[Vortex]

What do you believe my friends about bioethics? Is something usefull to the world or just restricts the full development of science? Do you believe that the restrictions are necessary or we should let the scientists do whatever they want in genetics using the new biotechnology?

[enahs]

In an ideal world I think science should not be restricted. But also in an ideal world peoples motives are honorable and valiant.

We do not live in an ideal world though.

Everybody in the science industry Boo's president Bush when he vetoed the embryonic stem cell veto. Yes, it would have pushed science a head. But it also prevented a company from actually growing thousands of babies in a glass jar like the scene from the TV show the X-Files. This is not a theoretical thing, there was an actual company with the room and equipment and everything ready to go and start cloning babies for stem cells. I wish I remembered the companies name, and I am unfortunately at work and do not have the time to find it. It was not very well publicized for various political reasons. You also have the aspect of people not having good intentions for mankind as a whole when doing this research when making, but you also have to fight ignorance when it comes to people making policies.

It is tough to be a scientists.




We do not live in an idealized world, so no I do not think people should be able to do whatever. And the fact is most things that sound "wrong" and "disgusting" to people with regards to biotechnology only feel that way because they do not understand the context of such things.

[Vortex]

Personally i believe that we have to let the scientists do whatever they want. If we restrict them we don't let them create. I believe bioethics restricts the greatness of science. I say YES to hybrids, cloning, GM pets and whatever else the scientists can create. I am against the church and its stupid restrictions. Let the scientists CREATE. 

[enahs]

Science is nothing but a tool. Any tool can be used for good or evil. If the intent of the scientist it to further humanities knowledge, then I agree with you and so be it. If the scientists intent is just to make money or develop something for the purpose of only hurting people, etc, etc, then no.

You have to realize there are different reasons to do science.

[Mitch]

What scientific question is answered by GM Pets? Just to do something that hasn't been done, is not valid science.

[Vortex]

What scientific question is answered by GM Pets? Just to do something that hasn't been done, is not valid science.

With GM pets we can answer questions about medical diseases of the human. Or creation of human organs for people who need them. E.g mice with human brain cells or pigs with human organs. Or protect animals that are in threat to disappear. E.g in Japan from salmons scientists create a rare variety of trouts that are in danger to disappear.

BUT even if we accept that we have to do this because it hasn't been done and has not applications in science at all, even then, its cool for me.   

[enahs]

BUT even if we accept that we have to do this because it hasn't been done and has not applications in science at all, even then, its cool for me.

I have studied a lot of physics and engineering in my day. And I want to eventually go into research geared towards space exploration. My point is, I think for less then a thousand dollars I could build a "missile" that I could launch from here and blow up your house/apartment with you in it.

While that is nothing revolutionary, doing it will improve my scientific knowledge, and well, 'its cool for me'. I appreciate you being ok with that and being willing to sacrifice you and your family for my own personal scientific advancement. 

[Vortex]

I have studied a lot of physics and engineering in my day. And I want to eventually go into research geared towards space exploration. My point is, I think for less then a thousand dollars I could build a "missile" that I could launch from here and blow up your house/apartment with you in it.

While that is nothing revolutionary, doing it will improve my scientific knowledge, and well, 'its cool for me'. I appreciate you being ok with that and being willing to sacrifice you and your family for my own personal scientific advancement. 

I never said that innocent people must die in the name of science. Dont put words in my mouth please.

[enahs]

I never said that innocent people must die in the name of science. Dont put words in my mouth please.

Wait. But you have been saying let scientists do whatever they want. I am a scientists and I want to kill you (not really, this is just an example), so now that it effects you directly you are not for letting scientists do whatever they want?

And you said "

BUT even if we accept that we have to do this because it hasn't been done and has not applications in science at all, even then, its cool for me.

"

But, testing my missile on you is a scientific endeavor and "cool for me". So what gives? Have it one way or the other. Some sort of restriction or complete freedom (read: anarchy).

[Vortex]

Wait. But you have been saying let scientists do whatever they want. I am a scientists and I want to kill you (not really, this is just an example), so now that it effects you directly you are not for letting scientists do whatever they want?

But, testing my missile on you is a scientific endeavor and "cool for me". So what gives? Have it one way or the other. Some sort of restriction or complete freedom (read: anarchy).

Yes i said "let the scientists do whatever they want" but i didn't mean kill innocent people. I mean do whatever they want in their labs and in their experimental animals. Not to humans. There are laws that are against killing humans in the name of science. There is a difference between killing an animal (that's not illegal but some say its ethical wrong-i disagree) and killing a human in the name of science... I am sure you understand. I am not a NAZI for supporting human experiments... There is a difference between complete freedom and freedom that is not against the basic laws...

[enahs]

There is a difference between complete freedom and freedom that is not against the basic laws...

Basic law is due what it takes to survive and what you want. That is how the animal kingdom works.
This other concept of killing other humans is wrong are "stupid restrictions" from church, morals and society. Your words.

I want to evolve to survive and I want what I want, and not these stupid morals based off of religion. And I am also a scientists. Therefor based on what you have said if my experiment kills you, so be it, it is cool.



The whole point of my discourse is to illustrate the fact that there are many scientific endeavors that go against "the church" that you would be completely against if it directly effects you. There there are people in this world who do things in science not for the betterment of mankind and knowledge, but out of greed and lust for power.

You may want to allow scientists to do whatever they want. Fine. That is your choice. I wish our society was at a point ready for that. We are not. When any scientists anywhere in the world does something that effects your, or you do not like, you forfeit all your rights to complain; this includes something as little as complaining of poor gas millage of a certain car. It took a lot of smart people to design that horribly fuel inefficient new giant SUV.

[Vortex]

You distorted my words... My point of view... You didnt understood what i said OR DIDNT WANT to understand my words for your own reasons... You based your "preaching" to this distortion... I am 100% sure that the big majority of the people who red my text understands what i mean. I will not sit down to explain to you again and again. If this whats you understood from me, then fine... 

[enahs]

You said you think scientist should be free to do whatever they want. I give examples where you disagree with that. You then say I am distorting your words when I am not, I am simply pointing out the fallacy in your argument which you refuse to recognize.

Complain about not understanding you at all and leave the argument all you want. I can only respond to you based on what you say.

[Mitch]

Science needs to address valid questions that can pass muster through peer-review. The system is inherently restrictive, but not as restrictive as some politicians would like to see.

[JGK]

Personally, as I work in science in a highly regulated environment, I don't have a problem with (independent) oversight for both the lab and animal work involved.

It's there for a reason and I'm glad it is. It stops accusations that science is out of control and needs to be reigned in.  If the average household had to obey the same regulations pet owning would be non-existant.

It's ironic that those protesting against the animal use (PETA) euthanize over 90% of the animals they "rescue".