Presentations: Madison, Devin
Presentations conclude Thursday (but if any of you are ready and time permits, you can present on Tuesday: Sawyer, Vuk, Aidan, [anyone else?]
Exam 2: Apr 29, a week from today, covering Beyond Bioethics ch16-17 to conclusion; Codebreaker Part Two to conclusion; and What We Owe the Future, drawn from the even-numbered daily questions (2, 4, 6, etc.)
Beyond 51-52 (53-54 below*)
1. Why are we distinctively human rather than largely bovine, given the fact that we share 80% of our DNA with cows?2. Critics of the standard Mendelian gene-centric view want to depose genes as what?
3. Who "gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis... into a single shimmering magic carpet"?
4. What's P.Z. Myers's apt analogy for epistasis?
5. What's the neat 3-step of the selfish gene model that makes it so appealing?
6. What's the mainstream scientific perspective on race?
7. Why do genetic ancestry tests fall outside the FDA's regulatory authority?
8. Why does Obasogie think government has a moral and ethical responsibility to support race impact assessments of new biotechnologies?
DQ
Health news... weekly health news quiz
==
*Beyond 53-54
1. Advocates for a moratorium on germline engineering advocate what actions?
2. "Our universities need to devote more resources" to what?
3. Name a current practice applying emergent biotechnologies that challenges core progressive and liberal values.
4. Why did some progressives who support stem cell research oppose the 2004 California stem cell initiative?
5. Paul Wolpe says presidential bioethics commissions should stay away from what?
6. What do "some feminists and social liberals and progressives... [and] free market liberals and economic conservatives" say about commercial reproductive surrogacy?
7. What did Gregory Stock say was the goal of the 1998 UCLA conference where James Watson said we should maximize the common good?
DQ
7. Why do genetic ancestry tests fall outside the FDA's regulatory authority?
8. Why does Obasogie think government has a moral and ethical responsibility to support race impact assessments of new biotechnologies?
DQ
- COMMENT: "You are 80% cow." Is that in any way a misleading statement, or one that is likely to be misunderstood?
- If genes are collaborators and not architects in the expression of traits, are they democratic or autocratic collaborators?
- Are genes like quarterbacks who call the plays themselves, or who receive them from the sidelines? (And who or what is the sideline analogue, in this analogy?)
- "Nobody thinks just the quarterback wins the game," but teams with bad quarterbacks rarely win. Are genes like good quarterbacks, for those who've won the genetics game?
- Is altruism really altruistic, if it can be precisely quantified mathematically? 450
- Are you annoyed that Franklin is not mentioned along with Watson and Crick on 450, when West-Eberhard's gender is flagged as unduly slighted just a few pages later? 457
- "Genes do not exist for us, we exist for them." Agree?
- Has Richard Dawkins's crusading atheism detracted from his scientific credibility?
- Have you read The Selfish Gene? Was "selfish" the right word for what Dawkins meant to communicate? Would The Persistent/Inexorable/Immortal Gene have caught the public imagination to the same extent?
- How might an "extended modern synthesis" incorporate the insights of epigenetics?
- How do we balance a deep respect for "our common humanity" with the research imperative to discover the genetic variation responsible for the incidence of disease among specific racial/ethnic populations?
Future
- What is the implicit Aymara philosophy? 224
- What does MacA think an impartial concern for the future says about the decision whether to have children? 234
- Does MacA think one person can make a difference? 245
- What organizations does MacA recommend we support? 251-2
And one final question (for now), as our semester winds down:
Health news... weekly health news quiz
==
*Beyond 53-54
1. Advocates for a moratorium on germline engineering advocate what actions?
2. "Our universities need to devote more resources" to what?
3. Name a current practice applying emergent biotechnologies that challenges core progressive and liberal values.
4. Why did some progressives who support stem cell research oppose the 2004 California stem cell initiative?
5. Paul Wolpe says presidential bioethics commissions should stay away from what?
6. What do "some feminists and social liberals and progressives... [and] free market liberals and economic conservatives" say about commercial reproductive surrogacy?
7. What did Gregory Stock say was the goal of the 1998 UCLA conference where James Watson said we should maximize the common good?
DQ
- Will greater understanding of the technological details of CRISPR clarify our ethical responsibilities with regard to its use?
- COMMENT: "Knowing science does not teach us how to live well with its power."
- "When and how should children conceived with high-tech assistance learn that they have two or three biological mothers?"
- "Should researchers transfer human genes or brain cells into non-human animals?"
- "Should researchers attempt to use cloning techniques to resurrect a Neanderthal?" (or a mammoth, or... ?)
- "How can we prevent harmful uses of human biotechnologies while preserving our commitment to science as a reliable method for producing shared knowledge?"
- Are you uneasy about chimeras?
- Should presidential bioethics commissions issue ethical recommendations?
- Should marketplace values govern pregnancy and childbearing?
- COMMENT: "If scientists don't play god, who will?" 485
- Is our fate in our genes?
Will greater understanding of the technological details of CRISPR clarify our ethical responsibilities with regard to its use?
ReplyDeleteTo some degree, yes, absolutely. The more we can find out about the long ranging benefits and consequences of CRISPR's action, the easier it will be to tailor ethical guidelines and reduce the harms found in it. I think most people would feel much more comfortable about the use of CRISPR if we had a well detailed list of its effects.
Is our fate in our genes?
ReplyDeleteI really struggle with this question. People are definitely a combination of their genes interacting and reacting to their environment, but are we more than just that? Robert Sapolsky, a Stanford professor and Doctor of Biology say no. We are simply the result of our genes meeting our environment. While the concept of freewill is certainly useful for legal proceedings and adding a moral pressure in the environment for humans to act better, is it possible to prove Robert Sapolsky wrong?
COMMENT: "If scientists don't play god, who will?"
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Jennifer Douna that we should refrain from editing germ-line genes, I agree with this statement's implication. We do have a moral imperative to proceed with scientific progress and figure our ways to use CRISPR responsibly.
“Knowing science does not teach us how to live well with its power.“ Is true. It’s the reason and basis for why we have ethical discussions on these topics in the first place. Science is mainly factual, not always typically moral.
ReplyDeleteOn the basis of transferring human genes to non-human animals, I see it as pretty immoral to do so. Animals cannot consent to that and the only reason I could see it being plausible would be for medical research.
“Is our fate in our genes?”
No. Far from it. We have the ability to transcend our genome and our instinctual brain. To think we are only destined to achieve what our DNA says we are is quite frankly a dangerous mentality that could be used to excuse unjust behavior.
Also, the idea that we cannot transcend the “hardwiring” of our brain is a bad take as well. Mind over matter.
"How can we prevent harmful uses of human biotechnologies while preserving our commitment to science as a reliable method for producing shared knowledge?"
ReplyDeleteWe need to have an equal emphasis on ethics with science and have it be rigorously applied to hold people to account for their actions and to prevent the use of scientific information for unethical purposes. Ethicists should be in coordination with scientists and there should be well maintained ethical review boards to check the actions of scientists.
If genes are collaborators and not architects in the expression of traits, are they democratic or autocratic collaborators?
ReplyDeleteAutocratic. For a democracy to work, decisions need to be made. Genes can't do that, they can only do what they are programed to do. Where you get genetic variation is where a "mistake" was made or if something happened to bind in a certain order.
4. What's P.Z. Myers's apt analogy for epistasis?
ReplyDeleteP.Z. Myers compares epistasis to baking a cake, where the final result depends on how ingredients interact with each other. Similarly in genetics, the effect of one gene can be influenced or masked by the presence of other genes.
If genes are collaborators and not architects in the expression of traits, are they democratic or autocratic collaborators?
ReplyDeleteGenes are more like democratic collaborators because they work together, influencing and responding to each other, rather than one gene having absolute control. Traits emerge from the complex interactions among many genes, with no single gene acting as a dictator.
6. What's the mainstream scientific perspective on race?
ReplyDeleteThe mainstream scientific perspective is that race is a social construct, not a biological fact. Genetically, all humans are remarkably similar, and there is more variation within "racial groups" than between them.
7. Why do genetic ancestry tests fall outside the FDA's regulatory authority?
ReplyDeleteGenetic ancestry tests fall outside the FDA's regulatory authority because they are considered recreational or informational, not medical diagnostics. Since they don’t claim to diagnose, treat, or prevent diseases, they’re not held to the same standards as medical genetic tests.