I mentioned a link in previous post that crashed my browser. I was referencing an interview between Exxon CEO and Charlie Rose wherein Exxon spoke about their research to genetically engineer algae--the oldest living organism on the planet. Rather than simply use algae as it now exists after how many thousands of years of evolution, they wanted to bio-engineer it so they could profitably make fuel from it.
I am one of those people who is reluctant to believe that we can do such meddling with 'Mother Nature' safely. I have seen the damage of genetic pollution from promising biotech companies who mess with the gene pool for plants and claim they are the owners of plant species by virtue of their scientific experiments. There is something inherently disrespectful about the presumption that a young understanding of genetic information is somehow superior to the wisdom of natural life, natural species that have adapted slowly and developed in response to environment. We have history of introducing plants and animals across the planet and creating disruptive or invasive species that do not have natural barriers to their unchecked or rampant growth.
Anyway, I clearly can be viewed as a Luddite or someone against technology but I do understand the hope and fervor of men of science who want to make their mark and leave a legacy and to do things in a big way. I am encouraged by news of individual tinkerers and scientists who devise carburetors that can get 60+ miles per gallon of gas or people who develop cars that run on water or other discoveries that reflect a sensibility and respect for the planet and other life forms. What I hope we guard against as we delve into genetic product development is the propensity to allow entities of scale and economic might to dictate the commercial integration of products that do not serve the highest good but are flawed and allowed to proceed because of the commercial investments made and the objectives of earning profit or gaining market share.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Genetic Engineering
I watched "Life at the Speed of Light" interview with Microbiologist J. Craig Venter after viewing the assigned video "The Frost Interview." Both provide valuable perspectives that when analyzed are very useful to the discussion of bioethics and decisions that are determining the future of life on this planet. The "Life at Speed of--" interview was longer but very informative.
In the Frost Interview, we learn that he was a surfer who went to Vietnam as a corpsman that instilled his desire to study medicine and become a third world doctor. He then started off in a new direction and found his passion in life--biochemistry and research! He later was working at National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a scientist who grew dissatisfied with lack of funding for some research and left to do the work that could and was funded by private sources. Although Frost tries to paint him as an egoist or at least reference allegations of this, I found myself admiring Venter for having the tenacity and self-confidence needed to focus on the achievements he has made, no doubt the critical remarks are at least tinged with professional jealousy and seem to be insignificant to consider when examining the larger magnitude of his work.
He did state that he does not believe in God, which could be an obvious conclusion for a corpsman in Vietnam at age 21. Still it is a daring statement that engenders disdain or worse among a good segment of the American population. Still, if you can remain neutral on that and just consider the nature of his career and the statements he makes, he is revealing through these interviews that he is orchestrating research and admits to being an adrenaline addict. He learned in Vietnam that life is short and is driven by speed and admits that we have a limited amount of time to accomplish things. He says it would be better if science went a whole lot faster and we should have 10 times the pace of discovery that we do.
Novartis is a company that makes vaccines, but has long found flu vaccine unprofitable as it takes at least six months if not a whole year to create them using the egg technology system in place for decades. They are working with Venter to create synthetic vaccine, made entirely from digital code that translates DNA; his work on the Human Genome project was foundation for his understanding that DNA and digital code can be interchangeable and that we have been digitizing biology since 1977. He told story of Chinese virus called H7N9 that he created a vaccine for it in just 10-11 hours! He related that Mexican government didn't want it public that Mexico City was source of a new virus and US government didn't want actual samples of it entering the country. Now they can send digital code of virus instead.
He refers to Asimov who was a biologist before he was a science fiction writer. Venter himself seems to have keen visions and considers that the burgeoning population growth requires that science breakthroughs such as he and his groups are making are needed. He claims that we are evolving socially 1000 times faster than we are evolving biologically and is concerned about the destruction of the environment taking place and says that population pressures will continue unless we devise solutions.
He says people do not credit Monsanto with creating solutions such as Golden Rice in Africa to keep people from starving. Here I differ with his analysis and support for GMO as benign science. I have to respect him for creating a very secure life for himself and a fascinating career and he is well-spoken. He would be an interesting person to invite to a dinner party!
[The following is best resurrection of entry that was lost and not saved when I launched another tab to get this link on algae and refused to allow cookies; it crashed my browser and the work was not saved!]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/exxon-refocusing-algae-biofuels-program-after-100-million-spend.html
DESIGNER BABIES
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/2014/02/27/all-star-panel-debate-over-designer-babies-heats
George Will and other panelists weigh in on the gap or lag time between bioethics and laws with the frontiers of genetic science that have been introduced virtually without such beneficial discussions as a society. Designer babies refers to the idea that parents will soon have the ability to choose not only the sex of their child, but to preselect for intellectual or athletic aptitude as well as desired physical features such as height, or whatever vanity is projected and available for child shoppers using a menu from businesses offering not just genetic counseling but genetic modifications that could involved the mitochondria of a "third parent" with all that entails.
In fact, the debate about surrogate mothers has not kept it from taking place, and the "fertility clinics' around the globe collect DNA and sperm and created the infamous "Octo-Mom' mother of an octet (eight babies) whose vanity and need for attention outweighed the very practical considerations of raising eight babies on top of her pre-existing family as a single mother.
The examples of commercial application of science-engineered discoveries that have not been vetted by society in terms of discussion of the ethical dimensions of the applications and the legal framework to keep up with such rapid and unfamiliar and some might say radical changes have history of having a lengthy gap of more than 10 years.
Given that in my lifetime we have traveled from surrogate moms to the cloning of Dolly the sheep, to the commercial introduction of cloned pigs to the US pork market for humans is evidence that the companies will take the risks and not wait for the laws to tell them if and how they can proceed. Maybe other countries do things differently and decide what research or developments can be introduced, but here in America, money -private money-funds research that develops discoveries that then goes to market and if there is any oversight by civic leaders and the legal system, it happens decades afterwards.
We have cell phone technology that is ubiquitous well before the studies were even contemplated to determine the physical risks of the EM radiation. And then, when such questions and research threaten to undermine profits, companies handily hire teams of PR people to refute the validity of the findings and keep innocent consumers in the dark as long as possible. We can expect this behavior of commercial interests when we consider any and all future genetic or biotech "advancements" that are essentially brought to market via justifications to correct problems but generally create a dozen problems that did not exist before.
In the Frost Interview, we learn that he was a surfer who went to Vietnam as a corpsman that instilled his desire to study medicine and become a third world doctor. He then started off in a new direction and found his passion in life--biochemistry and research! He later was working at National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a scientist who grew dissatisfied with lack of funding for some research and left to do the work that could and was funded by private sources. Although Frost tries to paint him as an egoist or at least reference allegations of this, I found myself admiring Venter for having the tenacity and self-confidence needed to focus on the achievements he has made, no doubt the critical remarks are at least tinged with professional jealousy and seem to be insignificant to consider when examining the larger magnitude of his work.
He did state that he does not believe in God, which could be an obvious conclusion for a corpsman in Vietnam at age 21. Still it is a daring statement that engenders disdain or worse among a good segment of the American population. Still, if you can remain neutral on that and just consider the nature of his career and the statements he makes, he is revealing through these interviews that he is orchestrating research and admits to being an adrenaline addict. He learned in Vietnam that life is short and is driven by speed and admits that we have a limited amount of time to accomplish things. He says it would be better if science went a whole lot faster and we should have 10 times the pace of discovery that we do.
Novartis is a company that makes vaccines, but has long found flu vaccine unprofitable as it takes at least six months if not a whole year to create them using the egg technology system in place for decades. They are working with Venter to create synthetic vaccine, made entirely from digital code that translates DNA; his work on the Human Genome project was foundation for his understanding that DNA and digital code can be interchangeable and that we have been digitizing biology since 1977. He told story of Chinese virus called H7N9 that he created a vaccine for it in just 10-11 hours! He related that Mexican government didn't want it public that Mexico City was source of a new virus and US government didn't want actual samples of it entering the country. Now they can send digital code of virus instead.
He refers to Asimov who was a biologist before he was a science fiction writer. Venter himself seems to have keen visions and considers that the burgeoning population growth requires that science breakthroughs such as he and his groups are making are needed. He claims that we are evolving socially 1000 times faster than we are evolving biologically and is concerned about the destruction of the environment taking place and says that population pressures will continue unless we devise solutions.
He says people do not credit Monsanto with creating solutions such as Golden Rice in Africa to keep people from starving. Here I differ with his analysis and support for GMO as benign science. I have to respect him for creating a very secure life for himself and a fascinating career and he is well-spoken. He would be an interesting person to invite to a dinner party!
[The following is best resurrection of entry that was lost and not saved when I launched another tab to get this link on algae and refused to allow cookies; it crashed my browser and the work was not saved!]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/exxon-refocusing-algae-biofuels-program-after-100-million-spend.html
DESIGNER BABIES
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/2014/02/27/all-star-panel-debate-over-designer-babies-heats
George Will and other panelists weigh in on the gap or lag time between bioethics and laws with the frontiers of genetic science that have been introduced virtually without such beneficial discussions as a society. Designer babies refers to the idea that parents will soon have the ability to choose not only the sex of their child, but to preselect for intellectual or athletic aptitude as well as desired physical features such as height, or whatever vanity is projected and available for child shoppers using a menu from businesses offering not just genetic counseling but genetic modifications that could involved the mitochondria of a "third parent" with all that entails.
In fact, the debate about surrogate mothers has not kept it from taking place, and the "fertility clinics' around the globe collect DNA and sperm and created the infamous "Octo-Mom' mother of an octet (eight babies) whose vanity and need for attention outweighed the very practical considerations of raising eight babies on top of her pre-existing family as a single mother.
The examples of commercial application of science-engineered discoveries that have not been vetted by society in terms of discussion of the ethical dimensions of the applications and the legal framework to keep up with such rapid and unfamiliar and some might say radical changes have history of having a lengthy gap of more than 10 years.
Given that in my lifetime we have traveled from surrogate moms to the cloning of Dolly the sheep, to the commercial introduction of cloned pigs to the US pork market for humans is evidence that the companies will take the risks and not wait for the laws to tell them if and how they can proceed. Maybe other countries do things differently and decide what research or developments can be introduced, but here in America, money -private money-funds research that develops discoveries that then goes to market and if there is any oversight by civic leaders and the legal system, it happens decades afterwards.
We have cell phone technology that is ubiquitous well before the studies were even contemplated to determine the physical risks of the EM radiation. And then, when such questions and research threaten to undermine profits, companies handily hire teams of PR people to refute the validity of the findings and keep innocent consumers in the dark as long as possible. We can expect this behavior of commercial interests when we consider any and all future genetic or biotech "advancements" that are essentially brought to market via justifications to correct problems but generally create a dozen problems that did not exist before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)