>http://www.cnn.com/1999/NATURE/12/24/monkeygenes.ap/ CNN ...
>Jellyfish DNA transferred to monkey embryo December 24, 1999 ... (AP) -
>- Moving medicine a big step closer to the day when healthier humans can
>be engineered in the laboratory, scientists have successfully transferred
>glowing green jellyfish DNA to monkey embryos. ... and produced a
>healthy, normal-looking monkey. ... the experiment represents a big step
>toward the day when genes can be inserted into human embryos to correct
>or prevent diseases. ... the experiment has raised ethical concerns. ...
There
>is absolutely no regulation governing this field whatsoever," said Alix Fano
>... "We're really playing with fire in this whole field of genetic
>manipulation," ... (99/1017) [For better or for worse, this gene
>manipulation may now be out of control. According to the dominant
>materialistic philosophy of science, we are just machines cobbled together
>by a `blind watchmaker' from interchangeable parts. So why not
>interchange those parts which are not working properly with others from
>another machine that are? And there definitely are benefits in curing
genetic
>diseases. But once gene *repairs* are accepted, who is going to argue
>against gene *improvements*?
That's a very good question. There is a very blurry line between curing
a genetic disease and genetic enhancement. Did you ever see the
movie GATTACA? It does an excellent job exploring how
genetic discrimination will follow the development of genetic
enhancement.
>Hitler's dream of a master-race would not be far away.
Yes, but the new eugenics will not be the same as the
old version of eugenics (which, BTW, the Nazis learned
from scientists here in the USA). The old eugenics was
about using the power of the state to weed out "bad seeds."
The new eugenics will be market driven and based on
"choice." The old eugenics claimed poverty had a genetic
basis and sought to reduce the reproductive rate of those
caught in poverty. The new eugenics will eventually
shut the poor out of high paying jobs because of their
genetic identities.
>Gould's NOMA would pretend to give `religion' a say in
>ethical concerns, since God is not real, it will turn out to be just a token
>gesture. And there are plenty of tame theistic naturalistic theologians to
>give their blessing. So who is going to represent the point of view that we
>were created by God and that maybe He does not approve of us being
>radically changed?
Yes, it would be interesting to see if Gould really believes
NOMA or is simply a snake-oil salesman. If theologians
reached a consensus that germline genetic enhancement
was unethical and should not proceed, would Gould still
think religion had the authority to tell science to cease
with such research?
It's interesting that you also cite the following:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_573000/573635.stm
>BBC ... 21 December, 1999 ... Scientists have a serious image problem
>among the young, claims a survey published by psychologists [at the
>University of Bath]... scientists were perceived... as "dangerous cranks"...
>[Their] ... work was recognised as improving the quality of life... But
there
>[were] fears that scientists were "interfering" with nature and creating
>weapons of mass destruction. ... (55/551) [If this repeated elsewhere it may
>spell big trouble for materialistic-naturalistic science, and opportunity
for
>ID. Having an ideologue like Dawkins as Oxford's Professor for the Public
>Understanding of Science can't help science's image problem in the UK!]
This is interesting because another recent survey showed that the
same population were more likely to believe in UFOs than God.
Clearly, one cannot blame these anti-science sentiments on
religion. I suspect that the anti-science sentiments will grow
in the next century. Science is going to look more and more
like cut-throat capitalism, where scientists are only interested
in literal and metaphorical profits. The only ethical rule that
will appear to guide science is "if it can be done, it will be
done." In this century, we've been concerned with Big Business
and then Big Government. In the next century, we'll probably
add Big Science to that list of problems.
Mike