Genes and animal testing

the second subject from the conversation, i was watching BBC1 and scientists crossed monkeys with jelly fish (i shit you not), so now the monkeys glow in the dark. is stuff like that right, wrong or just plain sick? also is messing with genes and animal testing as whole subjects right or wrong?

to me that just sound sick

but i’m not completely against the issue of genes and animal testing

i feel that research will be done into enhancing the human race, and so I believe that it is better to test on animals than on human as long as there is a justification - maybe curing a disease, or enhancing somethin - but a glow in the dark monkey? that’s just funny - but sick

If anyone is going to do research into genetical enhancements, I think that it should be the British - we have fair testing and could be relied upon to use the technology safely and not to our own advantage - we have a good record with scientific advances, especially in the medical field

England has probably the most diverse scientific community and so it is a natural place for scientific issues, affecting the whole world, to be studied - we saw this on that guy’s speech on Monday (if you are in kgs and was in assembly )

i do not know if it is wrong or not. its one of those things where you have to weigh up the costs and benefits and then ponder on whether we have the right to the benefits seeing as it could cost other species things.

in the long run it gives us a greater understanding of who we are and why but i do feel that some of the experiments conducted may be a little rediculous… but even the rediculous experiments tell us something about or genetic make up and pave the way to more efficient cures and ways of preventing diseases etc…

however… the moral debate is tricky. i do not even know what i think and it would take me days to think it through. basically… part of me says it is wrong and we shouldnt be messing with nature and playing God, and the rest of me says if there is a God he gave us brains for a reason. he would expect us to use them and he knows where were headed… and quite honestly would he care?
in some ways im against it, in other ways i am all for it.

useful if people could put forward views though… this is going to be in my biology paper

the green monkeys were actually quite funny, but it is quite sick, i mean wtf was the point, wow we can make monkeys that glow in the dark we are so great. most of the experiments i have herd/read about seem totally pointless to me. such as seeing what happens when you puit acid on monkeys heads, ever so scientifically needed.

yeah, all for it, if it’s medical. turning monkeys and mice luminous is just wrong. are we ever really going to want to turn our children bright glow-in-the-dark green? no, i think not. at least do something useful with the research, rather than just messing about.

also, if you had a really ill child and it needed bone marrow, and you didn’t match, would you have another child, genetically modified, purely to help the existing child? i think that was on the telly too. i think you would, but it does bring up a whole load of issues i don;t have the brain to deal with right now.

^

yeah - they were planning on making clones of us - just without heads, i find that sick

i know a lot of the experiments they’re doing with genes at the mo are fairly immoral, but i doubt they made glow in the dark monkeys just for entertainment’s sake. there must’ve been a reason?

even so, i’m not saying its right. meddling with nature and stuff. on the other hand, where would we be without the discovery of insulin? as charlie said its their cost for our benefit … but i’m undecided as to whether or not we, as the most intelligent life form, have the right to those benefits. i’m glad the fact that we’re intelligent enough to do these things also means we’re able to question our doing so.

and its now that we should be questioning this. otherwise it’ll become the norm which some people object to and we’ll believe in it simply because it happens. i’m sure many of the people who were about when doctor’s started legally carrying out abortions would be amazed at how frequesntly it happens. just shows that even if it is generally decided that its ok, it shouldn’t be abused.

one possible problem would be if one country started doing it and others didn’t.

sorry i keep doing this double post thing.

the monkey/jelly fish experiment was a fore runner to giving humans super human abilities are stuff like that. actually when you think about it isn’t really funny because we are playing god with another life form and what gives you the right to do that? i’m not aiming this at anyone because i can’t decide whether or not it is a wrong but i’m not in favour of most of the experiments as they seem just sick.

you can only play God if you believe God exists. Otherwise you are just playing human.

Here’s a question for you: Consider you have to kill either an adult human or a baby human, which would you choose? Chosen? Ok right. Now whichever you have chosen to keep alive replace it with a chimpanzee. Would you still make the same choice? I think most of you would not keep the same choice and instead opt to kill the chimpanzee. Until you see animals as equals you don’t really have a case for arguing animal rights. If they are lesser beings than us, why should we worry about experimenting on them?

“the monkey/jelly fish experiment was a fore runner to giving humans super human abilities are stuff like that.”

i dont agree. there is a danger that once we have the knowledge of how to give our children super human abilities, someone will try it out, but i doubt theyd get very far.
i doubt that the green monkeys was actually done to start the process towards super humans… it was done for a reason much more simple than that… to try and understand our genetic make up better… to work out how to alter things… where to put genes to make these things happen… which genes make what happen…
at the moment things are more being done for a greater understanding… although yes they are progressing at a rather alarming rate.

maybe people will start to give their children super human abilities when the science is available to do so, but that is not the reason theyre doing all this. its for understanding of how we are made and what makes us who we are.

These experiments are vital to our future. We are doomed as a species unless we figure out why we are on the death trip, and how to get off it. Life extension research should be given our full attention if we are ever to live forever,(or at least as close to foreveras makes no difference); and intelligence raising research is needed if we are going to get ourselves out of the shitty situation we are in. Live forever, know what we are doing, and get the hell off this planet are the three things we need to accomplish before we can say we have succeeded as a species.

charlie:- i’m not sure if they were designed specifically to be a forrunner to super humans but the narrator certainly suggested this.

ben:- i don’t think we are superior to animals, it’s a question of whether we have the right to destroy the life of another animal for our own personal gain. i used the word god in that we are playing with forces we don’t understand, in acutuallity i don’t believe in the existence of god. but thats for a whole different topic.

HVD:- i don’t think immortality is necessarily a goal of our race, i wouldn’t want to live forever. i agree with you that we need to get off this planet, only because we will destroy it if we don’t, but the lesson the human race really needs to laern is preservation, without this we will end up like a swarm of locusts constantly moving from place to place.

normal post:- to justify the use of a living organism is very difficult, i am not dismissing animal testing but it cannot but a whimsical decision, i don’t like the thought of it but at the moment it has to be done, and surely there must be an alternative.

We are doomed as a species unless we figure out why we are on the death trip, and how to get off it

i guess an argument against this is that this could be nature’s course… things develop, things die out giving way to more advanced species capable of surviving better in the environment…

not necessarily what i think … but something to think about maybe?

i dont think we are playing with dangerous forces we dont understand. (as in “The Craft” or atomic power stations.) genetic engineering is not dangerous to us but rather has the potential to save lives and i cant really see anything as wonderful as that incurring divine wrath or anything of the sort.

man interfering with his surroundings (even at the expense of other species)is just as “natural” as spider’s webs or lions hunting gazelles.

interestingly, when the first trains were invented, people had very similar concerns as the present ones about science. “unnatural”, “dangerous” etc…

“Until you see animals as equals you don’t really have a case for arguing animal rights. If they are lesser beings than us, why should we worry about experimenting on them?”

Ben, I completely disagree with you - surely that’s a bit of a black-and-white way to look at it. It’s like saying you should be really nice to your best friend and kill everyone else. Personally I see animals as lesser in some respects, and I would most likely choose a human over one if I had to choose - there’s probably some genetic theory for that because they’re of my species, but I’m crap at science so I won’t go there - but that’s not to say we can completely abuse animals.

Whether they are “lesser” or not, it is mostly agreed that they feel pain etc in a similar way to humans do, so I think it’s a bit blunt to just assume that because they haven’t evolved quite as humans have, it’s right to go doing whatever we like with them.

agreeing with nicky on this one ben. you con’t say it’s okay to experiment on animals just because you think they’re not equal to you. you may as well just say it’s okay for uppepr class people to experiment on the working classes, they’re not equal either.

Er, if you think the difference between humans and animals is the same as the working class and the upper class you better make sure you don’t meet any working class people in a dark alley at night.

Notice I said “if they are lesser” I wasn’t suggesting they were, but most people do not see animals as having the same human rights as people. I don’t see why killing an animal for food is any better than doing tests on mice to find cures for diseases.

I’m not advocating tests on animals I’m just wondering why there is such a strong view against testing but not on mass slaughtering for food. When they are tested on they are treated in the best possible way.

you can cure disease but you can also make incurable disease with genetic engineering. the next generation of weapons will be genetically modified viruses that will be designed by man to be as hard as possible to cure and will be the equivalent of nuclear weapons in that they will be able to wipe out all life on earth. genetic engineering is far more dangerous than you think, even by accident we could create a deadly virus or the suspossed cure could mutant and be a ver efective killer. also we do know alot about nuclear power, and it is still extremely dangerous (eg. the people who work at sizewell power plant (on the suffolk coast) live in Cambridge, which is just about as far away as you can commumte from), we know very little about genetic engineering and you think it is safer than nuclear power?

[quote] <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by ben: [b]Er, if you think the difference between humans and animals is the same as the working class and the upper class you better make sure you don't meet any working class people in a dark alley at night.[/b]</font> [/quote] <P>too right ben

I do not believe that (not taking into wider context), the act of crossing a monkey and a jellyfish’s genes is ‘wrong’. This is of course setting aside any humane reasons (for instance if the monkey [jellyfish? monkeyfish? jellymonkey?] is in pain, or will be caused harm]).

Of course taking this into higher context, for instance world impact. What would happen if this monkey (fish?) was released (purposely or not, as human’s we make too many mistakes) and breed? This could of course be altering the course of natural evolution (ceteris paraibus, ie. there is no god).

But would it? Perhaps a monkey/jellyfish would have no significant impact on the course of evolution/nature. Saying that, where is the line drawn then? When do we determine that an act is against nature?
Altering 5 species? 10? 100? 1000? Humans?

That is something to think about.

-Erik