http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/191418_flu18.html

While I'm all for scientific study, this sounds just a bit too much like a bad Science/Technology Thriller Novel waiting to happen. How many people here have read The Hot Zone, based on the true story of the Ebola Virus that made it to America carried by research monkeys?

This also raises another issue- By constantly defying natural selection, are we setting ourselves up for a disaster of unforseen proportions? Overpopulation? Super viruses and bacteria that have evolved to be immune to any vaccine, anti-biotics, or treatments that we can come up with?

Imo, I think that in a lot of ways, we are messing with nature just a bit too much. James Watson, one of the two scientists who "discovered" DNA, (whom most of you have probably have heard about in your science classes) has admitted on numerous occaisions that one of his main reasons for studying genetics was because in addition to curing those with geneatic diseases, he wanted to breed new races of "super humans" with advanced abilities. It bothers me that some of our most celebrated scientists feel that its ok to play god and try to influence the course of human evolution.

Science in the 20th and 21st centuries, it appears, has become a meddling enterprise. Rather than simply observing, we are trying to overrule some of the basic laws governing how the universe works.

So true. If we find cures for a few major diseases, then the world is just going to become hugely overpopulated in no time.

Okay, but why do you feel that way? Do you think it's blasphemous somehow? Do you think that it will ultimately be detrimental to humans? Frankly, genetic studies have done some great things for humanity thus far, such as increasing food production, and I don't think that will change. Genetic research only has good intentions from what I've seen.

You might argue that we're tampering with something we shouldn't be tampering with, but let's face it: Either people need to quit having kids, or we need science to be able to support an unnaturally large population on the earth.

I do. I dont disagree that great things have come out of genetic research and engineering. But, in my opinion, there is a difference between curing a disease and attempting to change the course of evolution.

I would like to add one more thing. Suppose this experiment is a success and we develop a vaccine for this deadly strain of flu which supposedly we're overdue for anyway. Suppose this research ends up saving tens of millions of lives.

With your sentiments, this research may not take place and tens of millions could die. Who is willing to make this descision? You?

Please forgive me, I don't mean to be nosy or anything, but in what way? (In other words, in what way will tampering with evolution as you call it be detrimental to humans? Because last I checked, the point of tampering with evolution was to be beneficial to humans.) You keep stating your opinion but don't say why you feel the way you do.



Wait a minute... What exactly IS the difference, in your opinion? For one, this seems to me to be a case of curing a disease, not tampering with evolution, and, in my opinion, they are ultimately one in the same. What is the difference?

Honestly, I've thought about that and I havent decided. I know it would sound gruesome and inhuman to say that the research should not take place, knowing that it could save millions of lives... And I know that decision would be a very hard one to live with if someone I knew died as a result of that decision.

Think about it this way though. Suppose the research does take place now, and 40 million lives are saved. Thats all good, but what happens when down the road, another, even more potent virus appears because of our continued tampering, and kills 80 million people despite our best efforts to stop it.

I guess I am trying to say that this is the situation I am afraid of. We may think we are doing the right thing now by trying to stop diseases of what we consider to be epidemic proportions... but we might just be setting ourselves up for even worse things than we can immagine in the long run.

I think that genetic engineering and other scientific research, with the intent to influence human evolution, could very easily go against what Nature has in store for us. I do think that its possible that Nature could react violently to the changes we make, in ways that we couldnt possibly predict. I'm not saying I think this will happen for sure, just that I think it is possible, and that I'm not sure we should take the risk of "incurring natures wrath" so to say.

So.. are you against vaccines, then? We're talking about a vaccine for a strain of influenza here, not about bacteria developing immunity to antibiotics. If it weren't for vaccines, the world couldn't support the number of people it currently can, (at least comfortably), and you and I might not be here. I'm just not really sure where you're coming from here. How do super deadly viruses get created because we create a vaccine? Has this actually ever happened?

What about the success stories? Due to vaccines, we've basically eradicated several diseases! Smallpox, etc.. I just don't understand your pessimistic views. Our technology and capability of dealing with medical problems is greater than it ever has been in the history of the world and will only continue to be greater. Don't you think that we'll be able to solve more problems than we create with this increased capability?

Heck, even if you're right and our tampering somehow leads to super-immune contagious viruses that cause mass deaths, I think with future science we'll be able to combat it properly. Heck, even if it means injecting someone with millions of pre-programmed nanobots to seek and destroy the virus, sounds like a fine solution to me. Honestly, I think future discoveries will always be ahead of any threat posed by bacteria and viruses. Antibiotics no longer useful? Fine, we'll find something else before the need arises.

I'm not really *against* anything specifically. Sorry if I havent made that clear. Right now, while I am bothered by some of the things I hear about being done, I do understand that a lot of good is coming from the same work.

What I'm trying to say is that I do not think enough scientists have considered the future ramifications of their work. They just plow right ahead with their work without considering the possible effects it could have in the future.

The whole Virus thing is a bad example, I agree.

That is so very much incorrect. I'm doing genetic research for my PhD (not this kind though) and if you had any idea of the regulations and limitations that are placed on research you wouldn't be saying that. You can't just get up and do some research these days, you need to get approval for the project before hand and this is not a simple task. You cannot get approval to do research unless you convince the ethics committees (which are always composed of scientific and lay people) that any risk is outweighed by the benefit and that you have accounted for all the problems you can humanly think of.

I'm also a little irritated (not at you personally) that the whole "didn't think of consequences etc" line gets thrown around with such wild abandon. The majority of science is based on consequences, and I'll just reiterate that no one will give you approval to do anything like this unless all reasons and consequences are justified, supported and accounted for seven ways from sunday.

Admittedly there will always be the danger of someone doing the work without approval, but this isn't as big a threat as the alarmists would have you believe. It's rather difficult to access sensitive material without going through official channels as there are regulatory bodies set up to police this sort of thing. Research shouldn't be limited on the possibility of unforseen consequences if all due effort has been made to identify and eliminate the risks.

Humans have always been 'defying nature'. That's exactly what humans do. That is why humans survived. If you want to look at it evolutionarily, then humans are pretty pathetic, can't run fast, can't fly or climb trees particularly well, not strong, nor nimble, without sharp teeth or claws.. The safe money would be on early human beings being wiped out by the genetically superior lion or tiger.
But no, human survival depended on the fact that human beings, unlike all (or at least some) other animals are not reliant upon instinct. Human beings are not driven by instinct. If human beings did, human beings would be dead, as humans cannot compete with other animals. (I but 'some' as I see other genetically pathetic animals 'defying nature' in a similar way, such as dolphins)

As soon as man picked up a stick and used it as a tool, that's when humans started to 'defy nature'.
From then on, it has just been a natural progression.


I do think, though, that your argument does make sense, and it is the reason why I am reluctant to take antibiotics. But I think the likelyhood of a "super virus" evolving is low.
No, my concern is genetic diseases.

You cannot 'cure' genetic diseases, such as Huntington's or Cystic fibrosis, you can only aleviate the symptoms.
I think it's a little irresponsible of parents that know they carry such genes to reproduce naturally. They should be carefully considering the effects of reproducing and continuing those genetic defects.

The only way to 'cure' genetic diseases is to remove them from the gene pool. If parents carrying such genes didn't reproduce, then eventually those genes would dissapear from the gene pool and it would never be a problem again, ever.
The question here lies not on the science, but rather the politics, and how the government could offer and support such parents with alternatives, such as in vitro fertilisation or adoption. Forcing parents to not reproduce, implementing reproduction control, probably isn't a viable option, but offering incentives for them not to is.
The could sprout 'ethical' concerns, about genetic superiority and inferiority, but I don't think that's really a road you have to go down. It is easy to see that genetic diseases are certainly not a "good" thing.


Is this "playing God"?
Does it matter?

Science has never been about simply seeing things and going 'hmm'. Really, that's the realm of philosophy. Experiments. That is what science is.
Colliding protons with other atoms and creating new elements, that is 'defying nature' at the most fundemental level. But such experiments are ultimately necessary to further our understanding of the Universe.

Yes, it might seem "unnatural" to you now. But think, when the first railway was invented, that was terribly 'unnatural' and people were afraid their faces would be ripped off because it went too fast.
Think of genetic engineering in exactly the same way.

Science aims to benefit humanity. "Playing God" is an irrelevant question, it is something scientists do not ask themselves and they shouldn't either, because science aims to further humanity, not please 'God'.

But even when the first humans started picking up sticks and making tools, there was still the element of natural selection. Those too weak to survive the winters of the ice age perished, and those who's bodies were vulnerable to disease died as well, leaving only the strong to procreate - thus, humans evolved.

But today, if someone is sick, you give them medicine. If someone is amputated, you give them a wheelchair. If someone is cold, you give them extra coats. So what do you have? a couple of strong, resistant people who mate with a bunch of crippled, sick, and weak people. Because of this, human evolution has come to a complete halt. Meanwhile, other species are evolving (such as bacteria), and our means to fight them are becoming less and less efficient, because our bodies are too weak.

It's a moral dillema. Do you let the sick and the amputated die in the streets? Or do you help them and risk killing off the species in the long run? Or something in the middle, such as giving liscences to healthy people that allows them to have children?

Uh, Flex? ... Losin' a limb isn't something that's going to affect heredity.. And I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure a mother passes on a large chunk of her antibodies to her child via breast-feeding, so a person who has been cured through medicine will still pass on immunity to their child. Most immunities aren't genetic-based anyways. You can have a predisposition to a strong immune system, but nobody's born with an anti-smallpox gene.

Also, a number of people in this thread seem confused about the term 'natural'. There's nothing supernatural about humans or medicine. The 'natural order' allows for us to create vaccines and modify our genes - This much is evident from the fact that we can do so. Nature has nothing planned for us, and even though I'm sure you meant it on a less-than-literal level, it certainly won't 'react violently' to our current, very natural, evolution.

Until we have the next breakthrough in quorum sensing.

Not if you lose your limb from an accident, no. But certain diseases that cause children to be born with missing limbs can be transmitted from one generation to the next. I was also trying to make a point about how today, if you're missing a limb, you'll do relatively fine, but if you lived as an early human, you wouldn't have much chance to survive without friends to carry you around and bring you food and water.

How would that be enforced, though? who would set the standard (what is sufficiently healthy?) and mandate it? Who could we entrust with that much power?

with out reading past this post i quoted from...
Oh no, millions of people could die, what were thay going to live forever en-e-way? i'm sorry, but you over look the fact that everyone dies from some cause. even if you elimate all biological hazards everyone is still going to die.

"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Trust this to degenerate into angsty-pessimistic rhetoric..

It's a shame, really, as it was an interesting discussion..

Right, Elana, so why have vaccines, medicine, or surgery at all? If it wasn't for modern medicine, I would be dead right now due to appendicitis. But then again, what will I ever contribute to the world? After all, I'm going to die anyway.. sure, my life's been spared about 60 or 70 years, but the difference is so small it doesn't matter.

Edit: And that's not fair, Mort. Dangit, your stupid post wasn't there when I composed this angsty pessimistic rhetoric.

Yes they are.

Let's say smallpox kills 99.9% of all human beings. That remaining 0.1% is naturally resistant to smallpox. Perhaps hereditary, perhaps through random mutations, those 0.1% are genetically resistant.

If those 0.1% were left to repopulate, then all of the human race would then be naturally resistant to smallpox and smallpox wouldn't be a problem at all (actually, smallpox has been eradicated all over the world, so it isn't a problem anyway). Of course, this wouldn't just be happening with smallpox. 0.1% of that 0.1% (so 0.01% of all human beings) would also be resistant to..say..malaria. Those 0.01% would repopulate, and the human race would be naturally resistant to smallpox AND malaria. You end up with human beings that are genetically superior.

That is fundementally how the Darwinnian theory of survival of the fittest works. The genetically inferior die. Freelancer, who suffers from appendicitis, is genetically inferior to those that do not suffer from appendicitis. He would die, he would not reproduce, he would not spread his genes and, eventually, appendicitis would no longer be a problem to the human race. (Assuming his appendicitis is hereditory, which it probably is, or least a contributing factor thereof)

It sounds nice and all, but it's a little risky to rely on it. It isn't the case now, but perhaps there will come some disease for which there aren't any naturally resistant human beings, or those that are resistant are not able to reproduce.
This might happen if a combination of several diseases become a problem all at once. I'm not sure why that'd happen, though. I can only imagine that happening if a disease was carried to Earth on a meteorite, not giving enough time for the human race to evolve sufficiently. Considering that collisions are very frequent, this doesn't seem like a wholly unlikely outcome.

I do think that the ultimate goal of many technological developments should be ensuring the survival of the human species as a whole. Protecting however many people (thousands, millions, or billions, it doesn't matter) through whatever methods are taken (presuming methods are morally equal for all living humans) are generally a good idea. However, I do also see the problem of over-population. If growth continues at the current rate, there will be a resulting catastropic loss of life as resources are outstripped (even the most optimistic hypothesis for the Oil Crash predicted for sometime between 2020-2050 include the deaths of over 10 million people due entirely to the event). While I do think that reducing the total population is necessary to ensure survival as a whole, I don't think natural selection via diseases is the method for it. (particularly due to the fact that disease resistance today isn't a terribly important element of survival fitness)

What is more important?

Strength and speed and other physical attributes have never been important for human beings, as humans have an incredibly long way to go to compete with other animals.


I'd like you to elaborate on (presuming methods are morally equal for all living humans).

This reminds me of 28 Days Later, when they infected the monkeys with rage. I'm betting that PETA is going to try to rescue these uber-flu monkeys and are going to start a pandemic.

Wait..so a flu strain that isn't around anymore, is being brought back to find a cure for something that noone has...

Obiously those of you who are worried about over population don't live in the Western US. :p

People have been worried about this kind of stuff forever, and they're always worried that the next step in scientific advancement will be the last one, and every single time they've been wrong. We had to debate this kind of stuff last year in class when we read Frankenstein, and I couldn't believe how many people were afraid of science.

Galileo, anyone?

Science doesn't scare me, the products of science do.

Yes, the internet in your hands is an unnerving weapon

Would it be "immoral" to pass laws or prevention of a person with a bad, harmful genetic disease from reproducing (in attempt to end a genetic disease from "spreading")?

Is stupidity a harmful genetic disease? :p

Personally, I don't think we'll have to worry about overpopulation TOO much. I think we'll all just get tired of each other and go on genocide crusades first. I'm going for Canada first, I don't like their flag.

Sigh.

ok...

Good point. Perhaps our descendents will one day look back on us in amazement at our reluctance to further genetics. Much like we look back on those with pity who believed the world was flat and the center of the universe.

the thought of a man made outbreak by some simple mistake would be really scary. Especially since they stated it killed so many people the first time around:eek:

Relying on nature to control our population totally is something I disagree with, i.e. not curing diseases just because they help reduce the population. What would be more humane in the long run is controlling population through laws.

The fact is that we are humans, and we don't modify ourselves to fit our surroundings, we modify our surroundings to fit us. Wether that is right or wrong is a matter of debate, but it sounds more ethical to limit children through government rather than have people die from what can be stopped.

Edit: However, we always run the risk of breeding an incredibly strong version of the disease, like what has happened with AIDS for example. If a disease can be stopped by simple preventative measures (like AIDS), then I think a better method than "nuke it" is prevention. However, with other diseases, such as hepatitis, finding a cure is important.

Perhaps the vaccine for the killer spanish-fly flu will prevent the needless deaths of millions, including the one last attempt to build cyber-einstein, who is part man and part machine.

Cyber-Einstein goes on to create the material that becomes the building stone that helps us colonize distant planets and explore the deep reaches of space.






To deny this course is to deny our very survival.

I don't see why it would be better to let 99.9% of people die so that the remaining people would be resistant to smallpox... what does it matter? We wiped out smallpox. If we destroyed the samples sitting in labs throughout the world, we'd have no trouble with it ever again, since it wouldn't exist.

Incidentally, as far as I'm aware, no one is naturally immune to smallpox. 33% of the people who get it die. The rest get horribly scarred.

I'll take my vaccine, thanks. Incidentally, a "vaccine" isn't some sort of mega technology, anyway; it's just cowpox (hence the name). Cowpox has little to no effect on humans, and enables the recipient to be immune to smallpox; but only for a decade or so.