1. What do Athanasiou and Darnovsky fear we're at risk of losing, if the human genome is privatized?
2. What future social classes does Lee Silver predict will effectively become separate species? Who are some prominent figures who endorse his views?
3. What published opinion do our authors cite as committing a "naturalistic fallacy"?
4. Brave New World was what, "first of all"?
5. What practice continued into the 70s in "that liberal paragon Sweden"?
6. People with congenital disabilities typically feel ____.
7. What's the logical conclusion of the "Kinsley-Sullivan thesis" and what does it conflate?
8. CRISPR is an acronym for what?
9. What's needed most, to reduce the incidence of monogenic disease?
10. Scientists have a responsibility to debate _____.
DQs
- Do you agree with the "biotech boosters" that possible advances in medical science trump all other considerations, and that the prospect of progress is worth the risk of inheritable genetic modification?
- "Designer babies": do you want one?
- "Post-humans": do you welcome them?
- Why don't techno-utopians like Lee Silver (et al) deplore the prospect of a social gap between those who've been genetically enhanced and those who haven't? Do you?
- Was James Watson right about "what the public actually wants"? 160
- Is it alarmist to invoke Huxley's dystopia as a harbinger of things to come?
- Are there any spheres of medicine, or indeed of life, in which perfectionism is an appropriate state of mind and plan of action?
- Who has the right to decide when, whether, or how to edit a child's genome?
- How would you respond to any of the questions posed in the first paragraph on p.173?
Health Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill ‘Medicare for All’
- Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling the idea before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item.
- Their tactics will show Democrats what they are up against as the party drifts to the left on health care.
- ==
Genetically modified mosquitoes could help eradicate malaria — by eradicating themselves
Scientists recently released genetically engineered mosquitoes into a high-security lab in Italy. The insects carry a sterilizing mutation that spreads to progeny, meaning the modification would be lethal to the species — and potentially reduce the spread of malaria. Some are worried, though, that releasing the engineered mosquitoes into the wild could have unforeseen consequences, such as eliminating important crop pollinators.
60 Minutes (@60Minutes)
Last year alone, more Americans died of drug overdoses than in the entire Vietnam War. Who is responsible for the opioid crisis? 60 Minutes' three-part investigation: cbsn.ws/2NtOCut
Regarding "Genetically modified mosquitoes could help eradicate malaria - by eradicating themselves"
ReplyDeleteDQ:
Are these engineered mosquitoes doing a similar enough job to vaccines that an argument for its ethical implementation could be made?
Is it realistic to make the prediction that "The known harm of malaria... outweighs the combined harms of everything that has been postulated could go wrong"?
I would have to make the argument that scientists should conduct tests regarding some people's concerns, like the possible elimination of important crop pollinators. After these tests have been conducted, then I believe an argument for or against its ethical implementation could be made.
DeleteAlways seems dangerously short-sighted to underrate unforeseen consequences.
DeleteIn regards to if I would like a designer baby, no, I would not want one. Genetically modifying and being able to pick and choose traits you want your child to have would take away from the beauty of the child in my opinion. The reason I believe this is because every child is unique and have their own unique traits and personalities, and if we were to change that, we would be taking away from who they are and what they will become. If I have a child, the only reason I would allow genetic modification is to eliminate the possibility of genetic disease in order to give the child a longer and more enjoyable life.
ReplyDeleteAre there any spheres of medicine, or indeed of life, in which perfectionism is an appropriate state of mind and plan of action?
ReplyDeleteI believe that in the medical field, when treating patients or performing surgery, perfectionism is the only state of mind and plan of action that a doctor or surgeon should have. This is because the doctor or surgeon essentially holds the life of their patients in their hands where, sometimes, even a single wrong move or decision could cost that patient their life. The pursuit of perfection should be the only way to go as it is part of the medical professionals responsibility to provide the best care and best chances of survivial for their patients.
But what about the pursuit of a "perfect" patient, of a new and improved variety of possibly-ageless mortal? Isn't that a recipe for the brave new world of gen-rich and gen-poor that the anti-trans-humanists warn us about?
DeleteDo you agree with the "biotech boosters" that possible advances in medical science trump all other considerations, and that the prospect of progress is worth the risk of inheritable genetic modification?
ReplyDeleteI do not wholly agree with this because there are some cases where the risks are just too great. Although, I also back a person's right to choose what risks they are willing to take. If they are willing to risk their own life, without harm to others, for the advancement of medicine, they have every right to. My objection to this only comes in where someone may be forced to or unknowingly risk themselves for the advancement of medicine without their informed consent.
Dq: would you want a designer baby.
ReplyDeleteI want a designer baby no more than I’d want a designer handbag. Human beings are not products we should consider made-to-order. In the future Amazon may be able to modify your child via their GenModNow Prime feature, but the convenience of this service does not make the consumerization of humanity a good deal for humanity. I don’t want designer, I want meaning. Nothing will replace the meaning and fulfillment a natural child fully itself could bring.
I agree. What happens if the baby doesn’t turn out the way you anticipated or you change your mind? Would you just give it away? Adding choices adds stress...
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/21/choice-stressing-us-out-dating-partners-monopolies
Dq: Post-humanism...you down?
ReplyDeleteAs humans we have a natural inclination to augment and transcend our reality. This desire has pushed us to create our institutions, structures, and civilization itself. As technology continues to develop at a breakneck pace, it’s too idealistic to believe we can put a complete halt on augmenting and transcending our current form. We began augmenting ourselves as soon as we had the means. We have glasses, then google glasses, and then maybe bionic eyes. The books we are reading do help us to think critically about this possibility, which I believe is unstoppable, whether or not it becomes available only to a select few, is well within our control.
The boosters in question tend to think the risk of "stagnating" in our vaunted humanity would be the greatest risk of all. They don't think being human is all that great. See Bill McKibben's counter-arguments in "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age"-it concludes: "To call the world enough is not to call it perfect or fair or complete or easy. But enough, just enough. And us in it." (This goes back to the perfectionism issue again.)
ReplyDeleteDQ: is there realms or spheres of life where perfectionism makes sense?
ReplyDeleteMy personal belief is perfectionism gets a bum wrap...most of the time. I’d like to again reference the natural desire to transcend reality. For whatever reason, we saw our environment as imperfect or inhousbitable, so we developed methods to eventually construct houses. We constantly seek out perfection and should in most circumstances. There are extremes and dangers, yes. I would consider those extremes as forms of ideological radicalism (I.e. libertarian stances on genetic modification) rather than a desire to enact changes which bring us closer to an ideal.
DQ: How would you respond to any of the questions posed on the first paragraph of pg 173:
ReplyDelete"Would we come to regard out children as manufactured products?"
This is interesting because I typically like to compare the relationship between parent and child to that of a creator and a creation. But even then I would be not okay with loose genetic laws that allow manufactured children. The author makes a point about the blurry parent-child relationship that arises when you allow genetic procedures like changing eye color. You have dispositioned a child to live a reality you deem "necessary". I couldn't imagine wanting to "create" a child that I deem acceptable. I guess I am going to have to rethink this comparison I always make.
Alternate Quiz Questions:
ReplyDelete1. What does Yuppie Eugenics build on? (168)
2. Bacteria have an immune system based on what? (169)
3. Today’s debate concerns not research, but what? (173)
4. All of these laws were meant to improve the genetic makeup of the population, and especially who?
5. What proponents compel us to take the prospect of a techno-eugenic future seriously? (158)
6. In “Children of Choice” , what does Robertson write genetic enhancements will do? (159)
7. When did the legal assault against people with bad heredity begin? (163)
8. Why did the new profession of genetic counseling arise? (164)
9. What is significant at about Louise Brown in the field of genetics? (165)
Extra Quiz Q:
ReplyDelete1)What is the ideological message that techno-eugenics carries? (Pg.159)
2)Who was the first successful birth of IVF, what was this persons name? (Pg 165)
3)What is the least challenging issue that arises in IVF situations? (pg165)
4)What organization has gone on record to discuss the hazards of germ line modification? (pg 167)
5)What piece of advice for sanity does the author give? (pg 168)
6)CRISPR finds its roots approximately how many years ago? (pg 169)
7)What are some ways we can use CRISPR? (pg 171)
8)Why, according to the author, is it dangerous to dive into synthetic biology? (pg 172)
9)Although the US has not banned genetic modification, who has said they will not permit it? (pg 173)
Alt quiz questions
ReplyDelete1. What did the Nightline special on cloning predict? 158
2. What are some of the least attractive qualities of our time? 159
3. What have a few courageous policy makers accepted from the precautionary principle? 160
4. What new profession has arisen during this time of availability of preconceptive and prenatal testing? 164
5. What kind of “eugenics” has arisen? 164
6. Anxiety about what can sometimes be a more compelling dictator of choice than the law?