Debate Topic - Genetic Engineering

[.•´¯`•þasђγ•._.•´]

my friend is doing is masters in molecular biology (i think thats it anyway lol) and was telling me today a little about what it involves.

got me thinking. i struggle a little with changing genetic makeup.

what do you think about genetic engineering ? do you believe everything happens for a reason and if it's some awful disease thats your fate ? or do you believe we should be able to do anything to prevent whatever we want and if that involves tampering with our genes, so be it??

debate !

ps. nice to start this one without Alex lol. i am sure when he's back from hospital he will get stuck into it lol.
[/i][/b]

[Fisher]

god built us a way for a certain thing...if we werent suppose to catch a disease cause of our genes then we wont, if we were we will. i dont think docs should be flowerin about wif rosygarden, espically testin it one helpless animals

[Lazer]

testin it one helpless animals

would u rather they tested on humans ? if it wasnt for thease animals we wouldnt have such good medicans to make us feel beter etc etc.

[ebil]

i dunno about the whole ainmal test stuff, but yeah doctrs should mess around with guman henes and all that sutff

[Ender]

I take things on a more scientific approach than a religious one (since I'm not really into the whole religion-bit to be honest). I don't care if some "omnipotent being" made us and we shouldn't be tampered with whatsoever. If that's the defense someone's going to use then I'd just simply reply with, "If it was intended for us never to be modified or changed, we wouldn't be able to change ourselves in the first place." Genetic Engineering is a wonderful field of study, if I weren't a computer geek I would probably be studying a similar field of interest.

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about human testing though. This is merely because if we started testing the modification of the structure of our own DNA (which wouldn't surprise me - as we could "program" ourselves to be immune to certain diseases and so forth) the outcomes of failed testing could prove uh..well..unethical to science and/or medicine. It would be very controversial topic; just like human cloning. But to think that we could force our bodies to be genetically altered to be better than what they are. Maybe there's some switch inside of our genetics that either decide intelligence or life (side religion for you oddballs: according to the bible, there were two trees "Tree of Knowledge" and the "Tree of Life". Adam and Eve were only to eat from the Tree of Life - but the snake convinced them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and they were banished from the Garden of Eden for eternity). So the switch for life and intelligence is there (at least according to religion) and also scientifically, this has been proven in some way or another. Thus, if we started genetically changing ourselves to life longer, we'd be idiots (not like majority of us aren't) - and if we made ourselves geniuses (by our own standards) we'd live very shortly. So it wasn't that we weren't supposed to do these things, in fact - more than likely it's encouraged.

I just don't see how the failed experiments would be clausible to whatever outcome that could come from a successful one. If that makes any sense.

[tek]

if it's medical then i agree with animal testing, but if it's cosmetic then i dont agree with it :\

[Alexander]

i dunno tek, fishers an dawg and pashy thinks he looks good with a bit of blusher on

anyhoo im back from the hospital, i believe that anything that can help save lives should be used, protesting against something that could cure aids by testing it on say 400 animals but it could potentially cure millions mabie even billions from the diesase is stupid, their only protesting because they dont suffer the condition, most protesters are people in perfect health but their all to happy to allow doctors to give them products that have been tested on animals if it will make them well again

[.•´¯`•þasђγ•._.•´]

alex you are back

like i said i really struggle with some forms of genetic engineering. it's one of those practises that walks the fine line of morals and also ethics.

i dont have a theological viewpoint. i'm not even sure what viewpoint i have, i just know that sometimes when i read things or hear about them, i cringe and i think to myself omg what next ? are our future generations going to be totally engineered (think the movie gattica).

on a sidenote which seems to have come up (d**nit - i was gonna open up a new debate about this) i am TOTALLY against animal testing.

yes, i have heard all arguments such as it's better to test animals than humans etc etc but i have a strong or stubborn mindset when it comes to this and i would never ever ever agree vivisection and other forms of animal testing. simple fact is, it isnt necessary and other forms of testing can apply.
[/i][/color]

[Alexander]

theres not that simple thing pashy, what other forms of testing is there, chemical testing can only go so far, if you cant test on animals you have to test directly on humans.... which could result in pretty much anything, and also if we dont search for answers we will never cure cancer, aids, etc so it is very nessesiary.

[Warrior124]

Genetic Engineering is a very tough discussion. One with mixed feelings from each side of the subject. On one side you have the argument that animal testing is neccessary. I could easily say that we should find human volunteers, tell them that they will be used as guinea pigs for the test, and exlain all the risks involved, and such. However, there aren't that many people who would volunteer. There have been tests in the past with paying people to volunteer for testing, but even that didn't produce many volunteers.

You could produce chemical tests. However, as Alexander pointed out, that can only go so far. You still can't replicate the responses of the human body, and such that is needed for an accurate result.

So for now we are left with the only viable source available to us which is animal testing. Which also brings us to the other side of the debate, cruelty to animals.

Is it right to subject animals to tests which us humans wouldn't volunteer for? Every form of life has a common basic instinct, the instinct to live. Should we deny every other life form the right to live, but our own species?

The argument is compelling from each side of the argument. My stance is that with as far as we have come in medical technologies, and such we should strive to find creative solutions so that animal testing would someday become a thing of the past. Right now we are stuck with it, unfortunately. However, if we can build substitute hearts, and such then someday we can utilize other methods besides having to use animals for testing.

[.•´¯`•þasђγ•._.•´]

okay....well said warrior

but what about genetic engineering that doesnt involve animal testing.

do you believe in cloning ? do you believe you should be able to pick the s** of your child ? do you believe scientists should be working to eradicate all disease possible ?
[/i][/color]

[Alexander]

i believe it is a good thing to use it to wipe out disease and to help fix problems that kids are born with like mutations or deformaties so yes i believe it should be allowed as for choosing the s** of your child some children are born both male and female and they give hormones to turn them into one or the other when their born so it already goes on so yes it should be allowed also.

[.•´¯`•þasђγ•._.•´]

so basically the idea is to eradicate everything so no one ever is sick or diseased.

do you think this will cause mutations of disease same as our genes are being mutated ?
[/i][/color]

[Alexander]

of course but if we can eradicate a lot of diseases i fail to see the down side other then the testing on animals but again its like saying...

would you let one person die to save a million people?