[Servant of Eru]

I was just watching part of the series DNA on PBS, and boy that scared the bloody hell out of me!!! Apparently, care of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, Jim Watson, co-cracker of the DNA code, has become a eugenicist, and has dedicated his life to mentoring others as well as finding funding for it himself; for finding ways to tinker with the human genome and eradicate all diseases.

Sounds good at first, doesn't it...but it gets worse. His opinions of what is worthy of genetic manipulation/eradication include things such as intelligence, beauty/ugliness, Down's Syndrome, Manic Depression, Homosexuality, and a host of other things.

This still doesn't sound all that bad...until you get to thinking what this could actually mean...over half of the creative geniuses of our time were thought to be, diagnosed, or suspected to be Manic Depressive, scientists aren't quite sure what the link to this is...though there does appear to be one. (I'm bloody Bi-Polar!!! )

Down's Syndrome...sounds like it would be a great thing to get rid of right? But what about the parents who have moral objections to manipulating their future children's genetics, while the overwhelming majority of other children are normal? Can you imagaine the abuse these individuals would take daily because of this?

Now, all this wouldn't be quite as indimidating/scary if the tech for all of this wasn't already here. They showed one of Watson's former protege's, Mario something or other, whom I seem to recall having remembered reading something about him doing cloning experiments on humans in PopSci, which would fit as the guy's name was Mario, and he was over in Europe. Anyway, they had him showing off this machine through which they can take the four elemental pieces of all DNA, and place them together and assemble them in whatever form they wanted, then inject them into an embryo at it's early stages of development, and impose their changes on it. They had a mouse that they actually successfully turned off the gene that makes it's facial muscles function so that it couldn't blink. He also has dreams of giving the next generation of humans an upgradeable artificial chromasome, that you can manipulate however you like! Isn't Down's Syndrome's origins in a chromasomal abnormality?!!

Now, they're all actually coming out and saying that they want to genetically manipulate the human genetic code, to further the "evolution" of the human race. Holy ****e!!!

My prediction that's quite unfounded, though is well enough grounded is these new real mad scientists are going to unleash a genetic disease upon humanity far worse than anything we already have.

There is one good thing that's come out of all this though. Since they've claimed to identify the gene that causes Manic Depressives, whenever someone asks me why I'm such a jerk, my new response is "It's in my genetic code."

[LANMaster]

I knew there had to be a reason for it.

j/k

bypass the doom and gloom, and look at the good this will do for humanity.

[Rockn]

I suppose you are against pre-natal screening for birth defects such as downs syndrome, spinabifida, and many others? What makes you think the man is a eugenist because he believes in screeneing defective genes? The danger comes with any science when governments get ahold of the technology and use it to their own means.

Psst...there are already genetically engineered virus and plagues that could wipe out everyone on the face of the earth. The CDC still has the genetic material for bubonic plague amoung others sitting in cold storage.

[cadaver queen]

DNA series has been fascinating....Have you watched it from the beginning?

James Watson has been credit from the Double Helix but whose research did he "borrow" or do a "Bill Gates " from ?

Watson is known for his prolific research/patents as well as being an curmudgeon of epic proportions.. His theories begin with the ultimate outlook that scientific exploration of any kind , wouldn't have happened without his input...Look at his history..
There are many "blowhards " in the scientific community with this attitude ...


Here... the mouse was mentioned...But did they discuss how many embryos were originally injected? How long the this clinical process has been effect ? Or that in all probability this effect was not they were originally striving for?

The secret about clinical trials or testing is to have a clear parameter in the beginning but to keep an open mind to it's ultimate results..Turn around is the name of the game if a clinical team wants to keep it's funding(esp. when it is in the millions) ,prestige and position within the medical research field...

Everything that is printed on the web or on tv must be taken with a grain of salt... When it is reported that a new miracle drug has been tested and has a above average success rate , everyone wants a chance at it..What is not shown or reported is that drug was only tested on 138 people for 36 months and most were relatively healthy or without secondary illness... Now , the drug companies have a chance to go public (IP ) or corner the market based on direct advertising to the public ...Who drives the market??

What does this have to do with genetic testing??? Go back to one of my original questions..How many embryos were implanted ? What was the original number of test subjects?

Genetics is a complicated and extremely diverse field... I am sitting in a medical library and there are 62 books on the subject , branching off in to dozens of research fields...We haven't even scratched the surface of genetic testing or educating all medical personnel in the correct diagnosis to order a test nor the proper comprehension of the results (unless your a medical geneticist) ...Try this .. in the US ...only 81% of mammograms are read correctly by a radiologist an (MD/DO) ...Imagine what it is like for a primary or internist to properly identify and communicate with a patient about the genetic testing results... Most HMO'S will not pay for the testing and nor can it be considered a "private matter".

Sex sells...Magic cure sells pills, operations and fantasies ... Fear sells newspapers, tv shows, and products of all kinds..Even PBS is not immune..If you read about a new treatment ..research all the facts ..look at the fine print 'cause the drug companies, newspapers, tv shows are looking for you to tune in , not feel obligated for full disclosure..

[LANMaster]

SoE,

Have you ever gone to the Doctor?
Taken medicine for any ailment?

By that act, aren't you doing what you can to cure your ailments?

I see this as no different.

If your wife were pregnant with your only Son and it was determined that he was going to be born with a genetic defect that may result in him being afflicted with Down syndrome or severe mental retardation, wouldn't you jump at the chance to enhance his life by resequencing his genes to remove that threat?

I know that I sure would.

[oldie]

Ties in well with my thread in here (CivDeB) now moved on to human cloning.

One word ... progress no one person or body of people will prevent it.

Very interesting subject matter though

[Servant of Eru]

Originally posted by Rockn:
I suppose you are against pre-natal screening for birth defects such as downs syndrome, spinabifida, and many others? What makes you think the man is a eugenist because he believes in screeneing defective genes? The danger comes with any science when governments get ahold of the technology and use it to their own means.

Psst...there are already genetically engineered virus and plagues that could wipe out everyone on the face of the earth. The CDC still has the genetic material for bubonic plague amoung others sitting in cold storage.

Well, I believe he was a eugenicist because he admitted to be one. I'm not so much against the resequencing of down's syndrome patients (though it does seem too much like playing God), but he wants to eradicate Bi Polar, which is treatable, and results in many creative geniuses, ugliness, stupidity?!! Where the hell is it supposed to stop?!! The scariest thing about it to me, was that he said in response to someone who asked him isn't this like playing God, he said: "Well if we don't play God, who will? It's a very good thing to do."

I'm all for helping humanity, in fact, I'm one of the only protestant Christians I know who is all for stem cell research. But resequencing genetic code just seems like something that is best left alone.

[Rockn]

What's the difference between screening for downs and genetically engineering a flu shot? 200 years ago most people born with downs or other birth defects would have died, along with athsmatics and too many other ailments to count. Entire populations died from influenza! These are almost unheard of now days due to immunizations and advanced medical technology. What's the difference? What if they found the genetic defect or trigger that caused depression? I am sure you would want to continue medicating yourself.

I personnally feel they have done far too much already and are in fact weakening the gene pool where people have little or no resistance to common everyday illnesses. Natural selection is a thing of the past I guess.

[Servant of Eru]

Originally posted by Rockn:
What if they found the genetic defect or trigger that caused depression? I am sure you would want to continue medicating yourself.

They have...but quite frankly, I'd like to leave the genetic engineering to God.

[cnimbus]

What is wrong with eliminating hereditary diseases? Tay-Sachs, Downe's Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, XYY males and a host of other disorders could be eliminated in one or two generations. All those who would have suffered tremendously, often dying quite young, would be spared such calamity. So would their families. Why would anyone let their children go thorugh torment when it could be avoided?

Eliminating what are obviously diseases is one thing. The real question is where to draw the line in selecting the best of many good things. This applies to appearance, endurance, strength, intelligence, etc.

Of paramount importance is how those who carry undesirable genes are treated. Any mistreatment of them, even in the slightest, is intolerable. A rather scary thought, as mankind's wisdom and compassion often lags our technological prowess.

[Servant of Eru]

Originally posted by cnimbus:
What is wrong with eliminating hereditary diseases? Tay-Sachs, Downe's Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, XYY males and a host of other disorders could be eliminated in one or two generations. All those who would have suffered tremendously, often dying quite young, would be spared such calamity. So would their families. Why would anyone let their children go thorugh torment when it could be avoided?

Eliminating what are obviously diseases is one thing. The real question is where to draw the line in selecting the best of many good things. This applies to appearance, endurance, strength, intelligence, etc.

Of paramount importance is how those who carry undesirable genes are treated. Any mistreatment of them, even in the slightest, is intolerable. A rather scary thought, as mankind's wisdom and compassion often lags our technological prowess.

You basically hit the nail on the head as to what I was thinking right there. The reason he was so frightening was he didn't limit the things he wanted to eliminate to just debilitating diseases. He wanted to eliminate Manic Deppression, ugliness, stupidity etc., etc. Very scary indeed.

[LANMaster]

What's wrong with eliminating deformities? (ugliness)
The disease of Manic Depression?
Stupidity?


Wait a minute .... that would hit the Democratic Party very hard. Well, that explains the lack of support from Democrats.

[twotugs]

Originally posted by Servant of Eru:
but he wants to eradicate Bi Polar, which is treatable, and results in many creative geniuses

Not sure there's a correlation between bipolar disorder and genius. Indeed, I'd be more inclined to believe autism and genius are closer related.

Like I've been told, "Just because no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist." I don't think genius and mental illness go hand in hand, either.

[Chris A]

Lung cancer vaccine shows promise

By JAN JARVIS

Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram


DALLAS - For Connie West, who was diagnosed in 1999 with lung cancer, an experimental vaccine is nothing short of a miracle.

"I had cancer in both lungs, and it just gradually went away," said West, who began taking the vaccine in 2001. "I had a scan last week, and there's no sign of cancer in my body. It's almost unbelievable."

While the vaccine, developed by researchers at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, won't cure all patients, it is helping others live longer than expected with no signs of the disease.

The vaccine uses cancer cells obtained from the patient's tumor to activate the immune system. In the trial, 43 patients with early and advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer were treated with the vaccine. Half of the patients responded to the treatment.

For about 10 percent, the remission lasted more than eight months, and some patients have been cancer-free for three years, said Dr. John Nemunaitis, oncologist and researcher at the Mary Crowley Medical Research Center at Baylor.

People with non-small cell lung cancer typically survive four to six months.

"It's really a significant glimmer of hope," said Nemunaitis, principal investigator of the study published Wednesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

In the study, three patients with advanced-stage lung cancer experienced complete remission lasting six months, 18 months and ongoing at 22 months.

For two of these patients, treatment with chemotherapy had failed. One patient experienced a 30 percent decrease in the size of a lung nodule, and for seven patients, the disease did not progress for a period ranging from almost five months to more than 28 months.

One of the significant advantages is that the vaccine has virtually no side effects, Nemunaitis said.

Non-small cell lung cancer, which is the most common type, is the leading cause of cancer death for men and women in the United States. More than 150,000 people nationwide die from the disease each year.

The results of the study are promising, but larger, randomized trials are needed, said Dr. Roy Herbst, chief of thoracic medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

"For an initial approach, I think it's a good first step," he said.

But it has its limitations. Patients must undergo surgery to remove the tumor cells used to make the vaccine, and it takes time to develop the vaccine.

"It's a technically difficult procedure, and you have to make a different vaccine for every patient," he said.

In the Dallas trial, cancer cells were removed and genetically engineered in the lab. There, a gene called GM-CSF was placed into the cancer cells to change their surface so the body could identify them as cancerous.

After the vaccine, called GVAX, is developed, it is injected into patients every two weeks for a total of three to six vaccinations.

Once the vaccine is injected, the body's immune cells come to the injection site and start to work with immune cells that help rid the body of cancer cells.

The study is believed to be the first in which immune therapy has been the only treatment to result in complete and durable regression of this type of tumor.

Researchers plan to do further studies to determine why the vaccine works for some patients and not others.

"If this proves fruitful, this will open more doors to treating lung cancer using the immune system to our advantage," Nemunaitis said.

West said she never hesitated to try an experimental treatment.

Since receiving the vaccine, she has moved into a new house in Waxahachie, traveled all over the world and watched her daughter graduate from college.

"I would tell anyone who gets the same diagnosis to stretch as far as they can and go to any kind of experimental therapy," she said. "If I hadn't done that, I wouldn't be here now."



Here