#Man has created life
zepp
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
that.
But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
just two weeks' time.
When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
Venter cautioned that the creation of artificial human or animal life
is a long way off because the synthetic bacteriophage — the virus that
was created — is a much simpler life form. Bacteriophages are viruses
that infect bacteria.
The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which
hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.
But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous:
Should we be playing God? Does the potential for good that new life
forms may have outweigh the harm they could do?
Arthur Caplan, who heads the University of Pennsylvania's Center for
Bioethics, says yes. This technology "is impressive. It's powerful and
it should be treated with humility and caution," Caplan says, "But we
should do it."
A genome is made up of DNA "letters," or base pairs, that combine to
"spell" an individual's chromosomes. The human genome project was
completed in April.
This summer, researchers at Venter's Institute for Biological Energy
Alternatives bought commercially available strands of DNA and, using a
new technology, coaxed them together to form a duplicate of the genome
of a bacteriophage called phi X.
"It's a very important technical advance," says Gerald Rubin, a
molecular geneticist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "You can
envision the day when one could sit down at a computer, design a
genome and then build it. We're still inventing the tools to make that
happen, and this is an important one."
Venter notes the synthetic bacteriophage has 5,000 base pairs in its
genome. The human genome has 3 billion, so similar work in human form
probably won't happen in this decade, he says.
To date, the largest genome that was synthesized was the
7,500-base-pair polio virus. But that was only semi-functional and
took three years to complete.
The researchers chose to put the new technology into the public domain
for all scientists to use. It will appear in the next few weeks on the
Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The technology raises safety issues, says David Magnus of Stanford's
Center for Biomedical Ethics. Even putting it in the public domain is
"a double-edged sword," he says. That presumes that allowing everyone
access will keep the good guys ahead of the bad guys. "It's a gamble.
... It's a bet that everyone has a stake in," he says.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
--
'A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is
very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle
over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without
discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the
syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors
are an abundant source of gain.'
Anatole France
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
-
"...too many whites are getting away with drug use."
-- Rush Limbaugh, on his short lived TV show
October 5, 1995
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
Jeffrey Turner
Great, now you've got a choice between creating a computer virus and
creating a real virus. I really wish they'd wait until they
understand more about the whole biochemistry of life, there's too much
that isn't known to give much of a safety cushion.
--Jeff
--
"I don't mind being characterized as a 'liberal'
- I just don't happen to believe it's true."
Howard Dean
A Dean supporter is just a Democrat who hasn't
listened to Kucinich.
zepp
It gets better; one group of scientists developed a mousepox germ that
is unimpeded by vaccinations against mousepox.
Which means they can do the same with smallpox or chickenpox.
>
>--Jeff
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> > Find this article at:
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
>
> Great, now you've got a choice between creating a computer virus and
> creating a real virus. I really wish they'd wait until they
> understand more about the whole biochemistry of life, there's too much
> that isn't known to give much of a safety cushion.
>
I suppose you don't see the connection between the blooming of this
technology and the abilities of nihilistic terrorists to destroy the
world.
zepp
Or even worse, terrorists that do believe in something.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Yea, I mentioned that a while back. It was in Australia. I thought the
ease with which they did this suggested that nihilist terrorists like
the Islamo-fascists must be defeated soon else we risk a biological
Armageddon.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:16:56 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> > Find this article at:
> >> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
> >>
> >> Great, now you've got a choice between creating a computer virus and
> >> creating a real virus. I really wish they'd wait until they
> >> understand more about the whole biochemistry of life, there's too much
> >> that isn't known to give much of a safety cushion.
> >>
> >I suppose you don't see the connection between the blooming of this
> >technology and the abilities of nihilistic terrorists to destroy the
> >world.
>
> Or even worse, terrorists that do believe in something.
>
Stuff that revolves around getting yourself killed while killing as many
of us as possible so you can earn the right to have sex with 72 virgins
isn't something that we would want them to believe in.
BlackWater
>Scientists create a virus that reproduces
>By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
>
>It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
>creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
>that.
>But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
>was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
>his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
>just two weeks' time.
>
>When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
>and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
>meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
Still, the message is plain - and ought to really
annoy 'creationists' and the 'Intelligent Design'
folks who are closet creationists ... it most
decidedly does NOT require anything like an
all-powerful all-knowning 'god' to "create life".
We mere hairless apes are more than capable.
On the negative side, this level of technology
means that 'designer' bio-weapons are much closer
to reality. There's also the worry about things
that aren't exactly "weapons" ... but authored
by governments/groups/factions/fanatics that
somehow want to "re-write" bits of the human
genome, thinking they'll create or eliminate
some or another trait they think important so
that humanity will be "improved".
I wouldn't recommend it. All of our traits,
even the annoying ones, are in there because
they serve some big-picture purpose in keeping
the species alive in an often-hostile world.
Won't deter the fanatics, of course ... they'll
be convinced that we should be 'purified' or
'pacified' ... or maybe turned into obedient
holy warriors. Counter-measures will be
necessary, sooner than anyone thought.
zepp
>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Scientists create a virus that reproduces
>>By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
>>
>>It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
>>creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
>>that.
>>But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
>>was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
>>his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
>>just two weeks' time.
>>
>>When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
>>and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
>>meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
>
> Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
> we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
> from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
> same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
Ah, yes, you'll keep moving the line back and back, until you end up
demanding that we create the strings that are the basic building
blocks.
> Still, the message is plain - and ought to really
> annoy 'creationists' and the 'Intelligent Design'
> folks who are closet creationists ... it most
> decidedly does NOT require anything like an
> all-powerful all-knowning 'god' to "create life".
> We mere hairless apes are more than capable.
>
> On the negative side, this level of technology
> means that 'designer' bio-weapons are much closer
> to reality. There's also the worry about things
> that aren't exactly "weapons" ... but authored
> by governments/groups/factions/fanatics that
> somehow want to "re-write" bits of the human
> genome, thinking they'll create or eliminate
> some or another trait they think important so
> that humanity will be "improved".
We already have tailored viruses. A lab created a form of a disease
called "mousepox" (a supperating disease that strikes mice) that has
the same symptoms and rate of contagion, but isn't affected by
existing vaccinations. And of course, thanks to agri-business, we
have more and more bugs that are resistant to antibiotics.
>
> I wouldn't recommend it. All of our traits,
> even the annoying ones, are in there because
> they serve some big-picture purpose in keeping
> the species alive in an often-hostile world.
> Won't deter the fanatics, of course ... they'll
> be convinced that we should be 'purified' or
> 'pacified' ... or maybe turned into obedient
> holy warriors. Counter-measures will be
> necessary, sooner than anyone thought.
-
zepp
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>zepp wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:16:56 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
>> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Find this article at:
>> >> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
>> >>
>> >> Great, now you've got a choice between creating a computer virus and
>> >> creating a real virus. I really wish they'd wait until they
>> >> understand more about the whole biochemistry of life, there's too much
>> >> that isn't known to give much of a safety cushion.
>> >>
>> >I suppose you don't see the connection between the blooming of this
>> >technology and the abilities of nihilistic terrorists to destroy the
>> >world.
>>
>> Or even worse, terrorists that do believe in something.
>>
>Stuff that revolves around getting yourself killed while killing as many
>of us as possible so you can earn the right to have sex with 72 virgins
>isn't something that we would want them to believe in.
Just a minute. I'm still trying to parse that one.
Nope. Can't do it.
BlackWater
)" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>zepp wrote:
>>
>> Or even worse, terrorists that do believe in something.
>>
>Stuff that revolves around getting yourself killed while killing as many
>of us as possible so you can earn the right to have sex with 72 virgins
>isn't something that we would want them to believe in.
Hey ... maybe we can start a rumor that all 72 of
the virgins are butt-UGLY :-)
SemiScholar
Won't work. They're all wearing burqas anyway.
SemiScholar
>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Scientists create a virus that reproduces
>>By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
>>
>>It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
>>creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
>>that.
>>But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
>>was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
>>his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
>>just two weeks' time.
>>
>>When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
>>and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
>>meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
>
> Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
> we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
> from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
> same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
"We" (humans) have created the essential amino acids in the lab using
Primordial Soup(TM) (Progresso, I think) and simulated lightning. I
understand your point, but I think you'll agree that the handwriting
is on the wall and it's just a matter of time before "we" do indeed
create self-replicating life from nothing.
Remember just a few years ago when religious conservative whacks were
loudly proclaiming that it would be impossible to actually clone a
higher mammal like a cow or a sheep? (some of them still claim it is
impossible to clone a human being). Now we're arguing about whether
supermarkets should put labels on the beef they sell from cloned
animals.
>
> Still, the message is plain - and ought to really
> annoy 'creationists' and the 'Intelligent Design'
> folks who are closet creationists ... it most
> decidedly does NOT require anything like an
> all-powerful all-knowning 'god' to "create life".
> We mere hairless apes are more than capable.
Speak for yourself, baldy. Try Rogaine.
>
> On the negative side, this level of technology
> means that 'designer' bio-weapons are much closer
> to reality. There's also the worry about things
> that aren't exactly "weapons" ... but authored
> by governments/groups/factions/fanatics that
> somehow want to "re-write" bits of the human
> genome, thinking they'll create or eliminate
> some or another trait they think important so
> that humanity will be "improved".
Yeah, but that'll be a difficult ethical battle to win. I'm almost
more worried, in the short term, by accidents than by bad design.
Andromeda Strain stuff.
>
> I wouldn't recommend it. All of our traits,
> even the annoying ones, are in there because
> they serve some big-picture purpose in keeping
> the species alive in an often-hostile world.
Yeah? How about the appendix? The little toe? And couldn't we at
least fix bad eyesight? I mean, we already fix it mechanically, so
why not genetically?
h...@nospam.com
what I want to know is do they stay virgins after you fuck them? I
mean, only 72 times for the rest of eternity doesn't seem like all
that much of an incentive.
Hal
BlackWater
BlackWater
72 virgins mewling over bloody bedsheets doesn't
seem like something to die for either. I'd rather
have 72 well-trained courtesans ...
I've never figured out the obsession with virgins
around the world. The one and only advantage is
that they lack the experience to tell whether you
are a lousy lover.
BlackWater
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:03:50 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Scientists create a virus that reproduces
>>>By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
>>>
>>>It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
>>>creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
>>>that.
>>>But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
>>>was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
>>>his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
>>>just two weeks' time.
>>>
>>>When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
>>>and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
>>>meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
>>
>> Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
>> we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
>> from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
>> same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
>
>Ah, yes, you'll keep moving the line back and back, until you end up
>demanding that we create the strings that are the basic building
>blocks.
Hey ... give us TIME ! Eventually we'll make those
as well.
However, I will move the line back a bit on the issue
of "creating life". What they've done here is just
a cut and paste job - they didn't work out a completely
synthetic genome from scratch that could do all it
needed to do. This 'life' is pretty much like the
neo-polio virus made a few months ago from store-bought
genetic fragments.
Nevertheless, the work IS impressive. I can remember
when many thought it would be 100 years before we
could do anything like this.
>> Still, the message is plain - and ought to really
>> annoy 'creationists' and the 'Intelligent Design'
>> folks who are closet creationists ... it most
>> decidedly does NOT require anything like an
>> all-powerful all-knowning 'god' to "create life".
>> We mere hairless apes are more than capable.
>>
>> On the negative side, this level of technology
>> means that 'designer' bio-weapons are much closer
>> to reality. There's also the worry about things
>> that aren't exactly "weapons" ... but authored
>> by governments/groups/factions/fanatics that
>> somehow want to "re-write" bits of the human
>> genome, thinking they'll create or eliminate
>> some or another trait they think important so
>> that humanity will be "improved".
>
>We already have tailored viruses. A lab created a form of a disease
>called "mousepox" (a supperating disease that strikes mice) that has
>the same symptoms and rate of contagion, but isn't affected by
>existing vaccinations. And of course, thanks to agri-business, we
>have more and more bugs that are resistant to antibiotics.
These 'tailored' viri are the beginning. They're crude
modifications right now, just minor additions to the
native genetic code. Even thus, they could be used
for medicine, or for warfare. 'Designer' viri, bugs
extensively modified or even entirely synthetic with
one or more intended functions, are just a little
further up the ladder. The greater our ability to
get a specific set of results the more useful, and
more dangerous, the technology.
My greatest concern is that unlike nukes - which require
extensive industrial-scale facilities to prepare, purify
and process the active components - biological nasties
can be created in secret, in a tiny lab, by just one lone
fanatic. The methods are well documented and I expect
there's an underground market for the necessary reagents.
Getting them over-the-counter so to speak wouldn't even
be a major obstacle for a small college or medical research
institution. Making them from scratch could also be done.
Finally, you don't have to have a huge IQ and extreme
math talent to do genetic engineering, just a knowledge
base.
If anyone with half a brain could make a nuke in his
basement, most of us would have been blown up already.
Piss off Joe at the bar and *BLAM!* there goes the
town. I suspect we are within a few years of Joe
being able to make designer bugs in his basement.
If he can figure out how to immunize himself then
the rest of us are in BIG trouble. If he gets
really pissed-off, or thinks he's gonna get 72
virgins for his trouble, maybe he won't even care
about immunizations.
BlackWater
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:03:50 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Scientists create a virus that reproduces
>>>By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
>>>
>>>It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
>>>creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
>>>that.
>>>But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
>>>was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
>>>his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
>>>just two weeks' time.
>>>
>>>When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
>>>and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
>>>meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
>>
>> Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
>> we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
>> from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
>> same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
>
>"We" (humans) have created the essential amino acids in the lab using
>Primordial Soup(TM) (Progresso, I think) and simulated lightning. I
>understand your point, but I think you'll agree that the handwriting
>is on the wall and it's just a matter of time before "we" do indeed
>create self-replicating life from nothing.
Absolutely ... and it won't be very long. Dirt-simple
at first, just the basic minimum, but then rapidly
increasing in diversity and complexity.
>Remember just a few years ago when religious conservative whacks were
>loudly proclaiming that it would be impossible to actually clone a
>higher mammal like a cow or a sheep? (some of them still claim it is
>impossible to clone a human being). Now we're arguing about whether
>supermarkets should put labels on the beef they sell from cloned
>animals.
Will cloned humans have to be stamped with a serial
number or something ? Sounds silly ... but just WAIT.
I'm still keen to hear some legal scholars decide just
HOW MUCH animal or synthetic DNA you can put into a human
before they're not legally 'human' anymore ... or how
much human DNA you can put into a pig before it's a
'person'. They're letting these issues slide, and they
shouldn't. Ignoring what they KNOW is coming means
no guidelines or precedents when it DOES happen - and
a lot of really bad law drawn up in haste.
>> Still, the message is plain - and ought to really
>> annoy 'creationists' and the 'Intelligent Design'
>> folks who are closet creationists ... it most
>> decidedly does NOT require anything like an
>> all-powerful all-knowning 'god' to "create life".
>> We mere hairless apes are more than capable.
>
>Speak for yourself, baldy. Try Rogaine.
(Mostly)-hairless apes ... OK ? :-)
>> On the negative side, this level of technology
>> means that 'designer' bio-weapons are much closer
>> to reality. There's also the worry about things
>> that aren't exactly "weapons" ... but authored
>> by governments/groups/factions/fanatics that
>> somehow want to "re-write" bits of the human
>> genome, thinking they'll create or eliminate
>> some or another trait they think important so
>> that humanity will be "improved".
>
>Yeah, but that'll be a difficult ethical battle to win.
Who says they're gonna ASK anybody ?
>I'm almost
>more worried, in the short term, by accidents than by bad design.
>Andromeda Strain stuff.
Living thing are very complex PLUS they must survive
and thrive as part of a complex natural ecology. The
chances of making anything especially evil AND viable
by 'accident' seems slim.
On PURPOSE though ... different story.
The most scary 'accidental' life isn't really 'life'
at all but PRIONS - autocatalytic proteins. They keep
playing around with these things and there may be
cause to worry. First of all, the experimental versions
will be variants of ones known to cause diseases. Then
there's the pure rugged simplicity of them. They don't
NEED an 'ecology' - just a matching protein from anything,
anywhere, anytime.
>> I wouldn't recommend it. All of our traits,
>> even the annoying ones, are in there because
>> they serve some big-picture purpose in keeping
>> the species alive in an often-hostile world.
>
>Yeah? How about the appendix? The little toe? And couldn't we at
>least fix bad eyesight? I mean, we already fix it mechanically, so
>why not genetically?
I was thinking more along the lines of, well, 'thinking'.
Human 'personality traits', our 'nature'. If some do-
gooder passivist group found a way to negate 99% of our
natural aggressiveness ... who's to say they wouldn't
give it a try ? They won't be thinking much past the
fact that there won't be many fistfights afterwards.
I can envision blue-nosed puritanical types wanting
to take all of the joy out of sex and/or delaying
puberty until around age 30. These things will all be
very POSSIBLE, sooner than we would like to think, so
we had better be in a position to detect such tampering
and reverse it quickly.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:21:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >zepp wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:16:56 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
> >> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Find this article at:
> >> >> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> Great, now you've got a choice between creating a computer virus and
> >> >> creating a real virus. I really wish they'd wait until they
> >> >> understand more about the whole biochemistry of life, there's too much
> >> >> that isn't known to give much of a safety cushion.
> >> >>
> >> >I suppose you don't see the connection between the blooming of this
> >> >technology and the abilities of nihilistic terrorists to destroy the
> >> >world.
> >>
> >> Or even worse, terrorists that do believe in something.
> >>
> >Stuff that revolves around getting yourself killed while killing as many
> >of us as possible so you can earn the right to have sex with 72 virgins
> >isn't something that we would want them to believe in.
>
> Just a minute. I'm still trying to parse that one.
>
> Nope. Can't do it.
>
Are you illiterate?
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Someone should do a parody song from that "76 Trombones" song in "The
Music Man".
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
BlackWater wrote:
>
> zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Scientists create a virus that reproduces
> >By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
> >
> >It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
> >creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
> >that.
> >But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
> >was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
> >his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
> >just two weeks' time.
> >
> >When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
> >and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
> >meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
>
> Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
> we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
> from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
> same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
>
Viruses aren't really alive anyway. It turns out that the so-called junk
DNA that has so far pretty much been ignored is relevant to life.
> Still, the message is plain - and ought to really
> annoy 'creationists' and the 'Intelligent Design'
> folks who are closet creationists ... it most
> decidedly does NOT require anything like an
> all-powerful all-knowning 'god' to "create life".
> We mere hairless apes are more than capable.
>
Don't people create life when they reproduce?
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Hey, there you go and done figured it out.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:03:50 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> >zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Scientists create a virus that reproduces
> >>By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
> >>
> >>It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
> >>creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
> >>that.
> >>But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
> >>was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
> >>his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
> >>just two weeks' time.
> >>
> >>When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
> >>and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
> >>meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
> >
> > Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
> > we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
> > from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
> > same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
>
> Ah, yes, you'll keep moving the line back and back, until you end up
> demanding that we create the strings that are the basic building
> blocks.
>
I don't know about strings, but you sure are grasping at straws.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:03:50 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> >zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Scientists create a virus that reproduces
> >>By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
> >>
> >>It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
> >>creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
> >>that.
> >>But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
> >>was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
> >>his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
> >>just two weeks' time.
> >>
> >>When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
> >>and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
> >>meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
> >
> > Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
> > we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
> > from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
> > same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
>
> "We" (humans) have created the essential amino acids in the lab using
> Primordial Soup(TM) (Progresso, I think) and simulated lightning. I
> understand your point, but I think you'll agree that the handwriting
> is on the wall and it's just a matter of time before "we" do indeed
> create self-replicating life from nothing.
>
That depends on what the junk DNA actually does.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Blackwater 7 interacts with SemiScholar 6. It is weird how this stuff
has been done to death in sci-fi. I feel like we might be in for Logan's
Run.
SemiScholar
I saw a picture in some newsmagazine of a newly-graduated "Beauty
School" class in Kabul. The school was started by a couple of western
(maybe American, I don't know - maybe British) women to teach Afghan
women the use of cosmetics and hair fixin' and stuff. Well, I don't
know, but judging from the women I saw in the picture, I think you
could be right.
SemiScholar
Don't knock that - there's real value there.
BlackWater
)" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
Well, until recently, it was all just something of
a joke - sci-fi with the emphasis on the '-FI'.
Now it's all coming true and we've yet to come to
any legally-binding decisions about what to DO
about all the variations that will crop up. Hell,
they can't even figure out whether a clone of a
person or their natural children get first dibs
on an inheritance. (I'd say the clone, closer
relative) or whether a woman bearing her own
clone is it's mother or it's sister.
For sure, a LOT of the old presumptions about such
things are destined for the rubbish heap. Words
like "mother", "father", "brother", "sister" and
eventually "human" will all go the way of thees
and thous - quaintly antique.
BlackWater
from this person, a chromosome from another, yet
another from someone else. Mix and wait.
NOW who's the mommy ? NOW who gets the inheritance ?
SemiScholar
Those are VERY interesting questions. And they are absolutely going
to come.
>They're letting these issues slide, and they
> shouldn't. Ignoring what they KNOW is coming means
> no guidelines or precedents when it DOES happen - and
> a lot of really bad law drawn up in haste.
First of all, you know damned well that that's how the human race (and
politicians in particular) operate. We never do anything until we
HAVE to. Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow.
Especially if it involves difficult and controversial questions that
might alienate some voters.
But second, I think we kind of WANT to put off making laws about such
things. Do you really want laws drawn up NOW about things we know
VERY little about? It would be like having Thomas Jefferson and James
Madison writing the laws for automobile traffic. That's how we got
those laws about how a car couldn't travel on public roads at night
unless someone was walking in front of the car carrying a lantern. I
don't think legislators have even begun to think about the
repercussions of human/animal hybrids or designer humans - except
maybe to just say "we should outlaw it altogether". And I don't think
they are even capable of understanding all the ramifications.
Like the example Zepp gave of the vaccine-resistant strain of the
monkey-pox virus. I don't think it's all that unlikely. The law of
unintended consequences applies here. You tinker with something to
make corn have a better yield and sure enough, it turns out it kills
monarch butterflies or something like that.
>
> On PURPOSE though ... different story.
Yeah, maybe. But I think that because of the complexity of these
things, the things they TRY to create will probably fail and the
unintended consequences will sneak through - and voila, we have
Ice-Nine and all the water in the oceans freezes.
>
> The most scary 'accidental' life isn't really 'life'
> at all but PRIONS - autocatalytic proteins. They keep
> playing around with these things and there may be
> cause to worry. First of all, the experimental versions
> will be variants of ones known to cause diseases. Then
> there's the pure rugged simplicity of them. They don't
> NEED an 'ecology' - just a matching protein from anything,
> anywhere, anytime.
>
>>> I wouldn't recommend it. All of our traits,
>>> even the annoying ones, are in there because
>>> they serve some big-picture purpose in keeping
>>> the species alive in an often-hostile world.
>>
>>Yeah? How about the appendix? The little toe? And couldn't we at
>>least fix bad eyesight? I mean, we already fix it mechanically, so
>>why not genetically?
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of, well, 'thinking'.
> Human 'personality traits', our 'nature'. If some do-
> gooder passivist group found a way to negate 99% of our
> natural aggressiveness ... who's to say they wouldn't
> give it a try ? They won't be thinking much past the
> fact that there won't be many fistfights afterwards.
Yeah, but there will be a word for the "non-aggressive" people who are
created and sent out into this world. "Extinct". Or maybe, "food".
I think a bigger danger will be the attempt to create the Master Race
- or the Universal Soldiers.
>
> I can envision blue-nosed puritanical types wanting
> to take all of the joy out of sex and/or delaying
> puberty until around age 30. These things will all be
> very POSSIBLE, sooner than we would like to think, so
> we had better be in a position to detect such tampering
> and reverse it quickly.
Jeeze. Would that mean pictures of a naked 28-year-old will qualify
as "child pronography"? I'm agin it. I don't want to have to be
looking at pictures of naked matrons for my jollies.
SemiScholar
>"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack
>)" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>>BlackWater wrote:
>>>
>>> SemiScholar <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
>
>>> >Remember just a few years ago when religious conservative whacks were
>>> >loudly proclaiming that it would be impossible to actually clone a
>>> >higher mammal like a cow or a sheep? (some of them still claim it is
>>> >impossible to clone a human being). Now we're arguing about whether
>>> >supermarkets should put labels on the beef they sell from cloned
>>> >animals.
>>>
>>> Will cloned humans have to be stamped with a serial
>>> number or something ? Sounds silly ... but just WAIT.
>>>
>>Blackwater 7 interacts with SemiScholar 6. It is weird how this stuff
>>has been done to death in sci-fi. I feel like we might be in for Logan's
>>Run.
>
> Well, until recently, it was all just something of
> a joke - sci-fi with the emphasis on the '-FI'.
I don't read comic books. And I don't read Bill Bonde.
>
> Now it's all coming true and we've yet to come to
> any legally-binding decisions about what to DO
> about all the variations that will crop up. Hell,
> they can't even figure out whether a clone of a
> person or their natural children get first dibs
> on an inheritance. (I'd say the clone, closer
> relative) or whether a woman bearing her own
> clone is it's mother or it's sister.
>
> For sure, a LOT of the old presumptions about such
> things are destined for the rubbish heap. Words
> like "mother", "father", "brother", "sister" and
> eventually "human" will all go the way of thees
> and thous - quaintly antique.
I don't know about that. Sure, I think all this stuff will happen.
But I don't know that it will ever be particularly widespread. I
really doubt that we're in danger of natural biology being actually
*supplanted* by cloning. At least, not any time soon.
SemiScholar
Whoever's name is on the birth certificate. We've already got
precedents for that - babies switched at birth, adoptive parents, etc.
Parentage and inheritance and so forth are legal concepts in this
regard, and as such are just legal designations. So while you might
not be physically related to the child you raised, if your name is on
the birth certificate or some legal document like adoption papers,
then you're the parent.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
We already have a thing called a will for determining that. Regarding
the multi-parenting, that is already an issue if you count surrogate
mothers.
zepp
<noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
I bet the first instance to hit the courts will be when someone
pirates a particularly successful strain of some cash crop, with only
a minor varieation to differentiate it from the copyrighted version.
(We're going to live to deeply regret the ruling that scientists can
copyright life forms!)
>
>
>>They're letting these issues slide, and they
>> shouldn't. Ignoring what they KNOW is coming means
>> no guidelines or precedents when it DOES happen - and
>> a lot of really bad law drawn up in haste.
>
>First of all, you know damned well that that's how the human race (and
>politicians in particular) operate. We never do anything until we
>HAVE to. Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow.
>Especially if it involves difficult and controversial questions that
>might alienate some voters.
>
>But second, I think we kind of WANT to put off making laws about such
>things. Do you really want laws drawn up NOW about things we know
>VERY little about? It would be like having Thomas Jefferson and James
>Madison writing the laws for automobile traffic. That's how we got
>those laws about how a car couldn't travel on public roads at night
>unless someone was walking in front of the car carrying a lantern. I
>don't think legislators have even begun to think about the
>repercussions of human/animal hybrids or designer humans - except
>maybe to just say "we should outlaw it altogether". And I don't think
>they are even capable of understanding all the ramifications.
Very good point, and I'm glad you raised it, because I hadn't looked
at it in that light.
Cat's Cradle. That always struck me as the ultimate Frankenstein
story.
I can't think of any genetic modification that will receive unanimous
acclaim. Look at special interest groups for the deaf or blind that
oppose corrective surgeries on the very young to correct defects
leading to deafness or blindness on the grounds that this implies
there is something WRONG with being deaf or blind. I don't think
that's their decision to make, but I can understand the rationale
behind their stances.
>
>
>>
>> I can envision blue-nosed puritanical types wanting
>> to take all of the joy out of sex and/or delaying
>> puberty until around age 30. These things will all be
>> very POSSIBLE, sooner than we would like to think, so
>> we had better be in a position to detect such tampering
>> and reverse it quickly.
>
>
>Jeeze. Would that mean pictures of a naked 28-year-old will qualify
>as "child pronography"? I'm agin it. I don't want to have to be
>looking at pictures of naked matrons for my jollies.
>
-
zepp
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>zepp wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:21:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
>> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >zepp wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:16:56 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
>> >> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Find this article at:
>> >> >> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Great, now you've got a choice between creating a computer virus and
>> >> >> creating a real virus. I really wish they'd wait until they
>> >> >> understand more about the whole biochemistry of life, there's too much
>> >> >> that isn't known to give much of a safety cushion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >I suppose you don't see the connection between the blooming of this
>> >> >technology and the abilities of nihilistic terrorists to destroy the
>> >> >world.
>> >>
>> >> Or even worse, terrorists that do believe in something.
>> >>
>> >Stuff that revolves around getting yourself killed while killing as many
>> >of us as possible so you can earn the right to have sex with 72 virgins
>> >isn't something that we would want them to believe in.
>>
>> Just a minute. I'm still trying to parse that one.
>>
>> Nope. Can't do it.
>>
>Are you illiterate?
Nope. Quite the opposite, really.
And that's the problem.
And I bet YOU don't even know what you were trying to say.
zepp
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>BlackWater wrote:
>>
>> zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Scientists create a virus that reproduces
>> >By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
>> >
>> >It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The
>> >creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just
>> >that.
>> >But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life
>> >was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that
>> >his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in
>> >just two weeks' time.
>> >
>> >When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus
>> >and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active,"
>> >meaning it went to work reproducing itself.
>>
>> Well ... I really won't call it "creating life" until
>> we can do it from scratch - without borrowing stuff
>> from existing organisms, perhaps not even using the
>> same chemistry as existing terrestrial life.
>>
>Viruses aren't really alive anyway. It turns out that the so-called junk
>DNA that has so far pretty much been ignored is relevant to life.
That junk DNA is mostly viruses that settled in and found a permanent
home. As is the useful DNA.
>
>
>
>> Still, the message is plain - and ought to really
>> annoy 'creationists' and the 'Intelligent Design'
>> folks who are closet creationists ... it most
>> decidedly does NOT require anything like an
>> all-powerful all-knowning 'god' to "create life".
>> We mere hairless apes are more than capable.
>>
>Don't people create life when they reproduce?
They create life when they fail to mop up spilled milk.
SemiScholar
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:24:49 -0600, SemiScholar
><noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:20:33 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Remember just a few years ago when religious conservative whacks were
>>>>loudly proclaiming that it would be impossible to actually clone a
>>>>higher mammal like a cow or a sheep? (some of them still claim it is
>>>>impossible to clone a human being). Now we're arguing about whether
>>>>supermarkets should put labels on the beef they sell from cloned
>>>>animals.
>>>
>>> Will cloned humans have to be stamped with a serial
>>> number or something ? Sounds silly ... but just WAIT.
>>>
>>> I'm still keen to hear some legal scholars decide just
>>> HOW MUCH animal or synthetic DNA you can put into a human
>>> before they're not legally 'human' anymore ... or how
>>> much human DNA you can put into a pig before it's a
>>> 'person'.
>>
>>Those are VERY interesting questions. And they are absolutely going
>>to come.
>
>I bet the first instance to hit the courts will be when someone
>pirates a particularly successful strain of some cash crop, with only
>a minor varieation to differentiate it from the copyrighted version.
>(We're going to live to deeply regret the ruling that scientists can
>copyright life forms!)
Technical quibble - I think they "patent" these life forms, not
"copyright" them. Subtle difference to most people, but lawyers can
base a career on it.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah? How about the appendix? The little toe? And couldn't we at
>>>>least fix bad eyesight? I mean, we already fix it mechanically, so
>>>>why not genetically?
>>>
>>> I was thinking more along the lines of, well, 'thinking'.
>>> Human 'personality traits', our 'nature'. If some do-
>>> gooder passivist group found a way to negate 99% of our
>>> natural aggressiveness ... who's to say they wouldn't
>>> give it a try ? They won't be thinking much past the
>>> fact that there won't be many fistfights afterwards.
>>
>>Yeah, but there will be a word for the "non-aggressive" people who are
>>created and sent out into this world. "Extinct". Or maybe, "food".
>>I think a bigger danger will be the attempt to create the Master Race
>>- or the Universal Soldiers.
>
>I can't think of any genetic modification that will receive unanimous
>acclaim.
Big boobs? X-ray vision?
> Look at special interest groups for the deaf or blind that
>oppose corrective surgeries on the very young to correct defects
>leading to deafness or blindness on the grounds that this implies
>there is something WRONG with being deaf or blind. I don't think
>that's their decision to make, but I can understand the rationale
>behind their stances.
Yeah, but ultimately those people don't win the argument. They get to
make it - and they get it on TV because it's so novel and weird, but
when it comes right down to it, if a blind person could have an
operation to restore his eyesight, he'll take it. Even those contrary
types who protest it.
SemiScholar
wrote:
>>>
>>Don't people create life when they reproduce?
>
>They create life when they fail to mop up spilled milk.
>
When I was in college, my roommate and I used to create whole
ecosystems in the refrigerator and in the bathroom behind the toilet.
When they say things like "5,000 species become extinct every day" - I
think they meant on Cleaning Day in our apartment.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
You really don't think that I can parse that sentence?
#begin quote
Stuff that revolves around getting yourself killed while killing as many
of us as possible so you can earn the right to have sex with 72 virgins
isn't something that we would want them to believe in.
#end quote
"Stuff (what that stuff is is removed here to simplify) isn't something
we would want them to believe in." means that there are things, stuff,
that we don't want others to believe in.
"Stuff that revolves around getting yourself killed..." means doing
stuff like blowing yourself up.
"...while killing as many of us as possible..." means doing the blowing
up next to us, Americans, or even Canadians who pretend like they are
Americans.
"...so you can earn the right to have sex with 72 virgins..." means the
reason why you are killing yourself and others by blowing yourself and
them up.
See? Easy.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
A difference of about 17 years protection vs lifetime plus, what is it
now, 75 years?
BlackWater
Yep. It's a harsh life in Afghanistan - and the
women apparently never got to 'moisturize'. Now
admittedly, the perception of 'beauty' is kind
of a local thing, but I don't think there are
gonna be too many Afghan 'war brides' going home
with our soldiers.
BlackWater
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:07:59 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack
>>)" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BlackWater wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SemiScholar <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >Remember just a few years ago when religious conservative whacks were
>>>> >loudly proclaiming that it would be impossible to actually clone a
>>>> >higher mammal like a cow or a sheep? (some of them still claim it is
>>>> >impossible to clone a human being). Now we're arguing about whether
>>>> >supermarkets should put labels on the beef they sell from cloned
>>>> >animals.
>>>>
>>>> Will cloned humans have to be stamped with a serial
>>>> number or something ? Sounds silly ... but just WAIT.
>>>>
>>>Blackwater 7 interacts with SemiScholar 6. It is weird how this stuff
>>>has been done to death in sci-fi. I feel like we might be in for Logan's
>>>Run.
>>
>> Well, until recently, it was all just something of
>> a joke - sci-fi with the emphasis on the '-FI'.
>
>I don't read comic books. And I don't read Bill Bonde.
Aw ... Bills OK.
>> Now it's all coming true and we've yet to come to
>> any legally-binding decisions about what to DO
>> about all the variations that will crop up. Hell,
>> they can't even figure out whether a clone of a
>> person or their natural children get first dibs
>> on an inheritance. (I'd say the clone, closer
>> relative) or whether a woman bearing her own
>> clone is it's mother or it's sister.
>>
>> For sure, a LOT of the old presumptions about such
>> things are destined for the rubbish heap. Words
>> like "mother", "father", "brother", "sister" and
>> eventually "human" will all go the way of thees
>> and thous - quaintly antique.
>
>I don't know about that. Sure, I think all this stuff will happen.
>But I don't know that it will ever be particularly widespread. I
>really doubt that we're in danger of natural biology being actually
>*supplanted* by cloning. At least, not any time soon.
"Supplanted", no. However, I expect ENOUGH biotech
oddities to crop up over the next 50 years to make
many current legal presumptions obsolete. We're
STILL having problems with 'surrogate' mothers
because 'birth-mother' and 'parent' were always a
given in the past. Now we have 'physical motherhood'
and 'genetic motherhood' and unless some really
well-worded contracts were signed ahead of time
the law can't cope well when there's a contention
between the two parties. If it can't deal smoothly
with THAT, what about the future when things get
REALLY weird ?
Now *100* years from now, when they *can* grow
babies under glass, old-fashioned gestation may
indeed become "supplanted" because it's a bother,
inconvenient and slightly dangerous. Laziness
always wins out dontchaknow. In 150 years there
are gonna be so many 'tweaks', 'improvements' and
'adjustments' to the species that while they still
may look the same on the outside they won't be
'people' on the inside anymore, at least not
the soft squishy limited not-2-bright easy-2-break
kind we know today. Who knows what their reproductive
options will be ?
But that's speculation ... we have some real and
soon pressing issues right on our doorstep today -
and we're doing our best not to deal with them.
I have this worry that governments will ban certain
kinds of reproduction and high-tech genetic medical
therapies - not so much because they're 'dangerous'
or 'bad', but because the results will not fit into
the age-old legal framework. Gosh, bureaucrats and
politicians might have to WORK solving these things,
and we can't have *that* ! :-)
BlackWater
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:10:11 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>Oh yea ... I forgot "multi-parenting". A chromosome
>>from this person, a chromosome from another, yet
>>another from someone else. Mix and wait.
>>
>>NOW who's the mommy ? NOW who gets the inheritance ?
>
>
>Whoever's name is on the birth certificate.
"Birth" ? What does THAT have to do with it ?
We already have lots of 'surrogate' mothers.
Just because they give 'birth' doesn't make
them the 'parent' anymore.
>We've already got
>precedents for that - babies switched at birth, adoptive parents, etc.
>Parentage and inheritance and so forth are legal concepts in this
>regard, and as such are just legal designations. So while you might
>not be physically related to the child you raised, if your name is on
>the birth certificate or some legal document like adoption papers,
>then you're the parent.
Legal 'parenthood' CAN be signed away, from one
person to another. But the chain of custody has
to START somewhere. It's always been presumed to
start with whichever woman squeezed-out the puppy
and THEN she can pass the responsibility on to
another. But, if she's a 'surrogate', is the
baby hers to give just because she did the
gestation, or does it belong to the genetic
donors ? Short of VERY well-worded contracts,
our courts have problems with this simple
biotech trick - and if such cases ever go to
a jury, nobody can predict the results.
What happens when even MORE people can claim a
stake in a child - three, four, five - because
they all contributed genetic material and/or
participated in the gestation process ? The
law has enough trouble with a single surrogate.
Certain diseases can be traced to mutations in
a single chromosome. They may manifest themselves
if just one parent has the defect, or it may take
both of them having the defect. Especially in the
latter case, substituting the defective chromosome
with one from a third party might be a viable and
practical way for people to have healthy children
(almost entirely) of their own.
You put the fertilized egg in a dish, wait until
it's first division until the chromosomes seperate
and can be individually accessed. Pluck say
chromosome 12 out, insert a #12 from a 3rd-party,
throw away the unmodified egg and then implant
the zygote (maybe into a surrogate). This is REAL
world stuff - or sure as hell WILL be if nobody
has gotten around to it quite yet. So WHO is
"mommy", WHO is "daddy", how many have at least
SOME claim - legal and/or 'moral' - to the kid ?
BlackWater
)" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>BlackWater wrote:
>>
>> Oh yea ... I forgot "multi-parenting". A chromosome
>> from this person, a chromosome from another, yet
>> another from someone else. Mix and wait.
>>
>> NOW who's the mommy ? NOW who gets the inheritance ?
>>
>We already have a thing called a will for determining that. Regarding
>the multi-parenting, that is already an issue if you count surrogate
>mothers.
This goes well beyond 'surrogate mothers' because
more than two parties would have at least SOME
genetic stake in the resulting child.
As with 'surrogate' situations, contracts CAN be
signed ahead of time. If they're GOOD contracts
then the legal situation is pretty clear ... but
if they're NOT good contracts, or if a JURY gets
the case, then things go all to hell. The more
parties involved in the creation of the child
the worse it gets.
We really need some sort of 'co-parent' laws that
equitably divvy-up both rights and responsibilities
in such cases. Having something on paper BEFORE we
actually encounter the first instance of multi-
parenting would be kind of nice ... we KNOW it's
coming, as a medical therapy or even as as way
for gay couples/collectives to all contribute
to their (sort-of) own child.
SemiScholar
>SemiScholar <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:10:11 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh yea ... I forgot "multi-parenting". A chromosome
>>>from this person, a chromosome from another, yet
>>>another from someone else. Mix and wait.
>>>
>>>NOW who's the mommy ? NOW who gets the inheritance ?
>>
>>
>>Whoever's name is on the birth certificate.
>
> "Birth" ? What does THAT have to do with it ?
> We already have lots of 'surrogate' mothers.
> Just because they give 'birth' doesn't make
> them the 'parent' anymore.
True. But there is still a birth certificate, and it still lists the
parents.
>
>>We've already got
>>precedents for that - babies switched at birth, adoptive parents, etc.
>>Parentage and inheritance and so forth are legal concepts in this
>>regard, and as such are just legal designations. So while you might
>>not be physically related to the child you raised, if your name is on
>>the birth certificate or some legal document like adoption papers,
>>then you're the parent.
>
> Legal 'parenthood' CAN be signed away, from one
> person to another. But the chain of custody has
> to START somewhere. It's always been presumed to
> start with whichever woman squeezed-out the puppy
> and THEN she can pass the responsibility on to
> another. But, if she's a 'surrogate', is the
> baby hers to give just because she did the
> gestation, or does it belong to the genetic
> donors ? Short of VERY well-worded contracts,
> our courts have problems with this simple
> biotech trick - and if such cases ever go to
> a jury, nobody can predict the results.
Actually, I think we've pretty much ironed out any disputes about
parental lineage in surrogacy cases. There have been cases where a
surrogate mother changed her mind and wanted to keep the baby, but
they have been decided and the precedents have been set. By now, it's
not so tenuous. And that's what will happen with new things as well.
>
> What happens when even MORE people can claim a
> stake in a child - three, four, five - because
> they all contributed genetic material and/or
> participated in the gestation process ? The
> law has enough trouble with a single surrogate.
The law doesn't have too much trouble with single surrogates. People
bring lawsuits and the cases are decided. Sure, the first ones are
contentious and the various positions are argued out, but eventually
the cases are decided, precedents are set and case law is created. I
suspect that if there are multiple genetic contributors to a child,
they might all be considered partial parents. That's not that big a
deal, we have at least 2 parents now, and they sometimes disagree
about the children. And we have plenty of law with multi-partner
partnerships in business and co-owning property and so forth. It
shouldn't be that big a deal to merge all that.
>
> Certain diseases can be traced to mutations in
> a single chromosome. They may manifest themselves
> if just one parent has the defect, or it may take
> both of them having the defect. Especially in the
> latter case, substituting the defective chromosome
> with one from a third party might be a viable and
> practical way for people to have healthy children
> (almost entirely) of their own.
Sure, and there will probably be pre-operation legal documents
specifying all the responsibilities and priveleges. Doesn't seem like
that big a deal to me.
I think the bigger problem will be with animal-human hybrids. When
are they a "person" and when do they have "rights", and what "rights"
do they have?
>
> You put the fertilized egg in a dish, wait until
> it's first division until the chromosomes seperate
> and can be individually accessed. Pluck say
> chromosome 12 out, insert a #12 from a 3rd-party,
> throw away the unmodified egg and then implant
> the zygote (maybe into a surrogate). This is REAL
> world stuff - or sure as hell WILL be if nobody
> has gotten around to it quite yet. So WHO is
> "mommy", WHO is "daddy", how many have at least
> SOME claim - legal and/or 'moral' - to the kid ?
I suspect that all of that will be covered in the legal documents that
authorize the procedures in the first place. Just like sperm donors,
etc. And when there are disputes, like when a sperm donor wants to
find his kids or his kids want to find him, they'll be decided in
court. We have court cases all the time about all sorts of things.
BlackWater
How many contracts are beyond breaking (if you can
afford the legal firepower) ? How many juries go
with the big sob story rather than with good sense ?
Sweet warm surrogate mom -vs- some ice-cold GATTACA-
refugee genetic donors ... precedents be damned.
Undoubtably certain conventions *will* become part
of the culture and everybody will "just know" what
to do in disputes over parenthood and such. Until
then however I really wish some model laws would
be proposed to help define things - before it's
too late and the litigation is in progress.
SemiScholar
>SemiScholar <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:15:35 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>> You put the fertilized egg in a dish, wait until
>>> it's first division until the chromosomes seperate
>>> and can be individually accessed. Pluck say
>>> chromosome 12 out, insert a #12 from a 3rd-party,
>>> throw away the unmodified egg and then implant
>>> the zygote (maybe into a surrogate). This is REAL
>>> world stuff - or sure as hell WILL be if nobody
>>> has gotten around to it quite yet. So WHO is
>>> "mommy", WHO is "daddy", how many have at least
>>> SOME claim - legal and/or 'moral' - to the kid ?
>>
>>I suspect that all of that will be covered in the legal documents that
>>authorize the procedures in the first place. Just like sperm donors,
>>etc. And when there are disputes, like when a sperm donor wants to
>>find his kids or his kids want to find him, they'll be decided in
>>court. We have court cases all the time about all sorts of things.
>
> How many contracts are beyond breaking (if you can
> afford the legal firepower) ? How many juries go
> with the big sob story rather than with good sense ?
> Sweet warm surrogate mom -vs- some ice-cold GATTACA-
> refugee genetic donors ... precedents be damned.
Well, that's all true. But what's your point? It will ALWAYS be
true. And legislation won't be particularly effective about that than
contracts. Both are law. And that's assuming that the legislatures
COULD craft legislation that made sense.
So what's your point? I'm not sure what you're arguing. We agree
that this stuff is coming. You seem to be saying that we're in for
some arguments about it as these issues arise. Well... yeah...
>
> Undoubtably certain conventions *will* become part
> of the culture and everybody will "just know" what
> to do in disputes over parenthood and such. Until
> then however I really wish some model laws would
> be proposed to help define things - before it's
> too late and the litigation is in progress.
I do NOT think that politicians would do a particularly good,
thoughtful, forward-thinking job of crafting legislation. I think
we'd get bullshit laws pandering to wild sci-fi horror fantasies.
Like the legislation banning human cloning and stem-cell research.
BlackWater
Well, the stem-cell bit is really about abortion,
which explains all the problems there. The cloning
law seems a quick, perhaps knee-jerk, response to
CloneAids claims of having cloned human beings
(still unproven) without any good explainations
about how they overcame known problems with the
method they were using. It was more of a "child
protection" thing than a blanket statement that
"Clones are Bad". They don't want a lot of
defective children being created that way (but
mutation by chemical waste is still OK because
a lot of money is involved).
Of course, the USA isn't the ONLY country with laws
against cloning and/or certain kinds of stem cell
research. Each nation has it's own reasons.
The US clone law is an example of what I was
talking about - hasty legislation thrown together
only when immediately faced with a 'crisis'. If
more research into the subject had been done
beforehand, and proposed laws debated in leisure
rather than at virtual gunpoint, perhaps things
would have gone better.
Instead they do nothing and just *wait* for the
crisis. 'Human nature' perhaps, but annoying.
Maybe rogue genetic engineers will be tempted
to change that aspect of our 'nature', without
asking ...
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
BlackWater wrote:
>
> SemiScholar <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:59:56 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Undoubtably certain conventions *will* become part
> >> of the culture and everybody will "just know" what
> >> to do in disputes over parenthood and such. Until
> >> then however I really wish some model laws would
> >> be proposed to help define things - before it's
> >> too late and the litigation is in progress.
> >
> >I do NOT think that politicians would do a particularly good,
> >thoughtful, forward-thinking job of crafting legislation. I think
> >we'd get bullshit laws pandering to wild sci-fi horror fantasies.
> >Like the legislation banning human cloning and stem-cell research.
>
> Well, the stem-cell bit is really about abortion,
> which explains all the problems there.
>
Ultimately you really want to use each individual's stem cells and not
those from some random foetus. Granted that requires figuring out some
things that are more difficult than just using those undifferentiated
foetal stem cells straightaway.
chris.holt
> I think the bigger problem will be with animal-human hybrids. When
> are they a "person" and when do they have "rights", and what "rights"
> do they have?
Right now, we have people who want to leave their estates to their
cats. What happens when their cats have some of their genes? On
the weird side, suppose someone were to genetically engineer a
hamster that (a) you didn't need saranwrap for, and (b) was able
to produce a viable offspring? What would be the status of that
offspring?
BlackWater's right; there's a definite can of worms there. Oh yeah;
suppose someone crosses themselves with a plant; does the result
have to be a triffid that can move around, or can it just vegetate
in the shade, and still inherit?
--
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Don't people already set up trusts so their cats can inherit everything?
(Granted some just give it all to NPR)
BlackWater
BlackWater
)" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
After a few years of research, non-embryonic stem
cells are still a disappointment. Maybe that can
be fixed in a timely manner, maybe not. Alas, it's
really looking like "not".
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Maybe we need a few more years of research. Since the junk DNA just
recently turned into gold, there is hope for further advancement now
that we aren't ignoring as tailings the treasure.
SemiScholar
>SemiScholar <noe...@spambegone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:59:56 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Undoubtably certain conventions *will* become part
>>> of the culture and everybody will "just know" what
>>> to do in disputes over parenthood and such. Until
>>> then however I really wish some model laws would
>>> be proposed to help define things - before it's
>>> too late and the litigation is in progress.
>>
>>I do NOT think that politicians would do a particularly good,
>>thoughtful, forward-thinking job of crafting legislation. I think
>>we'd get bullshit laws pandering to wild sci-fi horror fantasies.
>>Like the legislation banning human cloning and stem-cell research.
>
> Well, the stem-cell bit is really about abortion,
I don't think so. Embryonic stem cells can be harvested from embryos
that are not used (discarded) from in vitro fertilization operations,
but the Bushies (and religious conservatives) want to ban that as
well. They seem to know they would not succeed, however, in banning
in vitro fertilization procedures. But you know they'd like to.
No, I thik what it's really about is: they don't want anybody
"playing god". They don't like the whole idea of technology being
used for these things. I understand the concerns about some of these
technologies as we have discussed them here, but I wouldn't ban any of
them. But the conservatives would like to ban all of them. And the
more conservative, the deeper the bans.
> which explains all the problems there. The cloning
> law seems a quick, perhaps knee-jerk, response to
> CloneAids claims of having cloned human beings
> (still unproven) without any good explainations
> about how they overcame known problems with the
> method they were using. It was more of a "child
> protection" thing than a blanket statement that
> "Clones are Bad". They don't want a lot of
> defective children being created that way (but
> mutation by chemical waste is still OK because
> a lot of money is involved).
I think the whole cloning ban thing is just knee-jerk Luddite
politicians pandering to ignorant people whom they think vote.
>
> Of course, the USA isn't the ONLY country with laws
> against cloning and/or certain kinds of stem cell
> research. Each nation has it's own reasons.
And they all boil down to religious fundamentalism of one sort or
another.
>
> The US clone law is an example of what I was
> talking about - hasty legislation thrown together
> only when immediately faced with a 'crisis'. If
> more research into the subject had been done
> beforehand, and proposed laws debated in leisure
> rather than at virtual gunpoint, perhaps things
> would have gone better.
And I seriously doubt that. I don't think legislators have much of a
clue about this stuff.
>
> Instead they do nothing and just *wait* for the
> crisis. 'Human nature' perhaps, but annoying.
> Maybe rogue genetic engineers will be tempted
> to change that aspect of our 'nature', without
> asking ...
Genetically program against fundamentalist religious ignorance and
fear of the unknown? Hmmmm... cool...
SemiScholar
I don't disagree with BlackWater at all that there are many cans of
worms. Where I disagree with him is:
A) That these cans of worms are, for the most part, any big deal. The
legal system deals with new things like this all the time. Case law
will be worked out as cases are decided.
B) That politicians can sit down and thoughtfully create
forward-looking rational legislation to deal with any of it before the
issues arise. (Indeed - that they can even identify what the actual
issues will be.)
C) And that any such legislation would change much of anything - or be
any better than hashing the issues out in court as they arise.