RoR: Forum

Good article, Ed.

The intelligent argument is that we could "eliminate the possibility of the child later in life having Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s diseases, cancers, and a host of other ailments that plague humanity." But those who want to ban genetic engineering make all kinds of irrational counter-arguments... they see slippery slopes, things getting out of hand, or the rich will be able to do this but not the common family... and so forth.

Their counter-arguments are false. And everyone knows that if they, or their child, already had a horrible disease that this medical breakthrough could cure, they'd change their mind.

Stepping back and looking at this, it falls in place as an example of the major source of political ills we suffer: The belief that it is morally right, even necessary, to make laws that prohibit anything that anyone argues (rationally or otherwise), might be harmful under some circumstance (or scary, or offensive, or unpopular).

We have so much government interference in the medical sciences already with agencies like the FDA, and with the rules of nearly every aspect of health care delivery being covered by ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, HIPPA, and so on, ad nauseum, that no one thinks to question whether or not it is proper for the government to tell scientists or doctors that they are not permitted to do anything related to genetic engineering.

The day where most people would have felt at a gut level that they - the individuals - were the soviergns of the land and not someone in government... well, that day is long past.

Post 1

Saturday, December 5, 2015 - 2:07am

"National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins argued that the children that would result from such editing “can’t give consent to having their genomes altered” and that “the individuals whose lives are potentially affected by germline manipulation could extend many generations into the future.” Hille Haker, a Catholic theologian from Loyola University Chicago, agreed and proposed a two year ban on all research into such manipulation of genomes."

The children can't give consent? A Catholic theologian proposes a ban on saving children from becoming sick or curing them by acting on their genome? Evidently this world has become completely irrational. Health is involved here! Has the Catholic church, or any religion at all, ever proposed that children should NOT be baptized before the time when they've grown up to the point where they can take their own decision on religious matters? Has this Health director ever stated an opposition to baptism to protect children's BRAINS from being religiously manipulated for the whole of their life?

Evidently, with statements like those of Collins and Haker (his name is very appropriate, for his main occupation is to hack the content off of people's brains!) and the criminal events that religiously are taking place all over the world, it can't be denied that mankind is now way way back in prehistory. Do people like these really have a brain or is there nothing but a big big vacuum in their skull? Perhaps it would be a good idea if these kind of skulls were cut off or the vacuum's emptiness within sucked up with a strong sucking pump. Then the empty space could, perhaps, be filled with something useful or, else, rational mankind could, at least, get rid of such useless monsters...

Post 2

Sunday, December 6, 2015 - 7:35am

Steve – Good point about those who oppose engineering: if their children who had not consented as sperm, eggs, or embryos to have, for example, genes for cancer edited out, got cancer, they would embrace any treatment, including gene therapy, to cure them. And we on the pro-reason side should aggressively promote the “proactionary principle” of Max More that I highlight in my piece to counter the precautionary principle.

Manfred – FYI, Collins’ is author or The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. He comes from a religious perspective.

But here’s the latest, here’s the latest out of Switzerland. Live longer and prosper! “Scientists have identified the genes responsible for ageing and a longer lifespan.”

Post 3

Monday, December 7, 2015 - 3:57am

Legal prohibitions would be bad, of course. And some are in place already. I could not find the case from a few years ago, but a DNA sequencing company was stopped from selling its service as a diagnostic tool. The FDA claimed that the firm was not licensed as a medical practitioner. However, as I recall, the firm just re-branded the service and picked up where it left off.

If you put any relevant phrase in a search engine - "personal DNA sequencing" - you will find firms like 23 and Me, and Ancestry DNA. As for the positive applications - as opposed to passive information, useful as that can be - I have written about those "biohackers" that Ed mentioned.

Scientists and even do-it-yourself biohackers can now cheaply access DNA information that could allow them to discover cures for diseases and much more.

My stories are based in 2007 news, way back when such methods cost ten or 100 times what they do now.

Post 4

Monday, December 7, 2015 - 4:38am

Here's my piece on the 23andme case: "FDA Stopping the Genetics Revolution."

23andme offered tests that could tell individuals about their ancestery and genetic propensities for certain illnesses. The FDA banned 23andme offering the latter test not because the test results tended to be inaccurate. Rather, it argued that an “assessment for breast or ovarian cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a patient to undergo prophylactic surgery … or other morbidity-inducing actions, while a false negative could result in a failure to recognize an actual risk that may exist.” Similarly, “assessments for drug responses carry the risks that patients relying on such tests may begin to self-manage their treatments through dose changes or even abandon certain therapies…”

In other words, individuals are just too stupid and irresponsible to handle information about their own bodies and health. But what's really stupid and irresponsbile is to allow the FDA this power.

Post 5

Monday, December 7, 2015 - 7:42pm

Yeah Galt forbid the government actually allows a population to think for themselves...

Post 6

Monday, December 7, 2015 - 8:04pm

Thanks, Ed. Of course, the same risks obtain for any licensed and approved diagonstician. False positives and false negatives are always possible - indeed, they are statistically guaranteed.

Post 7

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 - 12:31am

@ Ed: Thank you for providing the information on Collins, as it strengthens, if at all necessary, my stated standpoint on how to handle people with empty skulls when they behave immorally and lethally against brain-using, peaceful, productive people. My suggestion also adds an original way on how to handle willful murders to my death penalty conclusion, as detailed in my article “An Objectivist’s Viewpoint of the Death Penalty” and my book “Ayn Rand, I and the Universe,” which were published on the pages of Rebirth of Reason. As I stated there willful murders have a human appearance but this is all that relates them with the peaceful, productive rest of the human population. What characterizes them is their hate against human beings, which is in itself sufficient proof that they are not humans; for feelings, as philosopher Ayn Rand taught us, are not tools to obtain knowledge. The foundation and the means to obtain the human condition, is the faculty of reason. A historical example for this observation was provided by the population that was surprised to see that the killers of the Clutter family had a human appearance, when they viewed them at their capture. (From “In Cold Blood”, by Truman Capote, End of Part 3)

While I know, of course, what happens to anyone who physically loses his brain, it allows me to present a rhetorical question: Does such loss allow these people to continue to live, then, spiritually? After all, since they have always rejected the standpoint of those who live materially, it should allow them, isn’t it so?, to “live” the way they and their religions always held real life to be, namely a spiritual life.

All this also supplements the wise words of the Arab thinker Abul'-Ala' al-Ma'arri (973-1057), who said: “Mankind is divided in two groups: Those with brains and no religion, and those with religion but no brains.” Which, for now well 1,000 years of time, confirms my statement to chop off their skull or suck off the vacuum within, should any such brainless beings commit a willful murder, for, as Ma’arri confirmed, they anyhow have no brains; so why do they need a skull? Just to enshroud the emptiness within? I know that my position is rather radical, but so is also willful murder, which demands radical solutions as a measure of public health.

P.S.: There's another excellent example for my suggestion, when Dave finally disassembles HAL 9000's "mind" in 2001: A Space Odyssey, after HAL (An acronym composed by the letters preceding the IBM acronym) had killed the rest of the crew.

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 12/08, 7:13am)

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 12/08, 7:18am)

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 12/09, 12:12am)

Post 8

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 - 6:21pm

Just an aside on a minor note: Manfred asked rhetorically, "Has the Catholic church, or any religion at all, ever proposed that children should NOT be baptized before the time when they've grown up to the point where they can take their own decision on religious matters?"

Well, yes, of course. The "Baptist" church, for one. The name was originally "Anabaptist" because they were opposed to infant baptism. Jesus was baptized as an adult, as we know. I believe that other Protestant churches also forego infant baptism. Moreover, although Catholics (and others) are baptized shortly after birth, the choice to join the church at First Communion is not made until age 7 (generally), the age of the onset of reason, certainly, no longer an infant. For Jews, the bar-mitzvah/bat-mitzvah comes later, about puberty, when as an "adult" (or at least no longer a child) the individual chooses to join the Nation of Israel, taking a special Hebrew name. (Catholics also have given names, baptism names, and, often, communion names. Choosing your communion name is common.)

A secular example here in Latin America is the Quinceanera, the 15th year for a girl, at which point she is no longer a nina but a senorita with a different status in the community. While 15 is the magic age for that, the cotillion, coming-out party, and similar rites of passage at various transitional ages are common across many cultures.

In one African tribe, the choice to accept circumcision can be made anytime between puberty and adulthood about 13 to 18. Before circumcision, a male is a child, and as such, actually, can have intercourse with the wives of other men because he is not a peer threat. After circumcision, his status changes, and he cannot have intercourse with other men's wives.

Baptism may well be irrational. However, I have my mother and two cats in urns on a bookshelf. We decorate my mother for her birthday. Rites of passage.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/09, 6:27pm)

Post 9

Friday, December 11, 2015 - 9:53pm