Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Monday, 22 April 2013
TitanPad Link (Discussion)
Most of the discussion was done in school but the rest are done on TitanPad.
Here's the link:
http://scienceandtechnology.titanpad.com/2
Here's the link:
http://scienceandtechnology.titanpad.com/2
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
About PGD
I cannot post the whole article here since there are a lot of links in the website but I think you guys should read about it.
Here's the link: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis.html
http://www.genea.com.au/Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates
http://www.pgd.org.uk/conditionstested/successrate.aspx
Here's the link: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis.html
http://www.genea.com.au/Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates/PGD-Success-Rates
http://www.pgd.org.uk/conditionstested/successrate.aspx
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
How is PGD (Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) HELPFUL?
The benefits of this medical intervention are boundless. It would allow a family to virtually eradicate a genetic disease in only a few generations. Muscular Dystrophy is an excellent example, and a great subject for PGD.. Muscular Dystrophy (MD) is a group of genetic and hereditary (see picture left for gene flow pattern) muscle diseases that weaken the muscles of the body, sometimes very severely. If two parents decide to use either IFV or PGD, doctors can test each of the eggs for the gene for MD. If they find an egg that does not carry the gene, they can implant it and reduce the chances for this disease greatly. This also means less money will be spent in hospitals for medical treatments needed for a sick child in the future.
Designer babies may also be created to help another in need. Parents may have a child suffering from a disease and in need of an organ or blood transplant. Imagine you have a child suffering from Leukemia, a cancer of the blood/bone marrow. He needs a bone marrow donation, or he will die young. You and your husband/wife are not matches for his bone marrow. You are, however, able to have another child. Through designer babies, they could create a perfect match for your child's blood, bone marrow, or other organ.
Genetic screening on embryos has the potential to wipe out genetic disease by virtually removing the alleles from such disorders. When it is used in correct form, for medical treatment, children born in the future have the potential to be purely "healthy" and carry no signs of genetic disease.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Cons of designer babies
society
- A society of pretty, healthy, and intelligent people may sound reasonable and even favorable, until the full social implications are considered. Designing a baby costs money, and will most likely continue to cost lots of money; Genetic engineering for non medical reasons is not necessary for living life and it is doubtful that those who could not afford it would get reimbursed by insurance companies. This cost will mean that not everyone will be able to pay to design their baby, and suddenly people will encounter prejudice, not for their race, but for their inferior genetic makeup. It creates a new class system made up of genetically designed people and naturally made people. The people who were not genetically engineered would experience a loss of opportunity based on a chance that their defective genes will be expressed. In this new society, people with a 50% chance of cancer would get passed over for a job in favor of the person with .01% chance of cancer. That kind of social stratification can be frightening. Even if privacy laws the way they are now stay in place and people’s genetic information is not shared, it could be obvious which children were designed and which were not, creating the same stratification
one gender or other important characteristic is favored over the other.
-In countries such as China and India where boys are favored over girls, this technology could be used so that every set of parents that wants a baby boy will get one. However, that is not evolutionarily favorable. If a generation of only boys were to be made, the human race would die out.
-Without diversity in the species, adaptation to the new environment is more difficult without a wide range of individuals to choose from. The evolution of humans has spanned about 2 million years and has resulted in the types of people we see today: people who have imperfections and people who are very different from one another. A large scale of organisms in a particular species is necessary for that species to continue to be competitive with other species and be successful. By creating a generation of genetically similar people, the human species loses its ability to adapt to changing environments
going against ethical values.
-Furthermore, on moral grounds, whether it is believed that humans evolved or were created by God, it is wrong to try to perfect something that has been perfected over a large span of time or made by God. This is also considered as going against ethical values.
The Embryos
society
- A society of pretty, healthy, and intelligent people may sound reasonable and even favorable, until the full social implications are considered. Designing a baby costs money, and will most likely continue to cost lots of money; Genetic engineering for non medical reasons is not necessary for living life and it is doubtful that those who could not afford it would get reimbursed by insurance companies. This cost will mean that not everyone will be able to pay to design their baby, and suddenly people will encounter prejudice, not for their race, but for their inferior genetic makeup. It creates a new class system made up of genetically designed people and naturally made people. The people who were not genetically engineered would experience a loss of opportunity based on a chance that their defective genes will be expressed. In this new society, people with a 50% chance of cancer would get passed over for a job in favor of the person with .01% chance of cancer. That kind of social stratification can be frightening. Even if privacy laws the way they are now stay in place and people’s genetic information is not shared, it could be obvious which children were designed and which were not, creating the same stratification
one gender or other important characteristic is favored over the other.
-In countries such as China and India where boys are favored over girls, this technology could be used so that every set of parents that wants a baby boy will get one. However, that is not evolutionarily favorable. If a generation of only boys were to be made, the human race would die out.
-Without diversity in the species, adaptation to the new environment is more difficult without a wide range of individuals to choose from. The evolution of humans has spanned about 2 million years and has resulted in the types of people we see today: people who have imperfections and people who are very different from one another. A large scale of organisms in a particular species is necessary for that species to continue to be competitive with other species and be successful. By creating a generation of genetically similar people, the human species loses its ability to adapt to changing environments
going against ethical values.
-Furthermore, on moral grounds, whether it is believed that humans evolved or were created by God, it is wrong to try to perfect something that has been perfected over a large span of time or made by God. This is also considered as going against ethical values.
The Embryos
The choosing of embryos brings to the forefront a large moral issue with designer babies. Many embryos are created, and not as many are implanted into the mother. The embryos that do not fit the specifications set by the parents will get thrown away. Had these embryos have been allowed to grow, they could have had long and fulfilled lives, however the ones that are thrown away lose that potential life. Many people, especially those who are pro-life, view this aspect as a huge problem in the creation of designer babies. If many embryos are going to be thrown away, they should not be created.
Author's POV
"Genetic engineering and designer babies could potentially be a very good thing; however, like any technology, it cannot be abused without rampant ramifications. It is true that many of the scenarios mentioned are worst case. On the other hand, any degree of the scenarios above is still somewhat terrifying. We do not think that the ideas surrounding designer babies are all bad though as there are also advantages to it"
Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD/Designer Babies) Ethics
Research Article
Screening for fetal and genetic abnormality: social and ethical issues.
G R Dunstan
Author Affiliations: University of London.
Abstract
In answer to questions raised by practitioners, an ethics of genetic screening is located in a tension between liberty and responsibility in three respects: (1) to nature and biological processes; (2) to the disposal of human life; and (3) to the relation of persons to society. Under (1), the obligation to pursue research, fundamental as well as applied, is affirmed, offering the benefit of economy with fetal life, but requiring discrimination between the beneficial, the trivial, and the bizarre. Under (2) the abortion question, when relevant to diagnosed abnormality, is discussed, not in the language of conflicting rights, but of the relation of duties to interests. Under (3) the familial and social dimensions of screening raise questions of the disclosure of information and the keeping or extending of confidences. Last comes the value placed on truth in two related areas of developing practice. In infertility treatment, the donors of gametes are required to remain anonymous. Gene tracing through families requires for its effectiveness some correspondence between assumed identity and genetic identity. This conflict of social policies should be resolved.
http://jmg.bmj.com/content/25/5/290#related-urls
Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debateEthical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis
John A. Robertson
Author Affiliations: School of Law, The University of Texas, 727 Dean Keeton Street, Austin, Texas, USA. e‐mail: jrobertson@mail.law.utexas.edu
AbstractThe use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for aneuploidy and genetic disease is growing. New uses of PGD have been reported in the past year for screening embryos for susceptibility to cancer, for late‐onset diseases, for HLA‐matching for existing children, and for gender. These extensions have raised questions about their ethical acceptability and the adequacy of regulatory structures to review new uses. This article describes current and likely future uses of PGD, and then analyses the ethical issues posed by new uses of PGD to screen embryos for susceptibility and late‐onset conditions, for HLA‐matching for tissue donation to an existing child, and for gender selection. It also addresses ethical issues that would arise in more speculative scenarios of selecting embryos for hearing ability or sexual orientation. The article concludes that except for sex selection of the first child, most current extensions of PGD are ethically acceptable, and provides a framework for evaluating future extensions for nonmedical purposes that are still speculative.
Ethical issues in current and expanded uses of PGD
Two main sets of ethical objections make PGD and proposals for its extension controversial. One set of objections arises from the need to create and then select embryos on chromosomal or genetic grounds, with the deselected embryos then usually discarded. Other objections concern the fact of selection itself.
Objections to PGD based on its effect on embryos replay debates over abortion and embryo status that have occurred in many other contexts, from abortion to embryonic stem cell research. People who think that the embryo or fetus is a person will object to creating and destroying embryos, and oppose most uses of PGD. Others believe that preimplantation embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests or rights, but that they deserve special respect as the first stage toward a new person (American Society of Reproductive Medicine, 1994). Under this view PGD is ethically acceptable when done for good reasons, such as preventing offspring with serious genetic disease. Indeed, PGD may prevent selective abortions for those diseases. A major issue with new uses of PGD is whether they sufficiently benefit important human interests to meet the demands of special respect for embryos that supporters of PGD may require.
A second set of objections arises from the fact of selection itself, and the risks of greatly expanded future selection of embryos and children. Sometimes based on religious views about the nature of human reproduction, ethical objections to selecting offspring traits raises two kinds of ethical concerns. One kind is deontological—the ethical judgement that it is wrong to choose traits of offspring, no matter how well intentioned. Dr Leon Kass has articulated this view, as has the President’s Bioethics Council in the United States, which he chairs. They argue that human reproduction is a ‘gift’ and that any form of selection or manipulation turns the child into a ‘manufacture’ and thus impairs human flourishing (Kass, 1998, 2000, 2002; President’s Bioethics Council, 2002). The second kind of concern is consequentialist. It arises from fears that increasing the frequency and scope of genetic screening of prospective children will move us toward a eugenic world in which children are valued more for their genotype than for their inherent characteristics, eventually ushering in a world of ‘designer’ children in which genetic engineering of offspring becomes routine.
While recognizing the strong objections of some people to PGD on these grounds, the following discussion assumes that the use of PGD to screen for aneuploidy and serious Mendelian disorders is ethically and legally acceptable when performed according to applicable regulatory guidelines. It concentrates instead on new indications for PGD, and asks whether they would also meet ethical standards of acceptability.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/465.full
Posted by Sherissa Chua (29)
Screening for fetal and genetic abnormality: social and ethical issues.
G R Dunstan
Author Affiliations: University of London.
Abstract
In answer to questions raised by practitioners, an ethics of genetic screening is located in a tension between liberty and responsibility in three respects: (1) to nature and biological processes; (2) to the disposal of human life; and (3) to the relation of persons to society. Under (1), the obligation to pursue research, fundamental as well as applied, is affirmed, offering the benefit of economy with fetal life, but requiring discrimination between the beneficial, the trivial, and the bizarre. Under (2) the abortion question, when relevant to diagnosed abnormality, is discussed, not in the language of conflicting rights, but of the relation of duties to interests. Under (3) the familial and social dimensions of screening raise questions of the disclosure of information and the keeping or extending of confidences. Last comes the value placed on truth in two related areas of developing practice. In infertility treatment, the donors of gametes are required to remain anonymous. Gene tracing through families requires for its effectiveness some correspondence between assumed identity and genetic identity. This conflict of social policies should be resolved.
http://jmg.bmj.com/content/25/5/290#related-urls
Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debateEthical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis
John A. Robertson
Author Affiliations: School of Law, The University of Texas, 727 Dean Keeton Street, Austin, Texas, USA. e‐mail: jrobertson@mail.law.utexas.edu
AbstractThe use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for aneuploidy and genetic disease is growing. New uses of PGD have been reported in the past year for screening embryos for susceptibility to cancer, for late‐onset diseases, for HLA‐matching for existing children, and for gender. These extensions have raised questions about their ethical acceptability and the adequacy of regulatory structures to review new uses. This article describes current and likely future uses of PGD, and then analyses the ethical issues posed by new uses of PGD to screen embryos for susceptibility and late‐onset conditions, for HLA‐matching for tissue donation to an existing child, and for gender selection. It also addresses ethical issues that would arise in more speculative scenarios of selecting embryos for hearing ability or sexual orientation. The article concludes that except for sex selection of the first child, most current extensions of PGD are ethically acceptable, and provides a framework for evaluating future extensions for nonmedical purposes that are still speculative.
Ethical issues in current and expanded uses of PGD
Two main sets of ethical objections make PGD and proposals for its extension controversial. One set of objections arises from the need to create and then select embryos on chromosomal or genetic grounds, with the deselected embryos then usually discarded. Other objections concern the fact of selection itself.
Objections to PGD based on its effect on embryos replay debates over abortion and embryo status that have occurred in many other contexts, from abortion to embryonic stem cell research. People who think that the embryo or fetus is a person will object to creating and destroying embryos, and oppose most uses of PGD. Others believe that preimplantation embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests or rights, but that they deserve special respect as the first stage toward a new person (American Society of Reproductive Medicine, 1994). Under this view PGD is ethically acceptable when done for good reasons, such as preventing offspring with serious genetic disease. Indeed, PGD may prevent selective abortions for those diseases. A major issue with new uses of PGD is whether they sufficiently benefit important human interests to meet the demands of special respect for embryos that supporters of PGD may require.
A second set of objections arises from the fact of selection itself, and the risks of greatly expanded future selection of embryos and children. Sometimes based on religious views about the nature of human reproduction, ethical objections to selecting offspring traits raises two kinds of ethical concerns. One kind is deontological—the ethical judgement that it is wrong to choose traits of offspring, no matter how well intentioned. Dr Leon Kass has articulated this view, as has the President’s Bioethics Council in the United States, which he chairs. They argue that human reproduction is a ‘gift’ and that any form of selection or manipulation turns the child into a ‘manufacture’ and thus impairs human flourishing (Kass, 1998, 2000, 2002; President’s Bioethics Council, 2002). The second kind of concern is consequentialist. It arises from fears that increasing the frequency and scope of genetic screening of prospective children will move us toward a eugenic world in which children are valued more for their genotype than for their inherent characteristics, eventually ushering in a world of ‘designer’ children in which genetic engineering of offspring becomes routine.
While recognizing the strong objections of some people to PGD on these grounds, the following discussion assumes that the use of PGD to screen for aneuploidy and serious Mendelian disorders is ethically and legally acceptable when performed according to applicable regulatory guidelines. It concentrates instead on new indications for PGD, and asks whether they would also meet ethical standards of acceptability.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/465.full
Posted by Sherissa Chua (29)
Cons of Designer Babies
Cons
Designer babies could lead to the further division of the socio-economic strata.
Having a designer baby requires a large sum of money to be
invested so that doctors can produce the ideal child for the parents with all
the desirable characteristics and cosmetic appearances. Only the rich would be
able to afford the 'luxury' and 'freedom' to choose the features that they want
their child to have and this could possibly lead to the invention of a flawless
generation of perfect children that are not only born rich but also have a
superior advantage over the poorer people, be it in terms of physical
attractiveness, fitness or even intelligence. This would intensify the gap
between the rich and the poor because the rich simply gets richer and more
powerful while the poor remains poor and stuck with their natural traits and
abilities. Thus, it would be more challenging and difficulty for them to get
out of the rat race as they need to possess higher intelligence and greater
abilities to overcome the power class of the designer babies.
Designer babies would further intensify the superficiality in the society.
Today's modern society has been already deeply concerned
with their looks, with rising number of people seeking help from plastic
surgeons to correct their looks or to make them look more attractive and
appealing. Now, with the invention of designer babies and the likelihood for
parents to choose the desirable features of their child, it could only lead to
human beings to further dwell in the endless chase for the perfect appearance.
Designer babies could lead to the overwhelming response of a certain feature
that are deem more valuable as compared to other features and the poorer
population that are born naturally with that certain undesirable feature would
likely be discriminated by others. This could also lead to these normal kids to
feel inferior of their appearances, causing them to lose confidence and hope
which would lead to a viscous cycle because the rich would just look nicer and
better while the poor just stays the same.
Designer babies are not guaranteed a success and it is not a natural process of life.
With all the hopes raised for designer babies, parents that
could afford it may be waiting in anticipation for the arrival of the perfect
child. But because designer babies are a new invention, there would be no
guarantee on whether the child would really be able to have the desirable
features that the parents chose. Apart from not fully getting the ideal
results, there could also be the possibility that other health complications
could arise in the designer babies. What would happen to the child if he/she
was not considered perfect to the parents? The parents cannot reject or refund
the baby like they could when they do not fancy a designer product after
purchasing it. After all, we are talking about a life. Shouldn't parents just
appreciate the natural process of having a child and love the child as he/she
is? The joy of having children is the excitement and anticipation of wondering
what the child would look like and having a bunch of kids that are genetically
similar to the parents. Children are gifts from God, regardless of whether they
are 'perfect' or not and parents should just appreciate the fact that they are
able to have kids and produce human beings that look like them because this
could be one of the true values of being a parent.
http://designerbabies-jtcc.blogspot.com/2009/06/designer-babies-good-or-bad_10.html
http://designerbabies-jtcc.blogspot.com/2009/06/designer-babies-good-or-bad_10.html
Socratic Questioning
Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for
many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues
and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what
we know from what we don't know, to follow out logical implications of thought, or to control
the discussion. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is
that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually
focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems.
It teaches us to dig beneath the surface of our
ideas. It teaches us the value of developing questioning minds in cultivating
deep learning.
1.
Getting students to clarify
their thinking
e.g., ‘Why do you say that?’, ‘Could you explain further?’
2.
Challenging students
about assumptions
e.g., ‘Is this always the case?’, ‘Why do you think that this
assumption holds here?’
3.
Evidence as
a basis for argument
e.g., ‘Why do you say that?’, ‘Is there reason to doubt this
evidence?’
4.
Alternative viewpoints and perspectives
e.g., ‘What is the counter argument for?’, ‘Can/did anyone see this
another way?’
5.
Implications
and consequences
e.g., ‘But if...happened, what else would result?’, ‘How
does...affect...?’
6.
Question
the question
e.g., ‘Why do you think that I asked that question?’, ‘Why was that
question important?’, ‘Which of your questions turned out to be the most
useful?’
Taken from:
The Art of Socratic Questioning
The art of Socratic
questioning is important for the critical thinker because the art of
questioning is important to excellence of thought. What the word ‘Socratic’
adds is “systematicity”, “depth”, and a keen interest in assessing the truth or
plausibility of things.
How To
Prepare To Lead a Socratic Discussion
One of the best ways to prepare to lead a Socratic discussion is
by pre-thinking the main question to be discussed using the approach of
developing prior questions. Prior questions are questions presupposed by
another question. Hence, to settle the question “What is multi-culturalism?” I
should be able to first settle the question, “What is culture?” and, to settle
that question, I should be able to settle the question “What is the basis of
culture?” that is, “What are the factors about a person which determine what
culture he/she belongs to?"
Construct A List of Prior Questions
To construct a list of
prior questions, simply write down the main question which you are going to
focus your discussion on and then pose a question you would have to be able to
answer before you could answer the first. Then take the second question and do
the same for it (i.e., determine what question you would have to answer to
answer it). Then, continue on, following the same procedure for every new
question on your list.
As you proceed to
construct your list keep your attention focused on the first question on the
list as well as on the last. If you do this well, you should end up with a list
of questions which probe the logic of the first question, and hence, a list of
questions which are relevant to a Socratic discussion of your first question.
During the Socratic dialog, you should loosely follow your list of logically
prior questions, using it primarily as a guide for deeply probing the issue at
hand.
A Sample List
As an example of how to
construct logically prior questions, consider this list of questions that we
developed in thinking through a key question intended for use in conducting a
Socratic discussion on the question, “What is history?”
·
What is history?
·
What do historians write
about?
·
What is the past?
·
Is it possible to
include all of the past in a history book?
·
How many of the events
during a given time period are left out in a history of that time period?
·
Is more left out than is
included?
·
How does a historian
know what to emphasize or focus on?
·
Do historians make value
judgments in deciding what to include and what to leave out?
·
Is it possible to simply
list facts in a history book or does all history writing involve
interpretations as well as facts?
·
Is it possible to decide
what to include and exclude and how to interpret facts without adopting a
historical point of view?
·
How can we begin to
judge a historical interpretation?
·
How can we begin to
judge a historical point of view?
List of questions for
designer babies:
- What are designer
babies?
-Is it widely used in
the world?
-What is the process of
making them?
-Is it truly beneficial
to society? (consider the risks involved)
-Is it encouraged for
people to go through this process? Why or why not?
-What are your views on
it?
-What are the
consequences of it?
Articles on designer babies
Consumers desire more genetic testing, but not
designer babies
A new study by researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center found a
high desire for additional genetic testing among consumers for life altering
and threatening medical conditions including mental retardation, blindness,
deafness, cancer, heart disease, dwarfism and shortened lifespan from death by
5 years of age. Consumers, however, are less interested in prenatal genetic
testing for traits including tall stature, superior athletic ability and
superior intelligence. "Our research has discovered that although the
media portrays a desire for 'designer babies', this does not appear to be true
among consumers of genetic testing services," said Feighanne Hathaway, MS
CGC, a certified genetic counselor at the NYU Cancer Institute. The article
entitled, "Consumers' Desire towards Current and Prospective Reproductive
Genetic Testing" published online early by the Journal of Genetic Counseling finds that consumers desire more
genetic testing than what is currently offered but their selection of tests
have limits on enhancements.
Prior to their initial visit with a genetic counselor at NYU's
Human Genetics Program, 999 patients completed a one-page, 10 question
categorical survey to assess their attitude towards reproductive genetic
testing between July 2006 and February 2007. These consumers were asked to
indicate traits and conditions for which they would choose reproductive genetic
testing by circling answers from a list of thirteen that included both diseases
and enhancements.
The study found that the majority of respondents would elect for
the screening of the following conditions: mental retardation (75%), deafness
(54%), blindness (56%), heart disease (52%), and cancer (51%). The results
indicate that less than half of population (49.3%) would choose testing for a condition
that resulted in death by 5 years of age, whereas even less parents (only
41.1%, 24.9%, and 19%) would choose testing for conditions that results in
death by 20, 40, and 50 years of age, respectively. Only a minority of
respondents would want genetic testing for enhancements such as athletic
ability (10 %) or superior intelligence (12.6%). Also, the majority of
respondents (52.2%) indicated that there were no conditions for which genetic
testing should never be offered.
"As our knowledge and abilities in molecular genetics
continues to expand, so does our ability to detect certain conditions and
traits prenatally," said Dr. Harry Ostrer, Director of Human Genetics
Program at NYU Langone Medical Center. "Our study gauged the consumers'
opinion towards reproductive testing for diseases and enhancements. Our
research has found that a majority of respondents would elect to have prenatal
genetic testing for life altering conditions but most respondents did not
desire testing for enhancements. This survey also demonstrated that there was a
desire for additional reproductive testing for medical conditions or life
altering diseases, than currently offered."
In addition researchers investigated whether learning about risk
for disease to oneself might dissuade an individual from undergoing prenatal
genetic testing. The survey revealed that about 80% of all respondents would
still have testing if it revealed increased risk for disease for oneself
including Parkinson's disease, early menopause, breast cancer and if it
revealed non-paternity.
According to researchers, this study recognizes the increased
consumer demand for genetic testing and this higher demand may already be
exceeding the number of available genetic counselors. Consumers may have also
followed their own personal values or belief systems when assessing choice for
genetic tests and that genetic counselors may want to develop a policy
statement about new genetic tests that are becoming available and the ethical
concerns regarding prenatal testing for life altering conditions.
The authors concluded that, "it seems unlikely that the
'Age of Designer Babies' is near at- hand."
Source: NYU Langone Medical
Center / New York University School of Medicine
Taken from:
Designing
Life: Should Babies Be Genetically Engineered?
Wynne Parry,
LiveScience Contributor
Freelance Journalist and writer
Greater New York City Area, Writing and Editing
Education: Columbia University- Graduate School of Journalism, University of Utah
Freelance Journalist and writer
Greater New York City Area, Writing and Editing
Education: Columbia University- Graduate School of Journalism, University of Utah
Date: 18 February 2013
Time: 12:22 PM ET
NEW YORK — The increasing power
and accessibility of genetic technology may one day give parents the option of
modifying their unborn children, in order to spare offspring from disease or,
conceivably, make them tall, well muscled, intelligent or otherwise blessed
with desirable traits.
Would this change mean empowering parents to give their children
the best start possible? Or would it meandesigner babies who could face unforeseen genetic
problems? Experts debated on Wednesday evening (Feb. 13) whether prenatal
engineering should be banned in the United States.
Humans have already genetically modified animals and crops, said
Sheldon Krimsky, a philosopher at Tufts University, who argued in favor of a
ban on the same for human babies. "But in the hundreds of thousands of
trails that failed, we simply discarded the results of the unwanted crop or
animal."
Unknown consequences
Is this a model that society wants to apply to humans, making
pinpoint genetic modifications, only to "discard the results when they
don't work out?" Krimsky asked during an Intelligence Squared Debate held in Manhattan. He added that
assuming no mistakes will occur would be sheer hubris.
He and fellow ban proponent Lord Robert Winston, a professor of
science and society and a fertility expert at Imperial College in London,
focused on the uncertainty associated with the genetic underpinnings of traits.
The two also addressed the consequences of manipulating genes. [5 Myths About Fertility Treatments]
"Even [for] height, one of the most heritable
traits known, scientists have found at least 50 genes that account for only 2
to 3 percent of the variance in the samples," Krimsky said. "If you
want a tall child, marry tall."
Mother Nature doesn’t care
Meanwhile, their opponents, who opposed the ban, talked of
empowering parents to give their children a healthy life, even if it meant
giving their offspring traits they themselves could not pass down.
Lee Silver, a professor of molecular biology and public policy at
Princeton University, urged the audience members to look at someone sitting
next to them.
"That person and you differ at over 1 million locations in
your DNA [deoxyribonucleic acid]. Most [of these
variations] don't do anything," Silver said. "[But] even if you are a
healthy adult, 100 [of these] can cause deadly childhood disease in your
children or grandchildren."
"Mother Nature is a metaphor," he continued. "And
it is a bad metaphor, because in reality inheritance is a game of craps … It
won't have to be that way in the future."
His fellow ban opponent, Nita Farahany, a professor of law and of
genome sciences and policy at Duke University, attacked the idea that
uncertainty should prevent the use of the technology, pointing out that
reproduction, completely unaided by technology, involves much uncertainty.
"We are not going to ban natural
sex," Farahany said.
Already possible
A significant portion of the debate focused on a particular
technology known asmitochondrial transfer. While the majority of
DNA resides in a cell's nucleus, a small amount is contained in the cell's
energy factories, called mitochondria. This mitochondrial DNA is passed from
mother to child. In rare cases, women have mitochondrial defects they can pass
down to their children, causing devastating problems or even death.
Mitochondrial transfer can replace such defective mitochondrial
DNA with that from a donor, allowing affected mothers to avoid passing these
defects on to their children, who then carry genetic material from three
parents (the father and two mothers, including the donor).
Opponents of a ban argued it would prevent women with
mitochondrial disorders from having healthy children of their own.
"I am not here to defend every type of genetic engineering. I
don't think we are ready as a society to embrace it all," Farahany said.
Rather than an outright ban, she and Silver argued for a middle
ground, which would allow for certain procedures once they had been shown to be
safe and effective. An emerging scientific consensus says mitochondrial
transfer would fit into this category, she said.
Winston disagreed.
"We know fiddling with mitochondrial DNA may make a massive
difference to what happens to nuclear DNA. … Abnormal children have been born
as result of mitochondrial transfer," he said. "I think, in
preventing one genetic disease, you are likely to cause another genetic
disease." [The 10 Most Mysterious Diseases]
Society should instead focus on the enormous importance of
environmental influences in health, Winston said. "What we should be
trying to do, rather than risk making abnormal babies, is to improve the
environment so the DNA functions in the best possible ways."
Neither Farahany nor Silver argued in favor of allowing parents to
modify their children to ensure other traits that are less medically necessary,
but nevertheless desirable, such as higher intelligence or blue eyes.
"What I think parents care about most is promoting the health
of their children," Silver said.
Leading to eugenics?
Both sides referred to the specter of eugenics, an idea embraced by the Nazis, which
holds that selective breeding can be used to improve the human race.
Winston and Krimsky pointed out that genetically modifying
children to choose desirable traits evoked this approach. Meanwhile, Farahany
noted that some of the worst abuses of government in recent history involved
attempts to control reproduction. How would a ban on the genetic modification
of children be enforced, she asked, would all babies be forcibly
tested?
Taken from:
http://www.livescience.com/27206-genetic-engineering-babies-debate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29
Sunday, 31 March 2013
Phone: Past, present, future
PAST
The first cell phone created by Motorola in 1983
The first cell phone created by Motorola in 1983
Analog Motorola DynaTAC 8000X Advanced Mobile Phone System mobile phone as of 1983.
The first hand-held mobile phone was demonstrated by John F. Mitchell and Dr Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973, using a handset weighing around 2.2 pounds (1 kg). In 1983, the DynaTAC 8000x was the first to be commercially available. From 1990 to 2011, worldwide mobile phone subscriptions grew from 12.4 million to over 6 billion, penetrating about 87% of the global population and reaching the bottom of the economic pyramid.
The first hand-held mobile phone was demonstrated by John F. Mitchell and Dr Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973, using a handset weighing around 2.2 pounds (1 kg). In 1983, the DynaTAC 8000x was the first to be commercially available. From 1990 to 2011, worldwide mobile phone subscriptions grew from 12.4 million to over 6 billion, penetrating about 87% of the global population and reaching the bottom of the economic pyramid.
In the 1870s, two inventors Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell both independently designed devices that could transmit speech electrically (the telephone). Both men rushed their respective designs to the patent office within hours of each other, Alexander Graham Bell patented his telephone first. Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell entered into a famous legal battle over the invention of the telephone, which Bell won.
The first telephone created in America in 1877
Mobile telephone communication was introduced to the public in 1946. For a substantial fee, people could make phone calls from a radio device in their cars. This mobile communication was run on radio bands as opposed to telephone lines, and the service was limited to only a dozen radio calls at a time. Cellular telephony was conceptualized in 1947, but the technology to support it did not exist.
PRESENT
Facts and Figures
FUTURE
5G is a technology used in research papers and projects to denote the next major phase of mobile telecommunication standards beyond the 4G/IMT-Advanced standards. 5G is not officially used for any specification or official document yet made public by telecommunication companies or standardization bodies such as 3GPP, WiMAX Forum, or ITU-R. New standard releases beyond 4G are in progress by standardization bodies, but are at this time not considered as new mobile generations but under the 4G umbrella.
http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinventors/a/telephone.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/telephone/gallery/gallery1.html
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/05/the-evolution-of-cell-phone-design-between-1983-2009/
http://www.qwiktag.com/index.php/knowledge-base/158-history-of-telephone
Mobile telephone communication was introduced to the public in 1946. For a substantial fee, people could make phone calls from a radio device in their cars. This mobile communication was run on radio bands as opposed to telephone lines, and the service was limited to only a dozen radio calls at a time. Cellular telephony was conceptualized in 1947, but the technology to support it did not exist.
PRESENT
Facts and Figures
| Top Five Worldwide Total Mobile Phone Vendors, Q4 2012 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Manufacturer | Gartner[38] | IDC[39] |
| 1 | Samsung | 22.7% | 23.0% |
| 2 | Nokia | 18.0% | 17.9% |
| 3 | Apple | 9.2% | 9.9% |
| 4 | ZTE | 3.4% | 3.6% |
| 5 | LG | 3.2% | - |
| 5 | Huawei | - | 3.3% |
| Others | 43.5% |
42.3%
| |
5G is a technology used in research papers and projects to denote the next major phase of mobile telecommunication standards beyond the 4G/IMT-Advanced standards. 5G is not officially used for any specification or official document yet made public by telecommunication companies or standardization bodies such as 3GPP, WiMAX Forum, or ITU-R. New standard releases beyond 4G are in progress by standardization bodies, but are at this time not considered as new mobile generations but under the 4G umbrella.
http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinventors/a/telephone.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/telephone/gallery/gallery1.html
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/05/the-evolution-of-cell-phone-design-between-1983-2009/
http://www.qwiktag.com/index.php/knowledge-base/158-history-of-telephone
Saturday, 30 March 2013
PROS and CONS of Technology
PROS
Improved performance at work
-faster communication via email, video
conferencing and telephone etc.
Improves transportation
-Thanks to technology,vehicles such as
cars,bikes,buses,trains and planes were
invented to make places more accessible
Improves communication & interaction
-messages are pass down faster via emails
than mailing of letters
-can easily contact your friends and family
through phone calls/text messages/social media/internet etc even when they are
overseas
-improve businesses
-strengthen relationships with others
-social media such as facebook and twitter
improves social lives
Improves education
-online learning portals such as LMS
asknlearn and ace-learning
-some schools use IT gadgets to aid
students’ in their learning.This makes learning more fun & engaging and
students get to learn what’s beyond textbooks
Provide entertainment and relaxation
-online games
-online music
Makes task easier
-Machines aid and reduce human’s work
-Eg. sewing machine
Provide comfort and convenience
-Online shopping
Makes things more accessible
-improved transportation,communication,etc
Enhance quality of work
-IT gadgets/internet provide suggestions
& help to complete work faster
Dependency
-over reliant of inventions such as phones/internet etc
Adverse effects on a person's health and
safety
-radiation from nuclear power plants and gadgets
Online abuse
-cyberbullying
Inappropriate content
-explicit contents such as violence & sexual contents
Harming of Earth
-technological processes cause pollutions and deplete
natural resources
Lost of jobs
-companies adopt automatic machines to cut down costs of
labour
Online frauds
-Identity theft
Negligence in studies
-did not regulate usage of IT gadgetsàaddiction
Weaken relationships between people
-As technology becomes more advance, more people prefer
to communicate through the use of IT gadgets and internet which may cause
miscommunications as words conveyed across through online chats etc may not be
as clear as face-to-face conversations
With reference to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)