Monday, March 9, 2015
Science and Technology
Response to Science and Technology Texts
Your initial response should be in full sentences, paragraph form and should: a. State the text you chose b. State the purpose of the argument. (1 sentence) c. Write a claim defending or challenging this argument. (1 sentence) d. Examine the implications of this argument on today’s society? (2-3 sentences) Then read your classmates posts. Pick two classmate’s to respond to. Your response should include- a. Whether you agree or disagree with their position and why. b. One question to further their thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Method of Scientific Investigation
ReplyDeleteHuxley's purpose in this text is to illustrate the thinking and ways of scientists to the common folk who may misunderstand or feel overwhelmed by the scientific community. Back in Huxley's time people definitely did not understand scientists; this was partially due to the lack of effective communication in those days. Today, people understand scientists a lot better. We have a great communication network all across the globe allowing scientists to share their findings with a click of a button. Furthermore, people are better able to understand scientific findings due to the increased education nowadays.
Preston, I agree that that the communication between scientists and the public has increased significantly over the years. While it may not be direct interaction with each other, the public has become better aware scientific findings. I think this is due to the increase in level of education and awareness among the people. More people want to know the details about the products going into their body or even the difference between buying an electrically charged car or fuel run car on the environment. A question to think about is are there findings that scientists shouldn’t tell the people about for their own safety?
DeletePreston, I fully agree with your analysis on the increase of scientist’s communication with the public. I think that due to complex and ever-changing scientific topics, people are often highly dismayed by the aspects that they don’t understand. Therefore the scientists are necessary to communicate complicated topics into simpler and more comprehensible terms while maintaining scientific validity. Do you think that communication should be necessary at all or would it be best if scientists left communicating projects and research to public relations officials?
Delete“On Cloning A Human Being” by Lewis Thomas is an argument about the arising issue of human cloning. Physicist and biologist Thomas crafts a complex and hypothetical scenario to present his view on why cloning is a disagreeable practice that may be available in the near future. Thomas argues that instead of striving for sameness, we should utilize this developing technology to create change through mutations. Throughout history, humans have strived to grow and develop, and we shouldn’t change that now to create a cloned world of replicas. The notion of cloning has always been a sci-fi dream of technology so advanced that it could instantly create a perfect replica of whomever whenever they so desired. As this technology is fast developing, however, we need to be cautious of how we use it. As Thomas discusses, a genetically identical being is not the exact same as the original due to the circumstances that the original grew up with, so it is technically impossible to create an exact clone. The cloning technology we currently have is not completely reliable and can often lead to fatal complications with the clone. Thomas was right in warning us of the negative aspects of cloning and calling his audience to strive for change in human genetics, not similarities.
ReplyDeleteJill, I agree with you that Thomas was right in warning us, but he wrote his article in 1979. The negative aspects that he talked about have much less of a risk of causing harm today than they did back then. Besides, science is an experimental field that learns from its mistakes. Thomas also never addressed the fact that we may not be looking for perfect clones. Shouldn't we be exploring the merits of genetically cloning someone with a 'superior' brain in order to merely replicate and improve upon their intelligence with careful training?
DeleteI agree with you Jill that Thomas was correct in warning us about cloning because we have really just scratched the surface of what we as humans are capable of and how we function. We still have so many questions about our own species that haven't been answered so we need to consider the implications of delving into cloning something we don't fully understand ourselves. Why do you think our society is so interested and invested in the idea of cloning ourselves?
DeleteJill I agree with you in the fact that we should be cautious as to how far we go with cloning. However I think that cloning could be beneficial to the society, the environment, and our culture in some aspects. For example, all the animals that are going extinct due to human abuse can possible stay in existence if we use cloning. These animals that had a specific purpose in the ecosystem will be able to stay on Earth and fulfill their roles that were essential to a certain biological cycle. A question to think about is do the benefits of cloning overpower the negatives?
DeleteJill I also would agree with you regarding the idea that we need to be wary of cloning and the extent that we use it in our society. I agree with you that rather than creating a society in which we stay at the same "level" because we clone people, it is important that we continue to remain true to who we are as human beings and our desire to grow and develop. However, do you believe that other uses for cloning, that are not on humans, and that may help to progress society rather than remain unchanging and constant should be considered and tested?
DeleteJill, I agree that we should be suspicious of cloning, but not for the same reasons. Cloning humans is inevitably going to be an inhumane practice. How will clones be viewed in society? Never mind being a second class citizen, clones would be second class human beings. This practice would culminate in organ harvesting, that is, the creation of a human with the sole purpose of transplanting their organs. The question being, does being cloned make a human any less of a human being?
DeleteI chose “DNA as Destiny” by David Ewing Duncan. The purpose of his piece is to relay to the general public the burden one can face through finding out about your faulty programing with DNA testing. Although Duncan’s reaction to his SNPs will not be felt by everyone, until proper counseling is established people should only be tested for genetic defaults for serious conditions such as Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis. With the technology that we have access to today to explore our DNA, psychological damage can be done when discovering SNPs. Society conditions us to see faults as the end of normality and life itself. If the proper counseling is not developed for those who get tested we could have more depression and suicide on our hands (see the biotech executive, page 687).
ReplyDeleteAmy, I agree with your claim that psychological damage can be done when people discover their SNPs. Learning about the possibility of diseases can cause people to live their lives in fear of what could happen. Despite the fact that it is good to be prepared for the possibilities, it could cause people to miss out on many opportunities. After learning what sort of diseases run in my family, I've been curious if I would eventually meet the same fate, however, I agree with the idea that ignorance is bliss, and ailments should not run my life. I think that testing should only be done in serious conditions, like Duncan said, but who decides which diseases are serious enough to scan for? Should this genetic testing be regulated by those in charge or by the individual?
DeleteAmy, I agree with your thoughts on the psychological damage that DNA testing could induce if a serious genetic concern arise. Due to many peoples notion of a long and full life, people do not understand how to react when they are given a countdown. Often those who receive this type of news are forced to make goodbyes and attempt to experience what they had time for. In effect, the sense of end is too overpowering for many and ultimately could lead to a different end such as what you expressed. Do you think that DNA testing should be required or voluntary if you have previous familial history for a particular genetic default?
DeleteAmy, I agree that if people choose to be tested to find out their SNPs it can cause them psychological damage, but I disagree with you in that I think the choice to have your DNA tested should continue to be available. In the case of Duncan, because he learned early on about his risk for heart diseases, it provoked him into taking action to make sure he stayed healthy and ate right and exercised so that he wouldn't have a heart attack. Without getting his DNA tested, Duncan would probably not have taken these precautionary steps and would have the possibility to have a heart attack because he didn't know he was at risk. The knowledge he gained from his DNA testing was extremely valuable. And in some cases it will take the seriousness of telling people that they are at risk to die to get them to change their lifestyle to be healthier in order to prevent it. Do you think that people shouldn't have the option at all to get their DNA tested?
DeleteAmy, I agree with you that only serious medical conditions should be scanned for. It can cause psychological damage. However, it also makes sense that you should be able to scan for conditions if you ask for the scan. Do you think that we should have mandatory scans for non-urgent but treatable genetics conditions so that the person can cure it even if it isn't necessarily harmful?
DeleteI chose to read the article “More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender” by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. This argument is in regards to the increase in parents screening embryos for non medical reasons, such as gender selection. Based on the information the authors chose to include in their argument, it is apparent that they are against screening for sex selection. I agree with their claim because any reason to genetically modify your child besides the prevention of diseases is unnatural and and unjust. Even though gender selection can make parents happier with the sex of their child, it is not natural and doesn’t agree with the way things are supposed to be. Parents should be happy to have children, regardless of gender.
ReplyDeleteI agree that modifying your unborn child's gender is wrong. However, any modification to your child, even if it was for medical reasons is unnatural. Is it right to modify your child for medical reasons? Lauren Hill, who had a terminal brain tumor recently passed away. She was a voice for those with the condition and one thing that struck me that she said was how that she hopes no one gets the disease but if it had to be someone, she was glad she got it. Lauren certainly would not have wanted her parents to modify her to prevent the disease, no one would have led the cause to ending it then. Even for medical purposes, should babies be modified? It seems unethical to me.
DeleteOlivia, I completely agree with your position on this issue. I find it frankly absurd that couples are willing to screen their unborn children, and take on the potential risks of doing so, for the sole purpose of gender-selection. Although I understand the notion of screening embryos in order to prevent diseases and life threatening conditions, screening these embryos purely because you “want a boy” or would “prefer a girl” is completely unethical. Do you think that people have a right to decide what sex their child is? I say, if you truly have your heart set on a particular sex for your child, then adopt a child through a gender-specific program. You’d have the ability to give a child a home and a family rather than haphazardly tossing-out (as awful as it sounds) your own children until you “get the one you want”.
DeleteLiv, I agree with your stance pertaining to this argument. While embryo screenings can be used in a positive manor for medical purposes, others are abusing its purpose by using this tool to pick the gender of their child. The gender of one's child should not affect a parent's love for them. As mentioned in the article, many parents have become interested in the idea of 'designer babies.' If embryo screenings allow parents to choose not only their child's gender, but their personality and physical appearance, how will that affect society as a whole? Will we live in a world that has very high standards, and is focused on achieving perfection?
DeleteOlivia, I agree that it is unethical to genetically alter embryos for gender selection. However, building off of what Kalee said, such technology is beneficial when identifying possible disabilities in the embryo. I think you hit it on the head as well; parents should be happy with their decision to have a child, regardless of gender. But I guess it really comes down to constitutional rights. Do we really have any say in what someone else does to their body? In this case, the child in their body.
DeleteI chose to read, “ More Couples Screening Embryo’s for Gender,” by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. This article discusses the current increase in embryo screenings for parents. While these screenings are often times done for medical purposes, such as to reduce the child's chances of being born with a genetic disease or to supply cord blood to a sibling who is struggling with an illness, more and more parents are using embryo screenings to hand pick the gender of their child. I agree with Marchione and Tanner that using embryo screenings for this purpose is unethical. While parents may prefer one sex over the other, the gender of a child should not influence the way in which they love or care for them. If this trend strengthens, we may find ourselves living in a world where parents are able to pick and choose not only their child's gender, but their physical appearance, skills, and personality traits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position, Allison. Parents should love their children for who they are and the screenings allow discrimination. However, with the amount of children that are given up due to the parents not being satisfied this gender screening could be beneficial. Some people still want that all-star quarterback boy or that decked out in pink girl. Is it better to leave gender screening as an option for parents (in order to reduce abandonment) even with the risks, in this case?
DeleteAllison, I agree with your argument regarding the fact that using embryo screening for non-medical reasons such as choosing a sex for a couple's unborn child is completely unethical. These couples should love their child equally regardless of whether their child is male or female. I also agree with you that this rise in embryo screening for deciding the sex of a child can potentially just be a stepping stone for even more unethical alterations to unborn children. Do you think that there are any better alternatives to embryo screening for these couples?
DeleteI agree that it is unethical to screen them. I am tired of just saying 'yes', though, so I will play devil's advocate. What is wrong about a world with designer babies? Every parent wants to see their kid succeed, so pre-programming their child into something that society finds good is a great thing. No person wants to feel left out. We are social beings, we long for belonging and love. If someone was born to fit a societal norm of popularity then they would be accepted more readily and probably live a more satisfying life. Now, you might think that this would create a cookie-cutter baby mold, but actually all parents want their ideal kid to be a bit different than other parents would. Designer babies would in turn, raise athletic achievements across the board. What is wrong with designer babies and humans literally playing 'God' with their kids in the womb?
DeleteDespite Preston's reply to play devil's advocate, I think that he brings up an interesting point. What if we were all to be guaranteed that our kids some day would all succeed. However would that mean that there would be no such thing as success since everyone was achieving it? How would our world change? Or would extremely successful just become the norm?
DeleteAllison, I agree and think that you made a very insightful prediction. If this procedure is granted available to everyone, there may be potential to expand the technology to meet consumer needs. Even with genetically crafted humans, would the world really be that different? As previously mentioned, at the end of the day, the decision lies with the parents. I am not sure how much public voice can sway this process. It falls under the same sensitive subject as abortion.
DeleteAlthough I do agree with your claim, Allison, I think that Becca raises an extremely interesting point. In today's world people struggle every day due to genetic problems such as down syndrome or autism. If in a perfect universe this could be detected pre-birth we would live in a completely different world. However, many people learn to see through their disabilities and this creates character and strength. Would our world really benefit from perfect people?
DeleteAllison I see your point where it could be hazardous if parents chose the gender of their children, but I feel that the choice should be left up to them. As long as parents are informed and educated on the risks associated with allowing their children to be born the gender they want, than it's up to them to face the repercussions whether they be negative or positive. On the other hand, I do think it would be too far if the parents started picking the child's traits and physical attributes. Do you think there is a difference when it comes to picking the gender of a baby and picking its traits?
DeleteEmbryo screening is definitely unethical and gender should not play a bias in love. Just like playing “Devil’s advocate”, this new technology can be opened to a profitable industry. Imagine how people will turn this into a million/ billion dollar industry. Wealthy people would be able to influence characteristic traits of their child with an expensive price tag. I feel that people would pay for such privileges especially celebrities and the demand would be high. This would give total control and freedom over how they will build their child. Will capitalism trump the ethics of embryo screening in todays society of money making? Can money buy happiness in building the perfect child?
DeleteIn response to Lay, I believe that designer babies should not be allowed to a certain extent. If everyone in the world was perfect, no one would experience the sense of failure and motivation to get better. While this industry would be worth millions of dollars, why would it matter if everyone is succeeding in life and earning a high salary also?
DeleteAllison I agree with the points you bring up about the issue of embryo screening. I think that this type of technology, when used for concerns other than illness and disease is unnatural and immoral. The notion of creating our own idealized versions of children is purely unethical. Can you imagine a world overrun by “perfect” people? Can you imagine the chaos, corruption, and controversy that would ensue? There is a reason for the process of natural selection and disturbing it merely because we want our children to be a specific gender or possess a specific trait is simply not moral.
DeleteAllison, I completely agree with your concerns for the future. We are on a slippery slope, as technology advances we will be able to further manipulate embryos. We need to make a solid boundary of what is allowed, because if we allow couples to choose sex, one day we may have to allow them to chose personality and intelligence of their baby too. Where do you think we should draw the line of what is and is not allowed?
DeleteI chose “Pet Clones Spur Call for Limits” by Rick Weiss. The purpose of this argument was to examine the ethicality of cloning pets. Weiss’s argument was that pets shouldn’t be cloned because of the dangers to the animals all for the sake of keeping the family dog, cat, etc. around. I agree with this argument because we need to draw a line at some point where we shouldn’t test on any living being for the sole purpose of profiting. We are already experimenting on animals to better the lives of humans, but to do it just to never have to go through loss of a pet is too trivial a pursuit at the expense of another living organism. Even though I don’t have a family pet, I can see how much they mean to families that do. Death is undoubtedly sad but without it what does living even mean. So many movies with immortal beings seem so unhappy and frankly, our planet has basically already reached full capacity. Living and dying is a vital aspect to all living organisms as it makes us and pets alike unique. As cheesy as it sounds, the “circle of life” shouldn’t be overlooked as it affects the whole world and not just one family.
ReplyDeleteMK I agree with your claim. As painful as death is, and as glorious as the idea of immortality is, death is a natural part of the circle of life for everyone, pets and humans. Though losing a beloved pet is a horrible experience, getting over experiences such as those help make a person stronger. Like Mary-Kate said, without death, what is living? Our lives our precious and I feel that cloning would detract from special moments. To what extent should experiments on cloning continue?
DeleteI agree with your claim, MK. A few years ago my family and I lost one of our dogs, Serena. Although the experience was heartbreaking and difficult to move past, I had to remind myself that death is a natural part of life. Cloning animals pushes the boundaries, as it tampers with the natural processes of life and death. Death is something everyone must come face to face with at some point in their lives. While it is difficult, it also shapes us and makes us appreciate and not take for granted the time we have with those we love. Without death, would we truly be able to appreciate all that life has to offer?
DeleteI agree with you Marykate. In order for new life to start, unfortunately we have to deal with the inevitable death. Cloning animals alters the natural circle of life that occurs. It reminded me of when we read the Dillard piece about her cat coming back to her in the morning with blood stained on his paws because it showed her that he was strong and emphasized the natural circle of life. How do you think natural animals and cloned animals would react with each other in a small proximity?
DeleteI also agree with you, Mary-Kate. However sad it may be to part with a loved family pet, it is unnatural to keep cloning it to have replacements. We also already have an issue with overpopulation of pets as it is, because not enough people spay or neuter their pets. We shouldn't actively contribute to the overpopulation of pets by cloning them. Cloning is also never perfect. How many pets do you think they clone that don't meet the standards so they are put into an animal shelter?
DeleteI read “More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender” by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The purpose of the text is to inform the audience of the non-medical uses of fertility clinics. Nowadays it is becoming more common for couples to use embryo screenings as a way to choose the sex of their child or instill certain desirable characteristics in their offspring. The author is against using fertility screenings for non-medical uses but supports it for detecting abnormalities and helping woman with normal fetus development. This is a concept where religion and science come at odds. Some believe that a fetus is a topic between the baby, the mother’s womb, and God, that science should not interfere. Others believe that if it is possible to fix a fetus allowing it to live a healthy successful life outside the womb, it is that babies right to that technology. However, using fertility clinics to alter sex should not be allowed because it is unfair. Some cultures in society today still believe in male dominance and only accept male babies. Therefore if fertility clinics allow the choosing of sex, the amount of males in society will significantly increase.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Iram, in the idea that fertility clinics allowing parents to decide a babies gender could lead to imbalance and disruption of the natural ratio of female to male in society. However, in the future I think it is important to consider that this type of science could be analogous to other social as opposed to scientific issues, such as giving women the right to vote or abolishing slavery. In any social matter there will be a discussion of ethics, but should that prevent the world from experimenting with new ideas especially if it could lead to important discoveries?
DeleteIram, I agree that altering sex is unfair. You also brought up an interesting point, some people believe babies should be given the right to live a happy healthy life. The classic abortion argument is that all people have the right to life, and this somewhat applies to embryo screening, because we can help ensure that babies vill live healthy lives. However as technology advances where do we stop, would these people also argue that we should grant babies high intelligence so they will be more bound for success?
DeleteThis week I chose to read the article "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The purpose of the argument is to discuss and inform the readers of the increase in the number of parents that are screening embryos for non medical reasons; specifically, in this case regarding the concept of gender selection via embryo screenings. I agree with the authors' argument regarding the fact that the we ought to support the use of embryo screenings for medical purposes such as discovering any abnormal behavior in the embryo like a genetic disease but not for non-medical purposes such as simply deciding on which sex a couple would prefer their child to be. Those parents that are partaking in embryo screenings for this purpose of selecting the gender of the baby are being rather unethical. These parents when they decided upon having a child understood the fact that this aforementioned child could potentially be either male or female. While it is just for them to have an opinion regarding which sex they would prefer in their unborn child, it is unethical for them to take action in an attempt to alter their baby.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Umaid, with the idea that choosing the gender of the child is unethical. However, I think this contradicts with your agreement with the use of embryo screenings to prevent abnormalities. These genetic defects or diseases are just as natural as the gender of a child, and therefore I do not think people should try to prevent them from occurring either. If you ban one, do you think it could be argued to ban the other as well?
DeleteI read "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The purpose of this text was to inform the reader of the increasing use of fertility clinics to pre determine qualities of an embryo. I think this type of decision should be left completely up to the person or couple trying to have a baby and that technology should be encouraged to advance and try new things. I personally would not agree with the decision to determine the sex of a child beforehand or try to eliminate genetic diseases through use of a fertility clinic because I think it could upset the natural process that is conception and lead to new types of problems. However, it is our duty as inhabitants of this world to try to better it in any way we can and continue to discover all of the opportunities it has to offer us, therefore I would leave the decision to practice such genetic modification methods to those interested in trying it.
ReplyDeleteHola Skyler, I agree with your point that there is a natural balance that should not be disrupted by embryo screening. Genetic modification is a risky business, it may lead to the gradual decrease in diversity in the gene pool, which can end up having adverse effects, like genetically modified food lacking the diversified gene pool to survive various diseases and pests. For genetic modification, or embryo screening for humans, the question is how much we are willing to upset the "natural order" of things, and how much of a long-term risk that would play for us, as a species?
Deletewant PGU. However, I think that the choice also allows the parents to decide if they want to have a certain gender baby and if there are complications, it would have been up to them entirely. Since it's their child, they should be informed of the risks and able to make a decision regarding how they want their child to be born. Should we allow parents the freedom to choose how their children will end up?
DeleteChill Skyler. Your thoughts were great, however i noticed that you believe modification shouldn't be exercised to eliminate genetic diseases. If I have a kid who is likely to have a genetic disease, and I can do something to prevent it, I am gonna take that chance. This is our opportunity to expedite evolution and give our offspring the lives they deserve. Honestly, parents shouldn't be allowed let nature run its course on this one because that is straight up immoral. Those without genetic disease function better and contribute more effectively to society. If we modify DNA and prevent disease, won't we be bettering the human race?
DeleteI read “On Cloning a Human Being” by Lewis Thomas, which was pretty self explanatory as it was about human cloning. Thomas believes that we should all utilize this masterpiece of technology to create differences amongst humans. Living in a world of sameness is something that he doesn’t want; however, I thought this was really ironic because right now in psychology we are learning about social interactions. That being said, we are learning about similarity meaning that we like those who are similar to us, however, when I read this, it seemed to deviate completely from what we are learning in psychology. Thomas explains to his audience that even with technology and aiming to make individuals identical, there will still be certain circumstances that cause the two to differentiate a little bit.
ReplyDeleteBecca, being in your psychology class I know what you're talking about and agree that the 2 ideas seem to contradict. (It also applies to our unit of nature v nurture on personalities.) However, I think that humans would not be happy in a world where everyone was the same. To what extent do you think the concept of similarity applies to attraction? Would being raised differently produce enough of a difference or no?
DeleteI read "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The text intends to educate the reader on the current status and use of embryo screening by fertility clinics. Some are using the embryo screening to avoid potential genetic disease in their offspring, and others are using it to hand-pick the gender of their children. I do not believe that embryo screening should be used to control the genders of children. Allowing parents to do so could cause an unbalance in the number of males and females. What long-term socio-economic or politically effects this would have, I am not really sure on, but there would (probably) be more sad lonely singles. Nature generally allows for an even split between males/females, embryo screening would likely upset this natural ratio.
ReplyDeleteI agree that using embryo screening to hand-pick gender in children is immoral. Nature has a way of maintaining balance between males and females, however this new found technology doesn't keep that in mind and can have various negative repercussions. Do you think they should stop the screenings entirely or just find a way to bar people from using it for selecting gender?
DeletePeter, I agree with you that embryo screening should not be used to pick the gender of the offspring, as that is something that "naturally occurs," and in my opinion should not be tampered with. However in terms of genetic disease, I think that this is a very useful tool, as it can help avoid children being born with serious diseases. Do you think that we should keep the screenings in order to check for these possible genetic diseases?
DeleteI read "Pet Clones Spur Call for Limits" by Rick Weiss. The purpose of this text was to give insight to readers about the world of genetic modification and cloning concerning animal, and how bad it is. They believe it is cruelty against animals and that it is a rip off to pay $50,000 to have the same exact pet you had once before, when there's no telling if it will have the exact same fur patterns or personality. Lots of Animal organizations believe it is unnecessary and a violation of the Animal Welfare Act. I agree with them, I think its absolutely absurd to pay that much money for an animal that only looks like a previous pet, it's better to move on with the new and not repeat the past, especially since there are so many risks with genetic mutations when it comes to cloning. I had a dog, but I would never want to clone it, it's not the same dog.
ReplyDeleteHola Veronica, I would agree with you that cloning pets would seem like an unreasonable action. I think that it goes beyond the monetary cost, that it is somewhat of a necessary ethical and life experience. Like you mentioned, it is better to move on, and get a new pet. When would you find it acceptable to use cloning, if not for pets?
DeletePeter, I will disagree with you because cloning is not unethical. People using cloning for unethical purposes are unethical. Cloning is simply a practice, similar to baking a cake. People don't get a new recipe for every cake they bake. Should we become technologically advanced enough to eliminate errors and mutations, what would really be wrong with repeating the genetic code of a pet?
DeleteVeronica, I agree with you because going through the process of pet cloning just to have the same pet is not worth it due to the harm it can bring to natural life. It's a waste of money because as you said, what's the chance that the pet will behave the exact same way. Getting a new pet can also help a person get over their old pet. If people do manage to clone animals, how do you think these actions will impact society itself?
DeleteI agree with Max, cloning is simply something that is perceived as bad because society has made it out that way in recent times. However, to answer Max's question, nothing would be really wrong with repeating the genetic code of anything in general. However, I think it just depends on what the reason is for cloning in the first place. Therefore, what do you think are good reasons for someone to acceptably clone something or someone in society?
DeleteListen up Veronica, you are totally right. It is absolutely unreasonable to clone ones pets only to have them again. However, I think it is perfectly ethical. There is nothing ethically wrong with a person spending their won money to have a copy of their deceased pet for another 15 years. However, I do think that whoever does that has some serious psychological problems. There is no doubt that it is important to move on and accept death as a natural part of life, but if someone really wants to do it, let them be. They aren't hurting anyone but themselves. For those who do decide to clone their pets, I am curious to see if they feel the same attachment to their new dog that they felt towards their old one. Can a similar appearance foster similar relationships?
DeleteVeronica, I also am against pet cloning. Although I too think that paying $50,000 for a clone of your cat is absurd and, as Michael mentioned, weird, people can spend their money on what they want. I mainly am against it because I would prefer to bring a new animal into the world than try and recreate an old one, but the article's point about how there are many animals without homes that could be taken in rather than the unnecessary cloned ones greatly added to my decision. And, as Reeya said, it's not going to be the same pet anyways. As for Max and Jason, I'm curious if you would be as open to it with humans as you are with animals, and why?
DeleteVeronica, I completely agree with you. By cloning pets, companies are disturbing the natural process of life. They do not realize how this can harm both the animals and the humans. The surrogate mothers of these clones are at risk when they are growing these genetically altered embryos inside of them. Also, the cloned pet will not be the same as the original one because the exact behaviors and memories will not be transferred to the clone. After knowing this, would people feel worse if they realized that the clone was not exactly like their original pet or would they always be satisfied with the clone?
DeleteI read the passage “Pet Clones Spur Calls for Limits” by Rick Weiss. The purpose of this article was to inform the public about the current debate and political attempts to minimize the pet cloning industry. Weiss describes how some people chose to participate in such consumer goods due to their grievance over lost pets; however, the opposition towards this type of creation is more factual based on the natural life evidence and harm it may cause to animals. Such an industry could impact today’s society through advancing artificial life research and eventually moving on to clone other forms, possibly humans. By attempting to minimize research and production of such clones, protesters are seeking support from those not involved in the industry to stake their claims on natural life production.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the pet cloning industry can cause harm to animals and takes away from natural life production. Even though I think that it's very unlikely that the pet cloning industry will move on to cloning humans, it is good precaution to stop it before things get out of hand. Do you think the whole reason this industry is in business is because many people struggle getting over the loss of a loved pet?
DeleteAlly, I agree that if society managed to clone pets, that creates a higher chance for cloning other forms of life, which impacts natural life. This process can't be taken too far because the chance of harming natural life is too much of a risk. Do human cloning and animal cloning have the same positive/and or negative impacts?
DeleteAlly, I agree with your position on how cloning pets would have a negative impact because it could hurt the animals and would deviate from the natural intentions for living organisms. Would the same technique be used to clone humans if it ever got to that point? What other forms could be cloned?
DeleteI read the science fictional short story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. The purpose of this short story was to convey the implications on society if science develops too much in the future through the form of a meaningful short story. Aldiss describes the story of a family, who seemed that they were lacking communication. However, it is revealed later that the children were artificial robots that were developed to fulfill the mother's loneliness. In the future, if society will develop science so far to the creation of Artificial Intelligence, it could create many benefits for the world. However, Aldiss crafts this story in a way that explained the negative effects of artificial intelligence. Near the end, Aldiss focuses on the feelings of David, the human robot made to keep the mother's company, and expressed those feelings of those of a real human being as the mother and father were revealed to have a real child. I believe artificial intelligence should not be developed in a rapid way, such as in this story. I believe the way this story ended is very inhumane. Science shouldn't be developed in such a way that artificial robots would be a burden until they are abandoned and left for their artificial feelings to be hurt. The benefits of artificial intelligence would not be worth the long term implications on society in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe passage I read was “More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender” by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. This text focuses on the increasing number of parents who screen the embryo of their future child. Initially, such screening was used to identify genetic discrepancies and possible disabilities in the embryos. But this technology has started to be utilized by parents who want to select the specific gender of their child. I agree with the authors and believe that it is unethical to exercise such a practice. If you want a child of a specific gender, it is more reasonable to adopt. There is a chance, just as in any procedure, that the procedure of specific gender selection could go wrong and actual put the embryo at risk. Aside from the risk, people may not recognize that just because they select a male or female physically, it doesn't guarantee the gender mentally.
ReplyDeleteI read the passage "Pet Clones Spur Call for Limits" by Rick Weiss. The purpose of this article is to educate individuals on the growing technology around cloning. In today's society, cloning is far under appreciated. As a society, we could be doing things like cloning extinct animals. Better yet, we could clone endangered species in order to help conservation efforts. Sure, there are plenty of ways cloning could go wrong. But is reversing the damage we've done really such a bad idea?
ReplyDeleteMax, I agree with you with the fact that cloning may help undo some of, "the damage we've done," as our expansion and industrialization has taken the homes of many animals, killing off many and leaving some extinct. But would there not be consequences in nature as a result of this cloning? Nature tends to have balances between prey and predator, so bringing back animals that have been near extinction may result in a balance change in nature as a result of this increase. Do you think that bringing back these animals is worth the potential consequences?
DeleteMax I agree with you that cloning can be a very tempting solution to revising the “damage” we have done to nature, against endangered species. Pat also brings in a good point that there would be many consequences in nature. It would upset the balance of whole ecosystems and probably put more species in danger. Would cloning do more harm than fixing the mistakes we have made? Should we play the role of “god” and influence the balance of nature?
DeleteMax, I don't agree that cloning animals, especially those that are extinct, is a good idea, even if it does make up for some small percentage of the damage the human race has done. The decision to revive an extinct species is not one that can, or should be made casually. There is the issue of where it should be relocated to if it can be managed to be cloned, and the implications of the impacts it will have on whatever ecosystem it is dropped into must be considered. It could throw off entire food chains, or if it will even be able to successfully care for itself in the wild without parents or others of its species to teach it how to fend for itself. Also, there was a reason the cloning agency had only managed to clone cats, and had not yet moved onto even dogs. With even more complicated organisms than domesticated pets, the process of cloning will become more difficult and there will be more potential for things to go wrong, causing mutations in the embryos and maybe even genetic mutations and possible diseases for the animals later in life. Is the risk of causing pain to animals and upheaving ecosystems worth trying to make up some small amount of damage we've done?
DeleteI read "Sonnet -- To Science" which is a poem by Edgar Allen Poe.The purpose of writing this sonnet was to warn readers about the dangers science and technology present, and how it has the potential to ruin humanity. Poe's initial reaction may have overreacted and exaggerated the effects of science and technology, they are actually very beneficial to society and have the potential to better mankind. In the time period that Poe wrote this his assertion was more accurate because it was written in the transition between the Romantic era which focused on nature and the Industrial Revolution which focused on new technological innovations. This is probably why he uses the vulture metaphor, to give science a negative connotation. In our society today it is almost universally accepted that science and technology is more beneficial than detrimental.
ReplyDeleteI read "On Cloning a Human Being" by Lewis Thomas. The purpose of this piece is to convey the possible effects of cloning on society, while raising several important questions about the possible implications of cloning that we may have to face in the future, should cloning eventually become a common practice. I agree with many of Thomas' points, as a future with clones may be a difficult one to adapt to. The idea of seeing "exact copies" of animals and humans alike is a difficult concept for many to accept, as we would be able to replicate valuable figures in order to carry on their legacy, greatly changing the world we live in.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read the article "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The article explores the idea that parents are now given the opportunity to screen their children while they are still in the embryo stage to determine gender and the possibility of disease. This innovation raises multiple moral issues, considering that approximately half of the U.S fertility clinics that allow embryo screening also allow couples to choose the sex of their child. I believe that this process can be extremely unnatural and unnecessary. Many couples are unable to have children and the fact that expecting parents are becoming obsessed with having a gender specific child and are willing to go through with this "risky technique" is unethical. However, I do see the important benefits connected with screening for diseases, which could ensure safety for the life of the unborn child. Do the benefits that embryo screening bring outweigh the possibility of parents using the process purely for gender selection?
ReplyDeleteEmily, I couldn't agree with you more. I believe too, as many have stated in this blog, that genetic modification, especially with babies, is unethical. I'm coming to this with my religious views and I believe you shouldn't change a baby, God wanted you to have a baby and made it specifically for you, so changing it would be undoing the miracle of having a baby. If you really have the need to make a baby perfect than maybe you aren't ready to have a child, because what if the baby doesn't come out the way you wanted. What do you think the parents would do with the baby if it didn't come out perfectly like they planned and paid for?
DeleteThe article I read was "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. In the article, the topic of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is heavily discussed because of its ethical concerns. I believe that the helpfulness of PGD outweighs any serious ethical concerns of creating "perfect babies." In just recent years, scientists have been able to help parents avoid serious disease in their children and make the pregnancy experience a much more positive and less anxious time. The concerns regarding genetically perfect children are not as prevalent in the present and so far, the technique has been almost entirely beneficial for the parents. Should PGU be allowed in the United States or are its implications too severe?
ReplyDeleteI read “Fearing the Worst Should Anyone Produce a Cloned Baby” by Philip M. Boffey. In his article, he expresses the opinion that, even though he is opposed to it, sometime in the far distant future there will be an organization that will succeed in producing a cloned baby and that we have to be prepared to deal with the moral and ethical implications that it will have on the world. I agree with Boffey that as long as possible, we need to fight those who are attempting to clone humans if not for purely the unethical nature of it, but also because of the possible threats it could pose to the health and safety of the embryo. Cloning a person to “use” the clone either to continue that person’s legacy (in the case of prominent political figures or vital leaders) or to use the clone in order to prolong the life of the person that they are cloned after is completely unethical. It is as wrong as forcing someone into a life of slavery. The clone is still a living, breathing, thinking human being. To force them to live the life of the person they are cloned after, is to force them to have a life without choice. And even if they are not cloning the person with a purpose, then is it really worth all of the controversy and potential damage to an embryo just to prove that it can be done?
ReplyDeleteTessa, I think you brought up a really interesting point that the clone would be forced to live out the life of the person they were "made" from. Usually the scientists pursuing this process don't stop to think about that and the implications that cloning could have on the clone. They're often caught up in the pursuit to prove that this can be done and I agree that this would raise many ethical issues. How do you think people against cloning can delay this inevitable process?
DeleteI completely agree with you Tessa, and your point that clones are still human beings. While I was reading the articles explanations of the emotional impact of being a clone, I wondered whether that’s all a clone would be known for. Additionally, I think genetics only go so far in determining a person’s personality as the article pointed out, so the idea that clones will help continue a legacy seems so far fetched to me. Tessa, do you think that if there are clones, they will only be labeled as such in society, and will not be seen as individuals?
DeleteI read “On Cloning a Human Being” by Lewis Thomas. The author discusses the possibilities of cloning in the far future. The author tries to address the full extent of cloning but it seems he has only touched the surface. The author thinks we should clone the whole world in order to make cloning a successful experiment due to many factors at play. Besides this outrageous proposition the author is against cloning, “we are not ready for an experiment of this size, nor, I should think, are we willing”. Cloning is such a complicated matter now that it is unfathomable to grasp the concept, there are too many things that can go wrong with cloning. Even though we would like to preserve the greatest leaders of this world, we should never keep things the same, we should let the world change and take its own course.
ReplyDeleteIn respect to the author and your position, I totally agree Lay. The world isn't ready, and does not want clones of everyone. People have one life and one chance to change the world, there shouldn't be two of them cause that defeats the purpose of us being mortal. Not to mention the earth would die because of overpopulation and not being able to keep up with food and natural resources crucial to survival.
DeleteWhat do you think would be the reason for someone wanting to clone themselves?
I read “More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender” by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The purpose of this argument was to talk about the affects of doctors screening embryos in order to detect whether the child will have a genetic disorder. But the problem is that during this process, some Americans are seeking ‘designer babies.” I believe that using the process of PGD should not be used to choose the gender of a baby. I don’t think a doctor has the right to determine the gender of the baby just because the parents want to choose, that is not a valid reason. Doing this also causes more health risks, and why risk the health of a baby?
ReplyDeleteReeya, I completely agree with your position of not using PGD to determine the gender of a baby because it is entirely unethical. Not only would it pose more health risks as you mentioned, but it would also lead to less individuality and differences among people. Why would someone want to determine the gender and create a "designer baby", over one that is naturally unique and your own?
DeleteReeya, I agree with you because I believe that people will get carried away with the process of PGD and will not use it for its intended use. It is meant to detect if the child might have a genetic disorder, but people will seek to make their child “perfect” by altering different genes. Not only will this be harmful to the unborn child, but it will also create an unnatural child that is engineered to the parent’s definition of perfection. If parents had the ability to create “designer babies” would their expectations of their children be higher just because their children are “perfect”?
Delete“DNA as Destiny” – David Ewing Duncan
ReplyDeleteIn his narration, Duncan describes his experience with genetic testing and the anxiety it stirred within him. His purpose is to inform the general public about the growing industry of genetics and to demonstrate the affect undesirable results may have on your life. Moreover, he calls into question our control over our own lives. Genetics are “the stuff of life” that expresses all of your traits. However, traits that put your health at risk can be horrifying to discover. Without proper education, people may be terrorized and controlled by genetic data predicting nothing but theoretical implications. My DNA was tested earlier this year with 23&me, and the mutated SNPs on my results scared the hell out of me. I later learned that these SNPs are only paired with diseases through correlational studies, and only increase my risk of a disease rather than guarantee it. Since everyone has mutations in their genome, it is crucial that they understand the inner workings of genetic testing. As the industry grows, genetic data will have a greater impact on our socioeconomic status. This data will be used to favor those with favorable genes, and inhibit those who aren’t healthy. When genetic data is accessible to universities, employers, and insurers, will our American concept of “equal opportunity” be under attack?
I read "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The authors wrote this news story to inform readers about embryo screening and the 2 sides of its debate. Embryo screening can be very beneficial to couples, but it's moral implications lead to limiting it to those with medical justifications. The idea of having a perfect baby is a dream for many couples. On the contrary, the idea of everyone screening embryos to manufacture the perfect babies does not generate the same excitement; it begins to feel uncomfortable. This discomfort is what's driving society to be so firmly against embryo screening, but since it is the safest option for babies of parents with genetic diseases, or siblings in need of transfusions, etc. it should be used for medical purposes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point, Nicole, that embryo screening is beneficial for families with genetic diseases. However, I think that determining the sex of their child won’t lead parents to the “perfect kid”. The gender of a kid is a small factor in how that individual will impact society, and I believe that it should not discourage parents from raising that kid. I think that the whole concept of “designer babies” is taking out the valuable lesson of being a flexible and forgiving parent. While I understand that the gender can be an adjustment for some parents, but should a parent who already has expectations of how their child should be even have kids?
DeleteI read "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The purpose of the argument is to discuss the new technology of genetically modifying embryos through the process of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. I agree with how PGDs are beneficial to society because they have the ability to select certain genes so a bad disease can be eliminated. On the other hand, I understand how ethicists' view PGDs as bad because it can be used for unethical purposes, such as selecting a particular gender instead of allowing nature to follow its course. This process also allows couples with fertility problems to have children of their own, so there are many aspects to consider. Ultimately, I think that PGDs should be allowed, but only to an extent where they are used for medical purposes and not to engineer a specific human being.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jessica that PGDs could be beneficial in making sure a person isn't born with a particular disease or health issue, especially if the issue is hereditary. This process could be abused however if society becomes too caught up in creating "the perfect human being". Do you think this could be prevented by some form of preventative measures or do you think it's inevitable for this process to get out of hand?
DeleteI read “On Cloning a Human Being” by Lewis Thomas in which he sets out to inform the audience of the detrimental implications of cloning a human being. Cloning would set off a chain reaction, causing others to have to be cloned in order to create an exact environment replica to that of which the subject lived in. It would be too much of a hassle and there would be ethical problems such as if it really is right to clone a person. They would need to be raised the same way that the subject was, including the hardships that the real person faced. This process would be too orchestrated, defying the natural laws of nature and the scientists would soon discover they’re in over their heads.
ReplyDeleteI chose “Fearing the Worst Should Anyone Produce a Cloned Baby” by Philip M. Boffey. In this article Boffey works to inform his audience of the new cloning technologies and speculations over a world full of clones. I agree with Boffey’s conclusion that lawmakers should ban reproductive cloning before it gets out of hand. The technology might not be fully developed enough to successfully clone someone, and it could take while to discover the detrimental health effects. Aside from the possible scientific dangers, the ethical consequences are also quite worrisome. Designer babies could cause society to be caught up in superficial attributes (as if we need anymore of that), and prevent acceptance regardless of gender. I think that while some of the assumptions of cloned babies might be extreme, there are real concerns for this type of science.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie although you bring up great topics, I believe that you are going off on a tangent. Right now, technology for cloning humans has not been started or tested out. We have only focused on therapeutic cloning which has been met with success for the most part. As a result, many of the fears associated with cloning are only speculations at this point. Don't you think that if we tried out this technology, we might successfully clone a human and eradicate speculations? Also regarding designer babies, I believe that it is another topic in genetic engineering where genes are purposely selected for as opposed to cloning where they are merely replicated after being randomly assigned.
DeleteI read “Pet Clones Spur Call for Limits” by Rick Weiss. The author wanted to reason with the audience and convince them that the cloning of pets should not be advocated due to various reasons, many being moral and ethical reasons. Pet cloning should be banned because unnaturally duplicating a deceased pet disturbs the natural happenings of life and can harm people emotionally if their cloned pets do not live up to their expectations. The loss of a pet is hard for anyone to handle because that pet used to be a part of that person’s family. People who are grieving due to their loss want to fill in the gap they have in their heart, which is why they want to bring their pet back to life through cloning; however, they seem to forget that cloning is not a natural process and that it does not always have satisfactory results.
ReplyDeleteI read the article, “Fearing the Worst Should Anyone Produce a Cloned Baby” by Philip B. Boffey. The article circulated around the cloning debate, specifically reproductive cloning, and whether or not such a notion was ethical. Though there are some positives to the idea of cloning, such as preventing potential genetic diseases and allowing infertile couples to pass on their genes to their offspring, the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Cloning technology, as of now, is most definitely not safe and certain enough to perform such an operation on human beings. Not to mention the fact that the ethics behind such means of reproduction could create many emotional issues for the cloned children. Additionally, cloned children are more likely to have health issues as they age, offering the question, why put a child through such torment? Cloning is not all bad, however. Therapeutic cloning, for example, has advanced enough to aid in curing diseases and illnesses. If we can get reproductive cloning technology up to that level of advancement then perhaps there may be a future for it in our society. However, for now, the idea of reproductive cloning should remain unethical in the eyes of Americans.
ReplyDeleteKalee, I totally agree with you. But how might scientists go about bringing reproductive cloning technology up to a level of advancement where there are no risks?
DeleteFearing the Worst Should Anyone Produce a Cloned Baby
ReplyDeleteIn this article, writer Phillip Boffey examines the various reasons why cloning is banned and stresses that these fears needed to be relooked since many of them have been fueled by high improbable scenarios. Although Boffey only supports therapeutic cloning , he pushes for people like congress to plan ahead and focus on what to do if cloning appeared in the future. Cloning could skew the male to female ratio and mess with genetic diversity since women might have the option of reproducing asexually. However, if the risks of cloning are reexamined, society might understand that they could be reduced significantly through technological advances which are only possible if they are tested out. Shifting towards an ethical debate would mean making progress on a subject that could supply us with various opportunities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete