We've been posed the question in Law class, does the government have the right to regulate genetic research and surrogacy? IMO, there should be laws in place to prevent certain extremes, but would these laws be constitutional? Is it right to hinder research into any branch of science? Thoughts? Comments? My class is dealing with the Canadian legal system, but you can argue in terms of your various government policies.

I think the government should use genetic research for crime related investigations only (like forming a criminal DNA databank.) But randomly testing non-suspects for DNA should not be allowed because for privacy issues.

As for genetic research, the government should monitor DNA research programs to see if something is produced that can be used for harmful contents. This can prevent biological troubles. But, if the DNA research is trying to produce something that can not be used as a harmful tool, the government should not take over these research programs, and the people should do what they want.

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
------@%

A lot of people dont realize that the main reason the Human Genome was sequenced was so that scientists could begin work on making better, genetically enhanced humans. I watched a documentary on the guy who was in charge of the project, and it was pretty scary listening to him talk about how he wants to mess around with our DNA to make genetically engineered super-humans.

I dont think there should be laws regulating dna research, but I think there should be laws that prevent poeple from abusing it.

------------------
And everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon...
DSettahr's Homepage | Cantina Cloud | Rally NY

I think we should destroy all genetic laboratories!

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

I'm of the mentality that all science is good, but some scientists are bad. So I guess I'm in DS's boat. I'd like to see cloned humans, but I don't want to see people being turned into vegetables as capital punishment.

Genetic manipulation could be extremely beneficial. We could eradicate our suseptibility to disease. That would rule. AIDS? pfffft. Go have sex with the dirtiest stranger you can find completely unprotected. We don't need no stinking AIDS.

------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

Yay, go population boom!



------------------
Roach - I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.--Frank Lloyd Wright

0 of 14.

Can we say Gattaca[/b]?

------------------
Check out the following stories over at the Interactive Story Board:
The Never-ending Story Thread or visit the new webcomic version!
The Vision Cycle series
Featured Story: The Darkside Chronicles

As far as the population boom is concerned, we could balance it with genetically engineered food. Crops that yield more, faster, and in harsher climates than normal.

It's inevitable that we will move in that direction.
Hitler tried it with selective breeding. We will finish it for him with genetic manipulation of the zygote.

Genetic research is a must. It's the natural continuation of medicinal research.
Any governement that outlaws genetic research will just be slowing thier country down.
Like the US and it's FCC with braodband and wireless. Korea has 40x the bandiwdth per capita (and iirc at half the price). There's only one reason why the US doesn't match it. The FCC.
Japan and Europe have SMS for wireless while providers fiddle around looking for a standard in the US.
Why?
The FCC.

Back to genetic research.
It's inevitable. Regulate it. Don't outlaw it.


We are already doing that. The trouble is, we, the west, throw out and waste so much of that GM food it almost makes it useless.
Instead of spending money to put it in landfills an/or incinerate it, give it to the people that need it.
There are people in the west that need it. Never mind the population boom.
------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.
HTP

[This message has been edited by Darth Evad (edited March 23, 2004).]

Yes we could.



------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Evad is correct. There is already more than enough food produced in the world to feed every last human being. The problem is that the food isnt available to every last human being.

------------------
And everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon...
DSettahr's Homepage | Cantina Cloud | Rally NY

Genetically engineered food isn't all it's cracked up to be. It has a lot of promise, but the science behind it is very suspect and not regulated in the least.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

The problem is that even if there are laws limiting what people can and can't do, it doesn't mean people won't do it. Frankly, we would need a huge government agency to inspect weekly every research lab in the country. Unfortunately, they don't even KNOW ABOUT every lab in the country. There's just no way to enforce something like that.

It's like banning yet another "assault rifle" as the answer to violent crime when we're not even enforcing the gun laws we have on the books already. Passing laws doesn't solve problems.

------------------
EvilMagic.net: Brian's Web Log

Indeed, and passing laws that you have no way to enforce usually makes the problem even worse.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

I say sacrifice privacy for advancement.

------------------
PWoT, NG, EW: The best sites on the net.

-@%

More like sacrifice privacy for security. No one's privacy is being neglected in the reaserch field.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

The main ethical problems arise with the before and after. Attmepting to clone/alter genes takes time and several attempts. What happens to the "mistakes?"

Our society is based upon respect for human life. A person is worth something simply because he is. It is what separates our society from utilitarian ones, that exist in the world today, where the old and ill can be euthenized, even without their consent, simply because they are "worth less." A human should not be used as an experiment, a source of genetic material, or as a means to an end, no matter how far along in life it is. Follow the ideology to its extreme, which once it's adopted it will move steadily toward. Once one person is considered expendable or worthless, more and more will.

Our society is at least nominally based on the idea of "justice for all." When you decide that a few may be used for the benefit of the rest, you compromise the security of all, and reject the idea of "respect for humanity" outright.

And then there's the fear that once it's all achieved there will inevitably arise a class of "genetic superiors," along with the de facto inferiority of everyone else.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

[This message has been edited by Bounty Hunter 4 hire (edited March 24, 2004).]

Regulate the research? No (unless such research causes harm to someone in some way). Regulate genetic technology that arises from such research? Obviously yes. But as pointed out in previous posts, it's not possible to regulate what happens in labs due to the number of laboratories that exist.

All technology is regulated, and genetic technology should be no different. Regulations exist for the purpose of safety. Genetic alteration is a long way from safe. We're dealing with living things here. There's a long way to go to perfect genetic engineering, and many lives will be lost in the process, before they even have a fair chance to exist.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited March 24, 2004).]