Cool Things Can Be Done When A Populace Truely Separates Church From State

[Athena]

Embryos created with DNA from 3 people
06:21 AM PST on Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Associated Press
NWCN.com

LONDON - British scientists have created human embryos containing DNA from two women and one man, a procedure that could potentially prevent conditions including epilepsy, diabetes and heart failure.

Though the preliminary research has raised concerns about the possibility of genetically modified babies, the scientists say that the embryos are still only primarily the product of one man and one woman.

"We are not trying to alter genes, we're just trying to swap a small proportion of the bad ones for some good ones," said Patrick Chinnery, a professor of neurogenetics at Newcastle University involved in the research.

The process aims to avoid passing onto children bad mitochondria genes, which are contained outside the nucleus in a normal female egg. Mitochondria are a cell's energy source, but mistakes in their genetic code can result in serious diseases like epilepsy, strokes, and mental retardation.

In their research, Chinnery and colleagues used normal embryos created from one man and one woman that had defective mitochondria in the woman's egg. They then transplanted that embryo into an emptied egg donated from a second woman who had healthy mitochondria.

"The proportion of genes in the mitochondria is infinitesimal," said Francoise Shenfield, a fertility expert with the European Society of Human Fertility and Reproduction. Shenfield is not connected to the Newcastle University Research.

Only trace amounts of a person's genes come from the mitochondria, and experts said it would be incorrect to say that the embryos have three parents.

"Most of the genes that make you who you are are inside the nucleus," Chinnery said. "We're not going anywhere near that."

So far, 10 such embryos have been created, though they have not been allowed to develop for more than five days. Chinnery hoped that after further experiments in the next few years the process might be available to parents undergoing in-vitro fertilization.

Similar research has been conducted in animals in Japan, and has already led to the birth of healthy mice who had their mitochondria genes corrected.

Shenfield said that further tests to assess the safety and efficacy of the process were necessary before it could be offered as a potential treatment.

[TXChris]

That's pretty damn cool. Obviously, it has a huge potential for the betterment of the public's health, not just in the U.S., but also the entire world. That being said, there are a few possible problems I see with it, with the following being the worst:

There is the very real possibility of a doctrine to produce a "perfect" race. Genocide, no matter how it is attempted, is never a good thing. But, this, of course, would be gently mandated by a government under the guise of "public health." It would not be something that would be declared at one time. Instead, this would be a gentle nudging of a compilation of laws that does, together, what a single law would never have been able to do. THIS is how government works.

There, then, becomes the opportunity for "gene warfare." Forget nukes, dirty bombs, and eco-terror. The only thing a country would have to do is interfere with the "gene thereapy" of those countries they find detrimental to their plans. The possibility for a country to make it safe for themselves to do what they want is more than ample reason for a government to do such things.

So, yeah, while I think the possibilities are just absolutely incredible, what scares me is the government's all-but-guaranteed eventual intervention.

[swivel]

Very cool. No more Cystic Fibrosis.

Goddamn, nevermind. Just realized they are only playing with mitochondrial DNA. Nice first step, though.

[CPL CHUD]

There is the very real possibility of a doctrine to produce a "perfect" race. Genocide, no matter how it is attempted, is never a good thing. But, this, of course, would be gently mandated by a government under the guise of "public health." It would not be something that would be declared at one time. Instead, this would be a gentle nudging of a compilation of laws that does, together, what a single law would never have been able to do. THIS is how government works.

There, then, becomes the opportunity for "gene warfare." Forget nukes, dirty bombs, and eco-terror. The only thing a country would have to do is interfere with the "gene thereapy" of those countries they find detrimental to their plans. The possibility for a country to make it safe for themselves to do what they want is more than ample reason for a government to do such things.


I think this might be a tad bit too alarmist. They're talking about removing birth defects and possible future disease by swapping bad mitochandria with good mitochandria strands, which really don't account for much of the genetic code. This wouldn't be practical for "gene warfare" and suggesting it could lead to the rise of another Nazi minded party is like suggesting that we scrap pharmaceutical research because it could lead to new types of chemical weapons.

[TXChris]

It's not alarming in that it is actually more than likely what would happen. Everyone is talking "universal healthcare." The biggest problem with that is once the government is paying for everyone's healthcare (with our money, of course) it makes them feel as though they have a say in a person's health. It's the same with any socialist medicine. So, though this is only the beginning, it will lead to more advanced breakthroughs. Seeing that as it is, do you honestly believe any government would not use that to limit their healthcare costs that they are spending our tax money on? The more healthy the populace is the less the cost of healthcare to the government.

If you want to see what is wrong with government healthcare up close and personal, check out the V.A. It's a crappy experience all around. And people want the government to take care of everyone's healthcare? Come on.

[CPL CHUD]

It's not alarming in that it is actually more than likely what would happen. Everyone is talking "universal healthcare." The biggest problem with that is once the government is paying for everyone's healthcare (with our money, of course) it makes them feel as though they have a say in a person's health. It's the same with any socialist medicine. So, though this is only the beginning, it will lead to more advanced breakthroughs. Seeing that as it is, do you honestly believe any government would not use that to limit their healthcare costs that they are spending our tax money on? The more healthy the populace is the less the cost of healthcare to the government.

If you want to see what is wrong with government healthcare up close and personal, check out the V.A. It's a crappy experience all around. And people want the government to take care of everyone's healthcare? Come on.I don't see us becoming socialist either. I don't want it and most of the people I know don't want it. I didn't see anybody from the socialist party making it through the primaries. I really don't see the reason for alarm especially when this procedure has the potential of saving people from future disease and I'm totally for people being healthy.

I'm also a fan of sci-fi though, so I guess I know where you're headng with this....

http://www.chrisglass.com/things/movies/img/gattaca.jpg

[TXChris]

Honestly, I am all about it, on an emotional level. My problem comes when, taking emotion out of the equation and looking at the history of political climates, one can easily see the probable outcome. People don't want to believe "1984" can really happen. But, the truth is, it has already been happening. The passing of legislation since 9/11 makes this especially noticeable. Thought laws are prevalant. Knockless warrents are becoming the norm. Hell, the fact that the government allows us to be searched without our knowledge should be alarming. The verbage in laws allowing this compromise of personal liberty is vague which makes it easy to arrest those who speak against the policies of the current government. Once upon a time, we, as the populace of this country, found our political views and expression protected. It was good while it lasted.

Remember, it's not about voting in someone who is a card-carrying member of a Socialist party. Rather it is the implementation of Socialist-leaning laws. Every one passed sets a precedence and makes it easier to pass the next one. Don't forget, Hilter was elected democratically.

[swivel]

Don't forget, Hilter was elected democratically.

You are a complete moron, sir. You have finally convinced me with this bullshit.

Hitler never got more than 37% of the votes. And the vast majority of the 63% against were VERY against. Nothing about the German state during the rise of the National Socialists qualifies as a Democracy.

Besides, the position that he was "voted" for was not what allowed him to take complete power. That was done in back rooms with groups of just a few men. You might as well claim that Napoleon was voted into power by a Democracy.

How do you even get away with pretending that you are smart? And why would someone as seemingly-bright as Athena fall for it? I'm perplexed.

[TXChris]

Exactly. And my point about Hilter being elected democratically was a jab at your continued defense of such a flawed system in multiple posts. Granted, it wasn't a true democracy, but then again most flavors of Socialism aren't true Socialist societies either. Apparently you're not smart enough to catch it. As far as being "voted" in not being the direct cause of his power grab, in the words of '80s youth, well duhhhhhh. What is was attempting to show people is that once one is in power it is not too difficult to grab more power. Come on, Swivel. You need to get that brain going and try to actually contribute something here. :)

[swivel]

Exactly. And my point about Hilter being elected democratically was a jab at your continued defense of such a flawed system in multiple posts. Granted, it wasn't a true democracy, but then again most flavors of Socialism aren't true Socialist societies either. Apparently you're not smart enough to catch it. As far as being "voted" in not being the direct cause of his power grab, in the words of '80s youth, well duhhhhhh. What is was attempting to show people is that once one is in power it is not too difficult to grab more power. Come on, Swivel. You need to get that brain going and try to actually contribute something here. :)

Nice attempt at digging yourself out of that hole, bub. You were made an ass of, and we both know it.

What did you do, rush off to read some Wiki after I embarrassed you back there? I'm shocked, I took you for someone unteachable.

Maybe I can help you with your "Lost Cause" bullshit as well.

[TXChris]

And yet again, you have wasted everyone's time by saying absolutely nothing of any kind of merit. I have noticed, Swivel, that when you are shown to be an idiot, which has been quite often lately, you resort to childish berating tactics. Man, that must suck to have to live a life like that.

[gprime]

You are a complete moron, sir. You have finally convinced me with this bullshit.

Hitler never got more than 37% of the votes. And the vast majority of the 63% against were VERY against. Nothing about the German state during the rise of the National Socialists qualifies as a Democracy.


I'm going to have to take issue with that claim. Democracy does not have a single, exact form that we embody and no other state does. Multi-party, parliamentary systems that function through coalition agreements have been and remain one of the most common incarnations of the democratic process. I would argue it is more democratic than our system.

As per Hitler's rise to power, in 1933 his party took 288 seats in the Reichstag, and had a 340 member coalition, giving his government a legal controlling majority. And legal questions regarding a pre-election attack on on the Reichstag prevented the 81 Communists from assuming their seats, thus strengthening Hitler's coalition. It was with this that he was first granted a four-year dictator position by popular vote among the legislature. And this measure had widespread support, as only 94 of the 647 elected legislators voted against this. What he did after that was legal as per the terms of said law.

I mention this because it shows the issue with unchecked democracy. Even if we assume that the democratic system is valid, not something I'm convinced of, without certain strictly enforced limits, it cannot work. We are seeing the same thing playing out here now. That isn't to say our current disregard for the Constitution is a pre-text for the slaughter of millions of Jews and other minorities. But I think you get the point.

[swivel]

I'm going to have to take issue with that claim. Democracy does not have a single, exact form that we embody and no other state does. Multi-party, parliamentary systems that function through coalition agreements have been and remain one of the most common incarnations of the democratic process. I would argue it is more democratic than our system.

As per Hitler's rise to power, in 1933 his party took 288 seats in the Reichstag, and had a 340 member coalition, giving his government a legal controlling majority. And legal questions regarding a pre-election attack on on the Reichstag prevented the 81 Communists from assuming their seats, thus strengthening Hitler's coalition. It was with this that he was first granted a four-year dictator position by popular vote among the legislature. And this measure had widespread support, as only 94 of the 647 elected legislators voted against this. What he did after that was legal as per the terms of said law.

I mention this because it shows the issue with unchecked democracy. Even if we assume that the democratic system is valid, not something I'm convinced of, without certain strictly enforced limits, it cannot work. We are seeing the same thing playing out here now. That isn't to say our current disregard for the Constitution is a pre-text for the slaughter of millions of Jews and other minorities. But I think you get the point.

I see your point. I always laugh when people claim that Hitler was put in power by a Democracy. The mistake being made is to look at the end result of Hitler's life, and pretend that it was predicated on a popular vote by a willing (and stupid) majority. Nothing of the sort ever took place. It was a vote of a minority, followed by Napoleonic scheming. If you look at the writings of Hitler's contemporaries, they dismissed him as a fanatic very early on, and never feared the man would get in power. It was the squabbling between parties that thought THEY had a chance which nullified each other and opened the door for the National Socialists. It would be like Perot being elected while people were making fun of his ears on the one hand, and canceling each other out between R and D on the other.