, this is an idea that causes me to worry. If guns can be easily manufactured by anyone with one of these devices crime will be much harder to track and prevent. The average criminal may not be able to afford a 3D printer or graphene, but a criminal organization could acquire one and provide untraceable guns to others.

As I have shown in the past, I am always in favor of progress. This means that even though I can see the threat presented by this development, I believe we simply need to adapt and evolve with it, rather than attempt to stall it.

I am not sure how we should go about doing this, but I am sure that creative intelligent people in law enforcement will come up with a way to fight against people who would abuse this technology. 
Works Cited
"Graphene 3D Printing." Graphene 3D Printing. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.

Abortion Presentation Follow-up

Hey guys I just wanted to continue this discussion a little bit to clarify some things that I was saying as well to try and better understand what some of you were saying.

So I was presenting the idea that life begins at conception and that based on the very basic points of our constitution (i.e. the right to life) abortion violates the rights of the child and also that abortion being legal contradicts these basic rights that our country was founded on.  I also brought up that while a pregnant woman who is murdered constitutes double murder, the destruction of just the child does not constitute murder.  So I ask why is it that you do give value to the life of the child in one instance and not the other?

Some of you made the distinction between human life and human "personhood" (a distinction that I do not believe exists). And based on this distinction said that children still in the womb do not deserve these rights because while they are alive they do not poses whatever quality it is that determines "personhood".

This is my interpretation of some of what was said in class.

So my question to those who make a distinction between life and "personhood" (a distinction that you believe carries with it the right to life) is how do you define "personhood".  What is it that determines that a child in the womb has no right to life but that an infant does? How do you define personhood?

Still smiling

Sandel's parting contention: life is one thing and personhood another, but it’s best not so to obsess over the ethical boundary between them that we relinquish our one living opportunity to improve the human estate. 
Genetic engineering to create designer babies is the ultimate expression of the hubris that marks the loss of reverence for life as a gift. But stem cell research to cure debilitating disease, using unimplanted blastocysts, is a noble exercise of our human ingenuity to promote healing and to play our part in repairing the given world.
We end with Generosity, and the character nicknamed “Generosity.” Thassa constantly channels Richard Dawkins sans hubris (one reason why Powers and I love her): “we are the lucky ones”...

Continues at Up@dawn | reflections caught at daybreak
Please post your thoughts on our guest essay, "Questioning the Ethics of Cosmetic Genetic Modification"...
Also of interest:

"Angel of Death" (60 Minutes)-Charles Cullen was a critical care nurse who admits to killing up to 40 people. Some suspect it was a lot more. The murders took place over 16 years in seven different hospitals. There were suspicions at nearly all of them that Cullen was harming patients, yet none of them passed that information on to subsequent employers. Newspaper headlines called him "The Angel of Death," but as you will see, Charles Cullen was no mercy killer...

Diagnosing the Wrong Deficit

Could what looks like A.D.H.D. be a sleep disorder in disguise? 

The Problem With How We Treat Bipolar Disorder

The doctors could address my symptoms. But they didn’t  much care about my vanishing sense of self.

Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer

The battle to raise awareness has been won. So why aren’t more lives being saved?

Variations on a Gene, and Tools to Find Them

Cancers have long been categorized by the tissue where they originate in the body, but new tools and tests are helping doctors tailor treatment to specific gene mutations.

U.S. Sues Novartis Again, Accusing It of Kickbacks

The government joined a whistle-blower lawsuit that said a unit of Novartis paid millions to doctors in exchange for prescribing its drugs.

Why Do I Have Gout?

If you end up with an attack of gout, prepare yourself for a round of blame the victim.

Doctors Denounce Cancer Drug Prices of $100,000 a Year
With the cost of some lifesaving cancer drugs exceeding $100,000 a year, more than 100 influential cancer specialists from around the world have taken the unusual step of banding together in hopes of persuading some leading pharmaceutical companies to bring prices down.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Let's Go Green! Wait, Why? (Final Blog (2 of 4))

Today’s blog is to expose some common man opinions on what Going Green is about and how it affects our life.

Chris Davis (College Freshman)
1.      What do you know about recycling?
-         I use to sort it out and take it off for school.
2.     Do you try to save electricity?
-         Yes, I turn the lights off, and I am conscious about leaving the water on.
3.     Do you support anything that is Go Green?
-         Yes, I Nissan I worked on the Leaf. It was a hybrid car. I would buy one because I hate paying so much for gas.
4.     As Americans, what do you think our biggest problem is?
-         The government. They control how the trash is handled here.
5.      How do you think that problem could be solved?
-         They could implement something that either makes recycling law or make people more aware of what they should do.
6.     Oil is our largest natural resource component. As a capitalist, how do you feel about the oil companies?
-         I understand the world is run by money. Nothing more to say.
7.     What will you do when oil goes up to $10/gal because the amount that’s attainable depletes?
-         Ride my horse more often.
8.    What do you think about the forest?
-         I don’t think we will have one after 30 yrs.
9.      Some Go Green advocates are trying to impose the next generation to use computers instead of paper. How do you feel about that?
-         We had to talk about that in my sociology class.  It is going to happen no matter who pushes it. I do not support it but the younger generation thinks it is awesome.
10. Last Monday was Earth Day. Did you do anything to celebrate it?
-         I saw it on Google and reminded myself to never litter.
11.   Do you feel that you contribute to our progress into a Greener America?
-         I don’t litter

Barbara Dodd (40 yr. old Business Owner)
1.      What do you know about recycling?
-         I recycle newspapers and oil from my restaurant.
2.     Do you try to save electricity?
-         Yes, but only because I pay the bills. Not for an eco reason.
3.     Do you know what you are paying for?
-         Yes, I am paying for the process that goes into sending water and electricity to my house.
4.     Do you support anything that is Go Green?
-         Yes, for my restaurant I use all eco-friendly paper products as well as recycling the oil that comes out of the kitchen.
5.     As Americans, what do you think our biggest problem is?
-         Convenience. Back in the day, bottles were reused over and over. Everyone wasn’t so germ phobic. It was “cleaner” to dry clothes on a line than a dryer. We didn’t have to get everywhere so fast so we had time to just walk down to the store. Convenience has really diluted our sense of eco-friendliness.
6.      How do you think that problem could be solved?
-         It’s not always about coming up with new ways of energy but harnessing so old ideas of how to use it. People are lazy and arrogant. They feel that using old ideas is taking a step back in the evolutionary world. Things as simple as paper bags, drying clothes outside, or putting milk back into glass bottles is just overlooked.
7.     Some Go Green advocates are trying to impose the next generation to use computers instead of paper. How do you feel about that?
-         Common sense is recycling needs to be enforced. Omitting paper will be a bigger problem.
8.     Last Monday was Earth Day. Did you do anything to celebrate it?
-         Did not realize that.

Heather Groves (High School Senior)
1.      How do you feel about hydroelectric power?
-         It’s good and I would invest in it but at my age, it’s not my decision.
2.     Do you participate in any recycling program?
-         Yes. Not at home but school requires anyone who wants to be a part of the National Honor Society to be actively involved in the Recycling program which recycles all paper used the at High School, Middle School, and Technology Center.
3.     Do you use anything that is recycled?
-         Plastic bottles but I don’t pick them because they are recycled. I just use them because my mom buys them. I also use recycled paper at school. My school is very pro-active about recycling.
4.     Do you drink out of plastic bottles?
-         Yes. A LOT!
5.     Do you just throw the plastic bottles in the trash?
-         At home, yes, but at school, they are recycled.
6.     Do you try to save electricity?
-         No because I don’t pay the bills
7.     Do you support anything that is Go Green?
-         No, I am too young.
8.    Would you buy a Hybrid car?
-yes but only because it’s cheaper on gas, not for the environment.
9.     As Americans, what do you think our biggest problem is?
-         Lack of education about the condition of our planet.
10. How do you think that problem could be solved?
-         Commercials on TV. Everyone watches TV. Kind of like that No Bullying thing they are doing now.
11.  Oil is our largest natural resource component. As a capitalist, how do you feel about the oil companies?
-         They control the world.
12. What will you do when oil goes up to $10/gal because the amount that’s attainable depletes?
-         I will still buy it. I have to get places.
13. What do you think about the forest?
-         They are pretty? I know quite a bit about the effects we have on our wooded areas because of school. But I feel when there is a real problem, we will simply cut back.
14. Some Go Green advocates are trying to impose the next generation to use computers instead of paper. How do you feel about that?
-         We can plant more trees. There are a lot of studies about the effects of the computer to the mind, and most of them are not good results.
15.  Last Monday was Earth Day. Did you do anything to celebrate it?
-         Last week was Earth Day?
16. As a Christian, do you feel that you contribute to our progress into a Greener America?
-         Passively, yes. I don’t litter.

Kasey Ward (College Senior)
1.      How do you feel about hydroelectric power?
-         I don’t know what it is
2.     Do you just throw the plastic bottles in the trash?
-         Yes. I only recycle if I pass one of those blue trash cans.
3.     Do you try to save electricity?
-         Yes, I always turn the lights out, don’t leave things running.
4.     As Americans, what do you think our biggest problem is?
-         We use way too many plastic bottles. Depend on being convenient too much. No consciuous choices are being made.
5.      How do you think that problem could be solved?
-         Awareness. Letting people know what the problem is and what their carbon footprint is.
6.     Oil is our largest natural resource component. As a capitalist, how do you feel about the oil companies?
-         They know everyone has to have gas. That’s why it’s so high. Everything is about money.
7.     What do you think about the forest?
-         I think we should do what we can, to use what we already destroyed. They are resources for a reason.
8.    Some Go Green advocates are trying to impose the next generation to use computers instead of paper. How do you feel about that?
-         They won’t have a problem with it. Paper is messy.
9.      Last Monday was Earth Day. Did you do anything to celebrate it?
-         Didn’t even know about it.
10.Do you feel that you contribute to our progress into a Greener America?
-         No not at all. I got too much to worry about to be worrying about where my trash is going.

These interviews put in perspective various people’s approaches to Go Green. They see it more of a chore and less as a necessity. Another point I have is the fact that most people assume Go Green is just about recycling. There is so much more out there. Animal rights is an important issue. Not the kind of animals that are used for the greater good, but for our selfish needs. For example, make-up and jewelry heavily inflict upon foreign animals like hippos. Go green advocates have programs that are just for animals.
Cars are another big problem we have. Everyone is so focused on bigger, faster, better. They forget the implication that has on the environment. Hybrid cars may cost a few thousand dollars more but it would pay for itself in a year cutting down gas usage and pollution.
Do not forget about food. Americans consume ¾ more pesticide and/or steroid inflicted food than any other country. Go Green is very pro-active in reducing America’s dependency to steroids and pesticides.

Go Green is a national phenomenon that brings people of all kinds together for something we all have in common. Mother Earth. It’s not about being a Nazi. It’s the small steps, minor details, and simple awareness that Go Green strives for.

BTW, Dr. Oliver, I will indeed address the passive aggressive definition very soon!

How slippery does the slope have to become before we get enough violence?

some have postulated that our society has become more peaceful.
steven pinker says we are safer

some say we have let the media run loose.
PBS video of violence in the media

for my presentation i ask you to think about this:

does life imitate art?
or does art imitate life?
is there an equilibrium point?

Questioning the Ethics of Cosmetic Genetic Modification

Veronica Vine
Problems With A Genetically Modified Future
“There is often less danger in the things we fear than in the things we desire.”
- John C. Collins
In the year 1990, a four year old girl became the first gene therapy patient. Suffering from adenosine deaminase deficiency (ADA) which results in a severely compromised immune system due to the buildup of toxic waste products in lymphocytes, her white blood cells were removed and retroviral transduction performed to insert a functional form of the gene to correct the defect resulting in a normal life for what could possibly have been a terminal patient. Since that successful and safe occurrence of gene therapy, the idea of using this technique for a multitude of genetic disorders, both life-threatening and non-life threatening, became increasingly prevalent, with “more than 900 clinical trials” having been approved since 1989. With this increasing interest in gene therapy, there also came an increasing interest in human genetic engineering.
While, currently, genetic engineering methods are being sought purely for medical reasons and the treatment of disease, human curiosity and ambition will eventually raise the question of whether to make genetic modification available for cosmetic purposes. Cosmetic genetic modification carries with it several more important and more pressing ethical and social issues than does medical genetic modification. Among those are the possible lowering of genetic diversity, the possibility of genetic discrimination, and the question of how we determine which traits are preferred as well as the ethical question of whether parents or other parties should be allowed to determine the potential future of another human being.
Genetic diversity is important for several reasons, but most notably because greater genetic diversity means a greater likeliness that the species will survive through natural selection due to an unfavorable environment. A study in the Journal of Mammalogy states, “Lower variation depresses individual fitness, resistance to disease and parasites, and flexibility in coping with environmental challenges.” (Lacy 320) The Cheetah is a consummate example of the effects of low genetic diversity on a species. In the early days of the earth, all but one species of Cheetah died off due to extreme climate change. This resulted in a large amount of inbreeding of this singular species; thereby, lowering their genetic diversity significantly.
Since the early 1900’s to today, a slender body style for women has been considered attractive. This idea illustrates itself by looking at both advertisements and photographs of women from the early 1900’s to now demonstrating that, not unlike other physical traits like height, strength and hair color, in America a certain relative body style is preferred over others by a large majority of the population. This being true, it is entirely understandable why advocates against cosmetic genetic modification argue that its implementation could result in the potential loss of genetic diversity within the human population. Unlike other reproductive technologies like genetic screening and embryo selection that also have the potential to affect genetic diversity, cosmetic genetic modification involves the direct alteration of a person’s DNA that may alter all successive generations. The potential for this domino type effect where the parents alterations are then passed on to all successive progeny, gives it tremendous ability to drastically and detrimentally affect the genetic diversity of the population.
Incest is a practice considered unacceptable and taboo in America for this very same reason, that it may cause the lowering of genetic diversity within a population and consequently the increase in susceptibility to disease. A study published in Nature in 2009 suggests that inbreeding depression, or decreased fitness within a population due to the loss of genetic diversity, is caused by the presence of recessive deleterious mutations. Charles Darwin first noticed the negative effects associated with inbreeding in plant species which when done, “lowered vigour and fertility in most of his study species.” (Charlesworth 783) The study by Deborah Charlesworth suggests that the cause of this lowered fertility and vigor was due to the increased presence of recessive mutations. Many species of animals, like the fly Drosophila melanogaster, have been shown to possess “individually rare, highly recessive and highly detrimental mutations” that normally allow for a low frequency of mutations within the population, but when the genetics of the two procreating individuals are very similar, runs of homozygosity can occur. (Charlesworth 784) Runs of homozygosity are regions of the genome where the allele inherited from both parents are identical. This is problematic when the run of homozygosity is an area coding for recessive mutations. Thus the more similar the genetic code of both parents, the larger the amount of runs of homozygosity, thus the higher chance of inheriting recessive mutations.
Some proponents against this proposed possible loss of genetic diversity may argue that the population of the world is so large, almost 7 billion, that the implications of these genetic modifications could not possibly cause the extinction of the human species and this may have some truth to it; however, were the population of the United States alone to lose a large amount of genetic diversity, there could be very damaging consequences. As most people who live in the United States marry others who also live in the United States, if a large portion of the population were to be genetically modified to have similar traits, most of those with these preferred traits would procreate with those having similar preferred traits. While the United States is only one small portion of the population that does not mean that it cannot experience the effects of loss of genetic diversity in its own segregated area. Historically royalty often participated in incestuous marriages as it was believed to preserve and continue the preferred traits of the royal house. Despite being part of only a small portion of the world’s population, a study published in PLOS One supports the belief that King Charles II of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty was infertile and physically and mentally disabled due to frequent and continuous inbreeding within the kingdom. The fact that King Charles II presented with two genetic diseases both recessive linked indicates the validity of the implication that inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity caused these genetic diseases as well as his infertility. Looking at this example one can see that even in a very isolated part of the world, the effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity can be very problematic and may eventually affect a larger portion of the world.
Also since the current method of delivering genes to the target cell is by way of viral transduction that often involves integration of the desired gene into the genome, we cannot determine the exact spot in the host DNA where the desired gene will insert. This then has the possibility of creating mutations, and/or inactivating genes. Were cosmetic genetic modification to be readily available to a large portion of the population, Americans could potentially become just like the Cheetah population with a higher susceptibility to disease, a lower rate of reproduction and possibly birth defects as a result of inbreeding of those with too similar of genetic makeup.
Additionally, cosmetic genetic modification carries with it also the possibility of the discrimination of those without modification. While genetic engineering technology is progressing, it was only in 2012 that the first gene therapy drug, Glybera was approved for sale in the United States at an astounding 1.6 million dollars per injection and it may be many years until any sort of cosmetic genetic engineering could possibly be distributed to the populace as a whole for a reasonable price. So while the opportunity for potential cosmetic genetic modification does exist, the first occurrences of such a commodity will most likely be tremendously expensive; therefore, unless very restrictive and highly regulated laws are placed requiring those without genetic modification to be judged on the same criteria as those with modification, success will become even more of a commodity than it currently is. Those without the financial ability to genetically modify their children to be more athletic or more intelligent will be disadvantaging them before they are even born.
If cosmetic genetic modification became an available alteration, the rules for competition would also drastically change. Those that could afford to alter their genes allowing them to become faster, stronger, and more intelligent would rise even higher above those would could not, thus allowing them to become more successful and further widening the economic gap between rich and poor. The only way to prevent this occurrence would be to create a separate arena for competition between the two. For example, if a certain college only accepts say 200 students per year, then there would have to be 100 of those spots set aside for non-genetically altered students and 100 of those spots set aside for genetically altered students, with each group competing with others of the same group. Companies would have to be required to admit a certain number of both types of people. While it is true that ambition and dedication can make up for certain inherent lacking traits, it is possible that ambition and dedication themselves are coded for by genes in our DNA. Were this to be the case then, even with such stringent regulations on competition, those would could afford genetic enhancement would still have an advantage, with those genetic enhancements allowing them to be naturally more successful. Thus we can see that in the short term, cosmetic genetic modification could result in the further widening gap between economically advantaged individuals and economically disadvantaged and in the long term could result in the potential loss of genetic diversity due to extensive use.
From the super intelligent genetically selected population in Gattaca to the genetically modified super-soldiers in Halo, the outcome of a society filled with genetically modified individuals with preferred traits has been explored by numerous science fiction novels and movies. In Gattaca, those with certain DNA sequences that researchers believe code for preferred traits are singled out as superior to those that do not; however, this idea of genetic discrimination is not limited only to science fiction. In 1910 Charles Davenport founded the Eugenics Record Office which was designed to utilize genetic engineering “to improve the natural, physical, mental, and temperamental qualities of the human family.” However, instead of improving the qualities of humanity, this organization instead alienated those with traits deemed undesirable, which “manifested itself in a widespread effort to prevent individuals who were considered to be "unfit" from having children”. (Norrgard) In order to cleanse the gene pool, many early advocates of eugenics argued for policies of sterilization or elimination of those with undesirable traits. This questionable history makes the future of cosmetic genetic modification all the more frightening as it highlights a mentality that says that a group of human beings can somehow adequately determine which traits make other human beings better than one another.
Along with the question of whether we should allow genetic modification for individuals to have preferred traits comes the question of which traits should be preferred? For physical traits this question is fairly straight forward, but for personality traits it is immensely more complex. Perhaps some people would agree that honesty and humbleness are good traits to have; however, others may view honesty as a detrimental trait depending on the person’s profession and humbleness may be viewed as weakness in certain situations. Thus it seems, there would be no set of perfect desirable traits that everyone could be engineered with; therefore, in order to make more able human beings by this method, each person’s profession would need to be decided before birth thus allowing proper ‘enhancement’ of the areas of that person’s genome that would make them the most successful at their chosen profession. This, however, then brings up the question of consent on the part of the unborn child and whether another person has the right to choose another person’s future.
Does a parent have the right to choose what type of traits his or her child will or will not have? By choosing to make one’s children genetically modified to be taller than average, a parent is inadvertently, or perhaps intentionally, limiting the options for what that child may choose as a future career. If he grows up to want to be a jockey, his genetically ‘enhanced’ height will serve for him as a disadvantage. Additionally this raises the question of whether children may potentially become viewed as commodities as Richard Hayes points out in his article in The Washington Post; “At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone’s specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?” (1)
While it may seem as though we are a very long distance on the timeline of human advancement from cosmetic genetic modification being available to a signification portion of the general populace, the time to contemplate the possible consequences of such technological advancement is now. There is no easy, or set answer to the conundrum that genetic modification poses to society; however, there is the opportunity to anticipate those consequences and consider their impact. People often argue that what differentiates humans from every other type of animal is our intelligence and our ambition to create, discover and invent; however, those same qualities that society finds so positive and uniquely human are just as dangerous as they are marvelous. In a time when we are pushing the limits of artificial intelligence, cloning, genetic engineering and many other morally ambiguous, but immensely interesting scientific endeavors, one may wonder if the end result of these scientific advancements will be worth the euphoria of their discovery. I propose, perhaps, a different view of what differentiates humans from other animals. I believe it is our discipline, our ability to not act upon impulse; to want something, but to resist for the greater good that differentiates human-kind from other forms of life. It is our responsibility and our duty to have the best interests of society as a whole in our minds as technology progresses and to not be lured by the fascination and power of scientific discovery.

Works Cited
Alvarez G, Ceballos FC, Quinteiro C (2009) The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty. PLoS ONE 4(4): e5174. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005174

Charlesworth, Deborah, and John H. Willis. "The Genetics of Inbreeding Depression." Nature Reviews 10 (2009): 783-96. Web.

Hayes, Richard. "Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks." The Washington Post 15 Apr. 2008: 1-2. Web. <http://biopoliticaltimes.org/downloads/Hayes_WashPost_041508.pdf>.

Lacy, Robert C. "Importance of Genetic Variation to the Viability of Mammalian Populations." Journal of Mammalogy 78.2 (1997): 320-35. Web. 27 Apr. 2013. <http://www.vortex9.org/reprints/importance%20genetic%20variation.pdf>.

Norrgard, Karen. "Human Testing, the Eugenics Movement, and IRBs." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/human-testing-the-eugenics-movement-and-irbs-724>.