Answer 71

	Sign In Sign-Up

Question 71

As an atheist, what is your opinion of genetic manipulation?

Properly used, the benefits to be gained from genetic manipulation far, far outweigh the risks incurred.

My opinion of genetic manipulation as an atheist is the same as my opinion of genetic manipulation as a Minnesotan. (Dave Holloway #1184)

OK as long as the dangers are recognized. We don't want to accidently release a bacterium that'll eat all the tires off of every car on the planet. (The Central Scrutinizer)

As an atheist, I have no opinion of genetic manipulation. As an amateur microbiologist (home brewer) I like the idea very much. New flavors, new processes, cool stuff. I am all in favor of applying anything and everything we can learn to agriculture and ecological problems; of course, keeping in mind that the more we CAN control, the more we MUST control.

I do think that there is an ethical question as to application to humans, not so much "should we do it?" but "how do we get there?" By which I mean, how reliable is the process, and what do we do with the rejects? If I botch a batch of beer, it's about $30 worth of ingredients down the toilet. If someone botches a kid, it's going to be serious, unpredictable birth defects. (Fred Stone #1369)

I don't have anything against the idea in itself. But I'd want to be certain that any side effects of the manipulation had been fully worked out before using something based on genetic manipulation. I also don't feel good about it being commercialized, but then I don't feel good about the commercialization of a lot of things. (Nicholas Daley #1411)

I like it!! I think it is a brilliant idea. Oh wait, you wanted my opinion as an atheist not a future genetic manipulator. ;-)

Actually I don't have a problem with it. I just think it is another step in our developement, and I think it is fascinating. As for those critics who claim that it will be abuse, well everything has potential to be abuse. Should we outlaw baseball because a bat can be used to kill someone? (Chani #1118)

I seriously think that there are going to be some truly awful consequences when science tries to improve things. Sadly, it will more than likely result from good intentions to better the planet. We already can see the results of antiboitics being fed to farm stock which has built up a natural resistance in the food chain, oestrogen getting into water supplies etc. We've all seen the tragic legacy from the 'wonder drug' thalidimde. That was entirely unexpected at the time. Genetic engineering is perhaps one of the greatest and deadliest discoveries ever. It has such amazing potential to improve the lives of billions but at an unknown cost. And science will get the blame.

OTOH. Maybe we should have just stayed in our caves and killed the neanderthal that discovered fire? ;-) (PinkyMan #1365)

I certainly agree that the responsibility is awesome. Genetic engineering means the end of natural selection and evolution, processes which guaranteed some sense of stability through small, incremental changes. We'll have the ability to create, overnight, monsters that evolution, if it ever produced, would have found a way to balance. Our monsters (be they four-hundred foot lizards or tiny microbes) will be unchecked until we create an anti-monster. It's frightening.

And yet; if not now, when? We've already produced, I'm sure, tiny critters that would wipe us out if they escaped the lab. And we can be sure that the likes of Saddam Hussein are doing the same, probably without the stringent controls that the traditional powers have used. It seems inevitable that such a bug will be released some day. Having the knowledge to do genetic manipulation might save our species.

We can't go back, and standing still isn't safe. Onward, then - but carefully. ((Bill Thacker #1363)

What would I do? I would have genetic breeding. I would try to raise the general population and not just a few people. I wouldn't treat it as an all or none proposition and I wouldn't be in a hurry. Geniuses would get three kids and morons would get one (not 20 and zero as more extreme people would do).

There is a risk that you might select people who study hard for tests as opposed to getting a life. One of the tests should involve a natural environment such as living in a primitive tribal environment for a while. I haven't solved all problems here, but I would like to see humans make progress and I don't think that we will progress under the current system (Michael Alexander #18)

Working in a job where my genetic material for making babies is always under attack I have no fear of genetic mutations. Lets face it, we would not be here but for genetic mutation. It created every new species. As long as certain precations are taken I see this a yet another are of science that may bring about a major change in the way we live our lives.

However what I do not want to see is babies being rejected because their genetic pattern does not suit somebodeys idea of perfection. I am strongly against genetic cloning of humans, though I would accept cloning of human organs and parts. I do not want to see people penalised for having a genetic defect. All of the above would seem to close to A Brave New World if allowed to go ahead.

Another hot topic is the use of genetically modified plants. If this allows the farmer to use less pesticide then I am all for them. I beleive that if we keep using pesticide at the current rate of consumption then we need not worry about wild plants becoming resistant, I doubt if we will be here. Just look at the falling sperm rate as an example of the damage that we are doing to ourselves.

I can see overall some very good things coming from it. I agree it needs certain restrictions, but we do not need to chain it down. I feel a lot of the bad public reaction is caused by the media's typical Frankenstien response to the mere mention of genectics. (Alana Ferris -Xalan- #1211)

Personally, well -- why not. We have been doing it since we started domesticating animals and cultivating plants in our gardens and fields. Probably since cro-magnon or so.
Today we can do more then just cross different organisms and select for favorably traits when they arise, we can actually read and manipulate parts of the genome directly. It is faster, much more efficient then selecting generation after generation until we get the traits we want.
We can do some amazing stuff that could not be done only by selection. In order for selection to work there has to be variation in a population. By manipulating genes at certain loci we can create this variation and then select. We will soon be able to clone many more organisms then we have already done which opens a lot of possibilities in the future.
The genetic code seems to be universal, experiments have showed that the gene that causes fire-flies to emit light can be implanted in tobacco plants, causing them to glow with a faint shimmer. All this helps us to a greater understanding of the world around us, makes it possible for us to actually engineer organisms for a purpose.
If this is good or bad? As with everything else it depends on what you use it for.
You could use these techniques to build the most deadly virus in the world synthetically, or perhaps cure cancer and other disease. Bacteria can be manipulated to produce rare substances used in medication et cetera.
I am for all research. Hopefully we will have a debate over this as it goes along, a debate where people gets a bit more enlightened then today, many seems to think that the world will come to and end if you clone a human. It won't.
Well, that's my little rant and thoughts on the subject. (Ichimusai #769)

Click here to return to master question page.