Eugenics For Dummies

2004-04-25T13:00:00.000-07:00

Well, guess this is the concluding post for me:

Something that has been bugging me about movies such as Gattaca and Jurassic Park is the significant bias against science (Genetic Engineering in this case) on the basis that "We don't know all about it" or "It's unnatural", which seems to reflect public sentiment on Genetic Engineering rather well. What strikes me about such sentiments is that while such reasoning is applied to new and emerging sciences it is patently absurd when applied to current technologies in use.

The Internet is unnatural, for example, yet I see no protests against its use on such grounds.

Computers are unnatural, yet I see no protests against their use on such grounds.

Televisions are unnatural, and while there are some who protest it's showing of violence to minors, it is not disparaged because it is unnatural.

Hitting more to home....

My eyeglasses which allow me to clearly resolve objects more than 10 feet away are unnatural, yet to protest against such glasses is absurd.

Modern medicine, nay, medicine in general is unnatural, yet the vast majority of people living today, including myself, would not be living were it not for the existance of such medicines. Are we now going to protest that what protects us from death, a natural conclusion to life?

Thus ends my rant, and thus concludes my activities on this blog.

Well, its been fun people... :)

2004-04-25T12:40:00.000-07:00

Concluding, much of what the media says about genetic engineering is false. Much of it is over exagerated, however the fact remains that the technology is very powerful, and like all technology it can be used for good or evil or can be overly used.

The way I look at it, if there isn;t something that is really wrong with a person's genes (like a dibilitating genetic disease) then there is no reason to alter. Also, I dont; really see any problems with geneticaklly altered food. There aren;t even exact genes for every single trait, lets give this science a chance I say, instead of bashing it before we see the results.

Finally I'd like to thank my group for working so hard and putting up with me when I was off coding lemmings. Also thank you Chuck Tryon, you are the coolest english teacher that ever walked. This semester has been very interesting, I had the eugenics thing for the project and my final paper so I'd say I have learned a lot.

2004-04-25T09:00:00.000-07:00

Throughout our project I think we had good dialogue and lots of cross-discussion. Genetics has a very broad range of applications and dialogue in lots of areas is easy to achieve. I liked to focus on how filmmakers and audiences see genetics and not so much on what genetic offers or IF we should adopt genetics. My personal opinion is that genetics and genetic engineering is and will be adopted in many areas that fall into the grey area of the sciences. But I could be wrong, if the uninformed public has their way maybe very little research will be allowed to be done. Look at how easily stem cell research's public funding was banned.

I appreciate all my fellow group members and I hope we have a chance to work in the future (I know Puyan will do some CS stuff with me at some point). Please accept my personal thanks for doing all of the work required and making this assignment enjoyable. I would also like to extend a good luck to Prof. Tryon in his search for tenure-track positions or if he decides to stay. Thanks everyone and bye bye blog.

2004-04-23T14:31:00.000-07:00

Apparently most pop culture references to Genetic Engineering are negative. I can not recall any movies or television shows that focus on the benefits of cloning or any other type of genetic engineering. Gattaca showed how bland our lives will be if we are manufactured from the start and the discrimination the “others” will face. As Puyan says, the genetic elite’s perception that they are perfect is what leads to their downfall. Jurassic Park shows that what repercussions come along with only focusing on the glory of cloning. Or as Michael says, “The film paints a picture that the genetically created, in contrast to the divinely created, are monstrous and frightening.” Genetic engineering of food seems much more practical; on the other hand, there are many plain and simple benefits. It can be used to feed the millions starving and improve economies. Overall it seems that the good outweighs the bad when it comes to food engineering but the bad definitely outweighs the good when it comes to DNA engineering. Because society’s films relating to genetic engineering are all negative views, some people do fail to realize that the major positive consequence of it is the hopes to find cures for diseases or clone organs for transplantation. Genetic engineering is a very complex issue where it is difficult for one person to say whether he is for or against it. If limits are imposed on how far scientist can go, then hopefully society will only see the positive effects of genetic engineering, but they can not forget the potential negative effects.

2004-04-21T09:10:00.000-07:00

An issue on the mind of many environmental activists in the genetically enhanced food industry is the use of 'terminator' seeds. These are genetically enhanced seeds that die after one generation forcing the farmer to by seeds continually from the mega-conglomerate pharmaceutical companies. This shifts control of the food supply from farmers in a commodity market to these large multi-national corporations. Some of the more paranoid activists fear this sort of control will allow these corporations to control what is added to our food supply. This fear may be well founded since, in America at least, our government is driven to a large part by corporate money. If money is tied to politics and government allows this sort of genetically enhanced product to be forced unto the market, genetic engineering of food supplies may allow all the fears some of these activists have.

Well what are these activists doing and what can the individual consumer do? Activists destroy test fields for these so-called 'terminator' seeds. Many of them have been arrested and sued in England and the USA. Maybe their reaction is extreme and maybe we should focus on consumer-level boycotting. If consumers shift towards consuming organic, and genetically enhancement free, foods then these corporations may never have a chance to push these seeds unto the market. Not to mention organically produced foods are free from other chemicals like Bovine Growth Hormone. BGH has been increasingly found in humans in higher than normal doses and a link is begining to form between BGH and its counterpart Human Growth Hormone. If people are being affected by this one chemical in ways never anticipated maybe we should shift towards consuming natural food products. Many regard Rachel Carson's Silent Sprint as alarmist but maybe these connectiosn between her criticism of DDT and future criticisms of genetically enhanced food products.

2004-04-20T12:59:00.000-07:00

The films Gattaca and Jurassic Park both portray genetic engineering in a bad light. In Gattaca we are on the side of the genetically imperfect and feel like the whole world that has been constructed is unfair and wrong. However, I won’t lie, I don’t feel like genetic engineering for people is right, but there are two sides to the argument. These scientists that are researching genes have good intentions, and I feel like the media needs to portray the good in genetic engineering along with the bad. These movies put fear of future endeavors with science in our minds and makes scientists look wrong for putting their time and effort into researching genetics. We can only hope that this preliminary tampering with the gene pool won’t create a world like Gattaca. We also have to understand that these films are imaginary, and dinosaurs will not walk the earth again. As long as the people keep a close eye on what kinds of genetic tampering is going on, our future will be fine.

2004-04-20T10:37:00.000-07:00

I agree with Dr. Bohlin on the portrayal of science in Jurrasic Park. One part o9f the essay that really hit home was, "If Malcolm had limited his remarks to Jurassic Park only, I would have no complaint. But Malcolm extends the problem to science as a whole when he comments that scientific discovery is the rape of the natural world. Many youngsters will form the opinion that all scientists are to be distrusted. A meaningful point has been lost because it was wielded with the surgical precision of a baseball bat."

A fine point made as Jurrasic Park seems to bash all science, even Computer Science (grrr!) as the main bad guy was an evil computer nerd.

A lot of Ian Malcolm's quotes seem witty, but to take them seriously is outrageous and stupid. The movie makes money by scaring you away from science, with big bad monsters and evil geniuses, and scientics with no ethics. The funy thing is, I really doubt that a hack like "oh lets through in some frog dna and see what comes out" would really work, or ever be tried for that matter. I'd like to think that science is a lot more scientific than that. The movie's basis could have been taken by an obsurd series of what-ifs toped off with the typicaly crazy Hollywood notion that all science is bad.

True genetic engineering is very powerful, and our ethics should always be questioned, but I am not one to put movies over true science. These are the same Hollywood people that bring us Clueless and Janet Jackson's right boob, they aren't to be listened to. Another quotes from Bohlin I liked was, "But many of the links had no basis in reality and were badly reasoned speculations. The owl-like hoots of the poison-spitting dilophosaur jumped out as an example of pure fantasy. There is no way to guess or estimate the vocalization behavior from a fossilized skeleton."

More rant on my concluding post...

2004-04-19T20:08:00.000-07:00

Cloning and manipulating DNA are not the only components of genetic engineering. Genetically engineered food is another. This, in my opinion, has greater benefits than the other two. Crops are made more often, bigger, and better than without engineering them. This is what makes the food supply greater in a world where so many people go to bed hungry because there is simply no food. Increased food production also benefits farmers, and further the economy. It basically helps to guarantee a food supply in a world that is becoming less and less agricultural and more industrial. I understand how there are negative consequences to engineering our food, such as its health and environmental risks. Enhancing our food does add more unnatural chemicals into our bodies as well as the environment. There is the small possibility that pests are building up a resistance to the pesticides used, or that we are wasting our bodies defense systems, but there have not been any extreme consequences because of this. In the case of enhancing our foods, the positive consequences definitely outweigh the negative consequences. As long as the food does not become lethal, I’d rather help feed a lot more starving children than be afraid to add a couple more chemicals in my body which can only be negligible compared to the many other chemicals entered by other ways.

2004-04-18T20:06:00.000-07:00

Bohlin claims that scientists fail to ask ethical questions and everyone receives the image of the mad scientist intending to create monsters as they are evil in nature. I agree with Michael when he explains that scientists are overly portrayed as money and fame greedy. The movie does exaggerate the ways of scientists, especially because most research is extremely expensive and funded by the government and this means that many regulations are held on their research. This was only done, though, to get their message across, as all movies exaggerate emotions and personalities to help convey their messages. In response to Erin’s post, I agree that the general public sees a huge difference between cloning dinosaurs and cloning humans, this is why it is so controversial. Cloning dinosaurs does seem extremely dangerous in comparison to cloning humans; cloning one average human being generally should not lead to the death and destruction of many (assuming that the clone does not hold a lot of political power to do so). This does not mean, though, that the cloning of humans should be allowed. Jurassic Park, even though it is about dinosaurs, illustrates messages about cloning in general. It implies that cloning is crossing the line between nature and technology as man tries to play God, whether with dinosaurs or humans.

2004-04-17T12:49:00.000-07:00

In the Jurassic Park essay, Ray Bohlin mainly discusses the depiction of science throughout the film. He explains how Jurassic Park makes the scientists look evil and insane, and how the film warns of the dangers of cloning. However, I think that people understand the difference between genetically engineering dinosaurs to genetically engineering human genes. Making dinosaurs is totally unrealistic and pointless compared to the possible goods that manipulating human genes could bring. I honestly think that someone just wanted to make a movie about dinosaurs in modern time and the only way to have dinosaurs today would be to somehow clone them. I don’t agree, however, with how the media has created negative connotations towards scientific research on genetics. Even though I might not agree fully with a lot of the research that is done, I still feel as if there needs to be more sides shown in these films on genetics.

2004-04-16T10:03:00.000-07:00

Dr. Ray Bohlin's discussion of Jurassic Park is indicative of most science fiction in general. He argues, and I agree, that perception of scientific possibility and intent far outpaces feasibility and ethics. Most of the American movie-going public has little background in genetics or science as a whole. Consequently, their perceptions of these sciences are largely developed by mainstream science fiction works such as Jurassic Park. The question remains how accurate these works are in regards to the scientific ideas they discuss? In my humble opinion, they are not accurate at all.

Jurassic Park's main point is that scientists' research outpaces their ethics. Malcom in the film says to Hammond that he is standing on the backs of geniuses and taking the next step without considering the consequences. I think scientists at all levels are aware of their research's implications. So to some extent Crichton is wrong is his presentation of scientists and hence the underlying assumption and criticism of science.

2004-04-15T08:43:00.000-07:00

The movie Jurassic Park directed by Steven Spielberg and based on the novel by Michael Crichton, is a good example of a film that addresses the issue of cloning. Jurassic Park explicitly warns society about the dangers of cloning. For the park the DNA must have been altered to domesticate the dinosaurs like zoo animals. The scientists used other animals’ DNA, such as a frog’s, to fill in the missing links to the dinosaur DNA they had obtained. This adds to the danger of cloning because the scientists were almost blindly manipulating the makeup of the dinosaur and frog DNA while they still did not know everything about the original dinosaur DNA. The eager scientists also knew that they made errors before, yet they continue to allow visitors in the park without worrying about the potential of these errors. As one of the scientists explains in the movie, they think they have an animal correctly made but as the dinosaur grows they might notice something wrong, a gene or hormone that was supposed to be released may not be operating. So they have to go back and see what is wrong with that dinosaur’s DNA and then try again. Why did the scientists not continue to worry about such errors? While focusing on the piles of cash they could receive from such a theme park, they did not consider the maximum potential danger of cloning dinosaurs. Dr. Ray Bohlin, the president of Probe Ministries, wrote an essay called the “Worldview of Jurassic Park” where he takes a very conservative opinion on cloning and genetic engineering.

2004-04-14T12:12:00.000-07:00

Jurassic Park addresses some of the problem society has with genetics in a very interesting way. The film paints a picture that the genetically created, in contrast to the divinely created, are monstrous and frightening. These unnatural creations threated the very foundation of society and will spread outside their creators control. Many parallels can be drawn towards all areas of genetic engineering. Genetically engineering humanity may create effects beyond our control or foresight. Science may inadvertently create monsters that we will not be able to stop.

A contrast exists between how the very natural nuclear family of the two children paired with the two archaeologists and the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs, although beautiful at times, are wholely unnatural whereas the film depicts the family as very natural. The familial order of things the divinely mandated order of the world whereas dinosaurs are man's introduction and perversion.

The question of what is natural is interesting to me. Has modern medicine created a humanity that is unnatural and worthy of the same criticism as the dinosaurs? Or are medicine and vaccines fundamentally different than genetics? Only genetics passes along its benefits to the next generation. They are not free to reject its benefits as they are free to reject medicine if they so please. Who are we to decide what should be natural and does our desire to enhance our own health outweigh the values of nature?

2004-04-14T12:05:00.000-07:00

One of my main criticisms of Jurrasic Park is that it portrays scientists (with the implication of science in general) of being inherently reckless in their handling of potentially dangerous new technologies and effectively exposing the world to far more risk than potential benefit would compensate. This is highly unlikely since the vast majority of science works by peer-review and significant numbers of experiments in parallel, essentially requiring significant oversight and weighing of ethical and practical concerns. While there are some unscrupulous scientists, the current mechanisms of oversight and peer-review help ensure that those individuals are shown to be such and are thus discredited.

Now that I think about it.... Are there any movies which portray science/scientists in a good light?

2004-04-14T12:02:00.000-07:00

Purvi makes an excellent point about the programmatic view of potential. Gattaca takes the stance that the genetic enhanced are programmed and in some sense limited by that programming. The Director says, "No one excedes their potential." This point is the crux of Gattaca's criticisms of genetic engineering and eugenics. Eugenics through genetic engineering will create a genetic determinist view on human potential. IE Little Johnny will achieve no more than his genes will let him. This view upsets me and much of society and this may be the biggest problem society has towards genetic engineering (I have surveyed all of humanity except the reader of this post, and they unanimously agree).

Genetic determinism, like Kirby mentions, is flawed. The audience sees in Gattaca how strong Vincent is because of his frailty and human spirit. He achieves so much more than Eugene despite Eugene's blessing with the best genetic material. Vincent is the strongest reason why the audience fails to accept genetic determinism.

Outside of Gattaca, I think most genetic researchers have rejected genetic determinism. A term known as epigenics is introduced to describe the modern perception of the nature vs. nuture debate. Traits are formed by a multitude of genes, gene-gene interaction, an at all levels by interaction with the environment. Therefore, a deterministic view of genetics is flawed because it needs a monogenic, one gene to one trait, relationship to operate.

2004-04-14T06:45:00.000-07:00

Jurrasic Park is a story of men going too far with the little that they know. Knowing only enough to create destruction and chaos. Much of what they were doing was blindly stabbing in the dark to produce an outcome. Using frong dna with the remnants of dinosaur dna to spawn these hellish monsters. It seems wierd since the people (the doctor and the family) reponsible for all of this seem to be benign. Perhaps the movie is trying to make us have a general dislike to unatual things such as eugenics, but not to those who trick themselves into thinking it can be used to make the world a better place. It seems that questions of ethics were never asked in the making of these creatures as I was watching the movie.

A lot of the message of ethics does get covered up by the action scenes, the movie is not totally like Gattaca where every part of it seems to bash genetic engineering, and that is something I can appreciate.

2004-04-13T20:35:00.000-07:00

Jurassic Park centers its story around the issues concerning cloning. In Jurassic Park, dinosaurs are cloned by using genetic material that was found in amber. The scientists are blinded by their desire to create dinosaurs and the advancement in science that their creations would bring, not to mention the profit they would receive. They do not think of what could go wrong by bringing back these creatures from a distant past. They thought they would be able to control them by their strong high tech fences and such, but they knew nothing of dinosaurs but their fossils. Tampering with genes in this film created disaster. But what would you expect from bringing back dinosaurs, a nice place for families to observe and have a picnic? Honestly, who would want to bring back the fiercest creatures to ever have walked the earth?

2004-04-10T17:46:00.000-07:00

While Gattaca presents a very dystopian view of the future society based on genetic engineering, it is only one potential negative resulting society from the development of genetic engineering. What Gattaca fails to show is the other side of the spectrum, where things can go just as horribly wrong, if not worse.

Picture, if you will...

With the rise of human genetic engineering comes a fragmentation of society into haves and have-nots. Protests against the genetic engineering of humans have a wide base of supporters, including various churches (i.e. "Stop messing with God's design!") and trade unions (i.e. The reduction in value of unenhanced workers resulting in a weaker union bargaining position with management), gaining support from a significant portion of Congress, from various congressmen on both sides of the aisle as well as those who favor the status quo. On the other side, there are a number of genetically enhanced people and their advocates who, for the most part, are demanding acceptance in society, while a few more radical members advocate that the genetically enhanced deserve more rights than those who are not, "as befits their superior intellect and abilities". Eventually, this develops into widespread contempt and disgust on both sides, leading to an effective equivalent of race riots. If such a conflict is sufficiently prolonged, many politicians (likely being unenhanced themselves, given the age requirements for holding such positions) will lend active government support to the unenhanced.

Eventually in such a conflict, either government or a corporation supported by reactionary donors will develop a virus or other biological/chemical weapon which targets those who are genetically engineered. With such a development, those who are engineered are effectively forced to serve the interests of the reactionaries or face death. In the newfound zeal of the reactionaries, the more radical members decide to develop new genetically engineered people, with abilities which lend them to being used as shock troopers (Resistance to most chemical weapons, tendencies for unquestioning obediance, low pain sensitivity, etc.), resulting in the creation and control of an entire class of people as living tools to serve the purposes that we would dare not subject a "pure-blooded human" to, but will happily sacrifice such a creature in said manner.

2004-04-09T19:12:00.000-07:00

“Genetic engineering represents our fondest hopes and aspirations as well as our darkest fears and misgivings,” as David Kirby explains in his essay The New Eugenics in Cinema: Genetic Determinism and Gene Therapy in GATTACA. Kirby continues to discuss how the film Gattaca was used to show a possible scenario where genetics could destroy our sense of self. It is scary how one day we could possibly be able to construct a child to our likings. So you go to the “doctor” one day and say I want my kid to be this tall, have this color hair and eyes, be able to do this or this, etc. Where does the concept of self-identity come in in a world where your future is already pre-determined and you accept the fact that everything is already there waiting for you. You wouldn’t be a person anymore, but a robot who’s purpose has already been determined.
Being able to determine your child’s genes also presents the problem of an elite social group forming. This option of constructing your child would be expensive, and would only be available to those with enough money to pay for this service. This would create a whole new form of discrimination. We saw how Vincent was discriminated by having imperfect genes. This new class of people of exceptional genes would form, and could possibly lead to civil unrest.

2004-04-09T12:36:00.000-07:00

Gattaca is essentially a heroic tale about a person who is deemed to be inferior because of his genetics defying the odds and, through his own extraordinary will and determinatation, is able to pass himself of as one of the elite, thus achieving his lifelong dream of going into space. This demonstrates the fallacy of pure genetic determinism, since obviously if such were the case, Vincent would never be able to achieve his goals under a cloak of secresy.

However, like many other heroic tales, Gattaca only mentions in passing those who try and fail. A "borrowed ladder" is not a particularly unusual occurrence, judging by both the police and the private investigators comments during the movie. In all likelyhood in Gattaca's society, those who wish to "play someone else's hand" typically get exposed somewhere along the line, either by the numerous genetic tests or by simply performing consistantly less well than expected. So, even assuming that genetic tests were not a factor in the hiring decisions of employees, the average applicant who was genetically enhanced would likely be more likely to be hired than the average applicant who was not, simply because while those who lack such genetic modifications may be able to compensate for their newfound shortcomings, those who have genetic modifications will have that much less difficulty in bringing their intellectual and physical resources to bear at their job.

Developing a society that is completely genetics-blind on the basis that those who lack enhancements in that regard will be able to defy the odds like Vincent, is simply a naive idea at best. The main problem with Gattaca's society is that while employers obsess over genetics, they completely ignore whether or not an applicant can use their talents efficiently and in a constructive manner. With the idea that the elite are supposed to be effectively perfect, those who are genetically enhanced are almost obligated to do whatever their job is competantly while presenting the appearence that such tasks are trivial in order to secure their place at work, leaving them unable to bear the full extent of their abilities for the job.

2004-04-09T08:27:00.000-07:00

Kirby's essay is a great explaination of how the genetically inferior Vincent turn out to be the superior being of the movie. Essentially it comes down to Vincent's human spirit being the overiding factor. While other characters are stopped by their perfectionadn their inability to perform to wha their genetic code says, Vincent throws that away and opts for remaking himself. he goes beyond all the rules of this society even if it could kill him. For example, Vincent was able to beat his brother at swiming because he would always push himself all the way while his brother would save energy for the swim to the shore.

Kirby even seems to hint at the machine-like nature of the elite, everything for them has been predetermined and everythig has been optimized; there humanity has been debuged in a sense. Kirby suggests that the flaws and the chaos bring about things that go beyond the perfect mind and body. It allows us to wonder how much farther we can push ourselves. We don't know, and so this sense of mystery compells (sp) us to push harder. Some of us just can't bare not knowing what we can really do once we push our limits. On the other hand we have the genetic elite. They have no reason to do this. It is already defined for them. As the mission director stated in the movie "One can not exceed their potential, if they did then we were not gauging it corectly in the first place." This idea totally neglects to consider that a person can grow stronger (mentally, physically , etc) and push to become better. This is also an idea that Kirby brings up. And so we see that many of these elites who do not meet their potential remain permantly broken. It is like a computer program gone bad, a case is met that disagrees with the system and thus the system fails w/ no way of recovering. It the same sense when elites like Anton or Eugene fail to meet their inate potential, they also fail w/o recovering. On the other hand we have Vincent who wins even wehn he loses. Vincent has the human gift of learning from his past and becoming better from failure. This makes him the superior being.

2004-04-08T17:21:00.000-07:00

In response to the essay about Gattaca that Michael referred to in his post I agree when he says that “genetic engineering represents society’s worst fears about science as social force.” The whole movie is based on the discrimination the main character receives because he was a naturally conceived child and not made to be perfect like the others. When it comes to careers, romance, and friends, genetic makeup plays the key role and the value of their individual lives are lost. I also agree with Lee Silver in the article as he “argues that limited access to gene-therapy technologies will lead to a society of genetic haves and have-nots: ‘That’s my fear about genetic engineering: it is so powerful, it is so good, it will only be available to those who have money’ (Radford).” If we do ever reach the point where we can manufacture our own children, it will be decades before it reaches an affordable price. Society already discriminates by social class, but won’t the elite be the first to genetically engineer their children and further make themselves piles of money. We will no longer have to work for what we become, it will already be predetermined. If a child is born with a singing talent all she will have to do is give her blood sample, not perform, to a record company. Like in the movie, Vincent’s interview for Gattaca took a whole 5 seconds as they took his blood sample. He did not have to answer any questions or get the chance to feel proud of any of his accomplishments, nor did he get the chance to feel nervous. Determining our lives also takes away emotions, essentially making us robots.

2004-04-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

The movie Gattaca showed us a world where genetics were everything, where you could tell all things about a person just by looking at their genes. In this movie, we follow the main character Vincent through his struggles in a perfect world. He himself has imperfections in his genes, and this makes him less of a person than the genetically enhanced people of Gattaca. He is forced to take over another person’s identity in order to do what he wants to do. Individualism is a main theme for the film Gattaca. For example, Vincent as a child challenged his brother Anton, who is genetically perfect, to a swimming match, when Vincent beats him, he realizes the power of human will and individuality. This theme is played throughout the film, you can’t replace the human spirit with genetic perfection.

2004-04-07T11:01:00.000-07:00

Gattaca is a really intersting movie because it shows the way that the genetically "inferior" Vincent out does other characters who are suposedly genetically superior to him. The movie shows how Vincent grew into more advanced being than the elite simply through pushing his physical and mental limits. The movie shows that there is no such thing as a set human potantial, but that our potential can be increased through growth. Vincent beat Anton at swimming because he didn't save anything for the swim back to shore. He forced himself to go beyond his limits. Heh, this sound like an episode of my favorite tv show (which I will not name) : everytime one of the characters encounters a near death experience from fighting (and doesn't die) he becomes 10 times stronger after healing.

These genetic elite just don't have a reason to try harder, the world has told them that they are already perfect, what could be better than perfect? This is their downfall. At one point in the movie the mission director says that "one can not exceed their potential." Although this is true in the most technical sense, the way the director said it made it seem like there is no room for growth and no possible way for one to push and go beyond one's own limits. Of course someone would fail if they obide by principals such as this. Even if we are born with perfection, we aren't necesarily born with the ambition it takes to do what Vincent did. Vincent's ambition seemed to be fueled by the fact that society was holding him down along with the fact that he beat his brother (an elite) at a certain swiming competition.

Aside from the eugenics, Gattaca raises some interesting points about discrimination but that is not the topic of this group blog...

2004-04-06T15:47:00.000-07:00

Gattaca is an interesting movie addressing the problems with eugenics. I saw a lot of parallels between this film and Brave New World. Both address problems with eugenics and both are tied to contemporary fears. Brave New World was concerened with the death of the family, self-identity and the intellectual while Gattaca is concerened with the death of human frailty and spirit. One interesting point I'd like to make is that each is heavily influenced by the perception of technology at their respective time periods as well as human attitudes and fears.

When Brave New World was written when a prevalent theme in literature was the death of rugged individualism in the US. A shift from the rural landscape to the busy cities must have shaken peoples self-identity. In a city everyone is much more closely linked and no one was required to be as self-reliant anymore. I think there was a lot of issues and fears controlling reproduction as well. I believe people thought of this as largely unholy. Huxley's book reflected a lot of these ideas to me.

Gattaca is also interesting because there is so much fear regarding the death of our identity in film. With little discussion, I'll point out Fight Club and it's portrayl of the death of the male identity by consumerism. Beyond that, society as a whole is largely questioning what effects genetic engineering will have on their lives. Perceptions however might be inaccurate in many cases because so few peole in the US understand what germ line therapy or other genetic engineering technics can actually achieve. In this regards I'd like to point out David Kirby's essay on Gattaca and some of the ideas concerning genetic determinism and the new eugenics.

2004-04-06T12:30:00.000-07:00

Gattaca is a very good movie as it brings up issues that we might have to face in the future if we continue with genetic engineering. The main issue is discrimination. If all our children are planned out ahead of time they will be made to be perfect and standards among people will reach an impossible high, something that naturally conceived children will never be able to measure up to. Society already discriminates others by age, race, and gender, things determined by our genes. How long will it be before society discriminates based solely on our DNA? The main character, Vincent, is forced with no other choice but to pretend he is someone else in order to achieve his dream of making it into space. This helps convey the message that the value of life will be lost once we begin to genetically engineer our children. If there is nothing to dream or hope for, what’s the point of living? As soon as a child was born, the doctors were able to tell when he would die and of what causes. In the movie if someone has a love interest they would go to a common place that scans samples of that person of interest and reveals genetic information about him. Society has become a place where the goal is to create the best and most unimaginably perfect person. If everything is already mapped out for us when we are born, what is the point of living and learning? A scene that kind of struck me is when they were at a show by a famous pianist, and the piece that was being played was only made for people with 12 fingers. The parents purposely created a child with 12 fingers in order to make him a genius pianist. As everyone is manufactured to be the best at their own fields the value of life definitely decreases.

2004-04-04T09:44:00.000-07:00

Eugenics is a very touchy subject since there are so many good and bad things that can result from it. Genetic disorders are some of the most dibilitatiing diseasesthere are although they don't occur too often. They are also some of the most costly disorders to manage. So the question remains, is it worth it to genetically manipulate ourselves? Well my answer is pretty simple: avoid genetic manipulation of human cells prior to birth. Most people are born with good enough physical and mental faculties to live their lives the way they want. Most of us can walk and think and do pretty much anything we set our minds on doing. The only people that this genetic engineering can really help are those that are born with severe genetics disorders and can't live a normal life because of it, and there is treatment being developed for those people. So this kind of genetic determinism is completly unnesesary.

2004-04-03T12:39:00.000-08:00

Eugenics is a very controversial topic. It seems that sometimes genetically engineering is good, but sometimes it can be bad, and then sometimes it isn’t good or bad. For example manipulating the human genome can be good if it is preventing some life threatening disease, but then it could be bad if you are just trying to create a genetically elite person. Manipulating food can be good for world hunger and such, but then what are the possible side effects of adding in all these chemicals?

My position on genetically enhancing people and food is to generally stray from it. If we mess around with genetics too much, we are destined to have a genetically enhanced society. Being fully human and natural has worked since the beginning of time, why start messing it up now? We are humans, we have imperfections, it comes along with the territory, deal with it. That’s what makes us unique from one another. I never want a child where I picked out its traits and characteristics, only perfection comes from imperfection.

To further explore these issues, we will use the movies Gattaca and Jurrassic Park. Both these movies deal with issues surrounding genetic engineering.

2004-04-02T21:04:00.000-08:00

The main two facets of Genetic Engineering that will be discussed throughout our group blog are that which deals with genetically engineering products for general use (such as crops, drugs, etc.) and that which deal with the implications of potentially rewriting and improving the human genome.

Our newly developed ability to genetically engineer crops for greater yield or greater nutrition simply seems to be a more efficient means of getting useful strains of crops than our traditional farming methods of replanting seeds primarily from the high yielding crops, imposing an artifical selection mechanism on the plants to serve our needs. The main danger of using such a method is simply the risk of cross-contamination and mislabeling, such that a strain of rice with an engineered strong blood-thinning agent is mixed up with the rice engineered for maximum nutritional value, however these are more problems with logistics and distribution rather than with the fundamental concepts.

On the other hand, the potential for genetically engineering the human genome does have far more potential pitfalls. Simply put, the social strain of having a society with an engineered elite and a non-engineered worker class lead to an inherently unstable situation which, given the race riots and other outbursts of violence and oppression that have occurred over more trivial genetic differences, is almost inevitably going to lead to some form of civil strife, particularly since there is the new basis for one side to claim inherent superiority and thus more power.

There are two obvious, but inherently flawed routes in dealing with this problem. One of them is to have an outright ban on practical genetic engineering, which is inevitably going to be circumvented by those wishing to improve themselves in such a fashion. The other route is to mandate genetic enhancements for everyone, which has a number of ethical issues concerning an individual's right to self-determination.

The solution to this problem that I have thus far developed essentially requires that cost not be an issue for any given citizen who wishes to updates their genome at any time they so choose, and that those who voluntarily choose to be non-engineered (essentially bio-tech Luddites and the like) be granted the means to sustain their living, so long as they make a sufficient contribution to society.

Judging from what I have seen thus far, attempting to turn genetic engineering into a theological issue will inevitably be more of a hindrance than a help in developing society to acknowledge the new reality.

2004-04-01T08:22:00.000-08:00

Genetic engineering has several areas I would like to focus our discussion on. First of all, I think genetic privacy will become a big issue if science moves in a direction of germ line enhancement. The issues involved with access are complicated. Should the technology be restricted because it won't be universally accessible or should it be adopted under the assumption cost will go down and even the lower socio-economic classes will have access to it? If the second is adopted genetic profiling by employers MUST be avoided, otherwise the proverbial rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. What about my libertarian leanings? Well, that's not the role of government to regulate that unfortunately.

It might be an entirely mute point if genetic engineering won't necessarily make the genetically enhanced superior. This is what Gattaca argues and I tend to agree. But genetic engineering may play the same role as vaccinations do now. They might serve only to mitigate some of the problems of genetic born diseases (there's not a lot). People with Hutchkinson's disease might be a think of the past two decades from now, just like polio is now. Access to vaccines in the third world is not terrific but it's improving and as the cost of genetic screening and treatement fall so too will those who do not have access.

For me, the question of whether we SHOULD adopt genetic manipulation of our genome is not a religious one. Others often say we will be playing God with our genome, but I think this is less important than how the technology will be used. We already tinker with the genome of plants for great success in eliminating hunger and starvation. Genetically enhanced rice is used throughout Asia and other forms of crop eugenics have been used State-side for years, just look at the produce you by in stores. The promises of healthier life should outweigh the moral questions people have provided genetic engineering keeps in mind basic ethics.

2004-03-25T20:39:00.000-08:00

Genetic Engineering is a broad issue. It is not only about cloning humans, it is about things like enhancing foods and treating diseases. The most interesting aspect, though, is cloning, and that is why movies are made about cloning even though lots of people disagree with engineering our foods as well. There has yet to be a huge summer blockbuster about genetically engineered apples (even though I do vaguely remember a movie and cartoon called “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”). It seems like all these movies show only the negative consequences of cloning because that is what the majority relates to. Jurassic Park is the first movie that pops into my head when I think of cloning in pop culture, another popular one is Gattaca which I have yet to see. Jurassic Park sends the message that cloning will backfire on society. The scientists did not think everything through completely before going all the way and creating the dinosaurs, so they had a high price to pay. Of course when scientists talk about cloning cells to make kidneys and other organs that could be perfect matches for transplants, genetic engineering sounds like a promising field. It seems, though, that as scientists finally accomplish that goal they will be more eager to actually go ahead and create a complete human clone. It kind of goes along with that phrase “if you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll ask for a glass of milk”; scientists will never just be satisfied with cloning organs to help treat diseases. Once given the permission to do that, they will want to go even farther.

2004-03-25T19:51:00.000-08:00

As the writer of the first semi-official post to the blog, I figure I might as well start of with something that is somewhat light-hearted:

Source

(Note: When I say semi-official, I mean please don't grade this as a substantive entry. :P)

2004-03-19T13:27:00.001-08:00

blah

2004-03-19T13:27:00.000-08:00

Yay, I got mail, yay!!!

2004-03-19T13:23:00.000-08:00

ALL YOUR GENES ARE BELONG TO US

2004-03-19T13:22:00.000-08:00

2nd is the best

2004-03-19T13:18:00.000-08:00

I win the first post race. I guess I have the best genetic material!