Sunday, April 18, 2004
Final Thoughts on Our Discussion
I think that we have successfully covered several underlying topics within biotechnology while looking at both sides of the debates. I noticed that with all the posts, individuals concentrated more on either the ethics behind genetic engineering or on the prospective benefits. I also noticed that everyone acknowledged the importance of both concepts.
Even though I usually focus more attention on the potential of biotechnology, this debate has allowed me to think deeper about the moral side. I still think that genetic engineering should be explored and utilized to its fullest, but we should be careful not to tread on ethical boundaries. I also believe, however, that many individuals have irrational values which only impede the prosperity of humankind. They take their beliefs too far without considering common sense. I hope that this discussion will encourage those kinds of people to think more openly. I also hope that we have cleared up many questions while inspiring many more.
Even though I usually focus more attention on the potential of biotechnology, this debate has allowed me to think deeper about the moral side. I still think that genetic engineering should be explored and utilized to its fullest, but we should be careful not to tread on ethical boundaries. I also believe, however, that many individuals have irrational values which only impede the prosperity of humankind. They take their beliefs too far without considering common sense. I hope that this discussion will encourage those kinds of people to think more openly. I also hope that we have cleared up many questions while inspiring many more.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Living Dead
Sara thoroughly highlights the preposterousness of recreating dinosaurs through genetic engineering in her latest post. But, what if by some form of crazy luck scientists were able to do so? What if we really could bring extinct species back into the environment? Would it necessarily be a good thing?
In Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, scientists end up regretting their establishment of an island inhabited by prehistoric creatures. Even if those organisms were not a threat to mankind, would it still have been a bad decision? I believe so. Animals that go extinct (despite man’s role in their endangerment) are simply following Darwinian rules of evolution. If a species cannot survive in nature and dies out, humans should not interfere. Nature should be allowed to take its course. Although an ecosystem can suffer from the removal of a type of organism, it can suffer just as much with its reintroduction.
In Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, scientists end up regretting their establishment of an island inhabited by prehistoric creatures. Even if those organisms were not a threat to mankind, would it still have been a bad decision? I believe so. Animals that go extinct (despite man’s role in their endangerment) are simply following Darwinian rules of evolution. If a species cannot survive in nature and dies out, humans should not interfere. Nature should be allowed to take its course. Although an ecosystem can suffer from the removal of a type of organism, it can suffer just as much with its reintroduction.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Embryonic stem cells shouldn’t go to waste.
Everyday, promising new stem cell studies are published. For those unfamiliar with this genetic field, stem cells have no exact purpose in an organism’s body except to develop into specialized cells. Because they serve as a blank canvas, scientists feel that they can utilize these cells in many ways. They have the potential to treat cancer, neurological disorders, spinal injuries, cardiovascular damage, and even baldness. Stem cells are found in bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and of course fetuses. Even though new sources are constantly investigated, embryonic stem cell research should not be completely abandoned.
Although individuals like Andrew - who do not respect a woman’s right to choose - argue that embryonic stem cell research promotes abortions, they do no realize the vastness of medical possibilities they are rejecting. More importantly, however, unwanted embryos should be used to benefit mankind instead of being wasted. If research can relieve human suffering and improve quality of life, it should be taken advantage of.
Although individuals like Andrew - who do not respect a woman’s right to choose - argue that embryonic stem cell research promotes abortions, they do no realize the vastness of medical possibilities they are rejecting. More importantly, however, unwanted embryos should be used to benefit mankind instead of being wasted. If research can relieve human suffering and improve quality of life, it should be taken advantage of.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Let the arguing begin.
I would like to welcome all of you to our biotechnology forum. Before I discuss any specific issues, I’ll talk about some of my personal opinions on biotechnology in general. As far as stem cell research goes, I completely favor it. I am aware that many people have moral objections to embryonic research, but if a fetus is aborted, its potential for medical benefit should not go to waste. I plan to explore this issue further and discuss it in later blog entries.
Because I am a biomedical engineering major, I am highly interested in all the current developments of cellular and tissue engineering, cardiovascular research, and the likes. I believe that genetic engineering has the potential to benefit humanity in unimaginable ways, but there are still ethical boundaries that everyone should take into consideration.
Because I am a biomedical engineering major, I am highly interested in all the current developments of cellular and tissue engineering, cardiovascular research, and the likes. I believe that genetic engineering has the potential to benefit humanity in unimaginable ways, but there are still ethical boundaries that everyone should take into consideration.
