Thursday, March 15, 2012
Electronic Debate: Transgenic Organism Production
Please use this space to respectfully and intellectually debate the
issues surrounding the production of transgenic organisms. Express your
opinion in a productive, focused and open-minded way. If any of your
posts have to be removed, you will lose classwork credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel that transgenic organism production should not be done because it is basically injecting foreign genes into another organism. Humans are also used for this pracitce even though consent is given. With transgenic organism production, human genes are sometimes injected into another organism that shares some genes with humans like mice. Things that they would put into the mice would be things like cancer, Alzheimer's, and muscular dystophy. Then scientists study the effect the genes have one the mice. These practices are used to come up with cures for the human genes that they inject into the animal. But to do this they have to patent the strain that they are using and people became concerned with the fact that it would be one organism owning another. This was brought to the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court but they still approved of transgenic organism production.
ReplyDeleteI hear ya girl! ;)
DeleteI agree.
I completely AGREE!!!
DeleteTransgenic Organism Production is taking DNA or RNA from one organisms and inserting it into a different organism. This process can create a whole new species or recreate one. (Put in words by Raymond Harris) One case of this is when they took the part of DNA that held the code for making insulin and inserted it into a bacteria and sold the insulin to humans with diabetes. I am pro Transgenic Organism Production as long as there is a reason to do it and you're not trying to cross a bull and a human. It should have restrictions.
ReplyDeleteI think it is beneficial because it already has helped with diseases. Although there are drawbacks to Transgenic Organism Production, like injecting cancer into mice, but they do that to help find a cure for diseases.
DeleteAlso it's not just animals that they are testing on. They are testing on bacteria and viruses and stuff.
DeleteI agree that it is beneficial because of the impacts it will make on society for the better. I am not an animal hater, but I am okay with scientist ingesting mice with a certain type of disease to help the human population. These test are okay in moderation, but if they test on millions of mice, then they have taken it way to far. Some members have Diabetes and I am glad scientist have created insulin because it keeps them healthy.
Deletei agree with alex and christina. overall, this is pretty beneficial, but there is a limit and they need restrictions for this situation.
DeleteLike Alex, I am certainly not an animal hater. I do not like mice, spiders, or cats, but that is another story. I feel that using test subjects like mice, to inject with disease, as mentioned above, would be beneficial to the overall human population. This is the reason why trans genetic organism production seems like a good process.
DeleteI don't think that this should be done because it is animal cruelty. You can't practice doing this while sending people to jail for animal cruelty.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good point.
DeleteI see where you're coming from, but I agree with the people who are for it (such as Raymond and Christina). I'm thinking, it's not like people are injecting DNA of other organisms into animals just for fun. The research has a purpose, and it's to help cure or treat diseases.
DeleteUsing animals for scientific experimentation, especially scientific experimentation that benefits humanity, does not fit my definition of cruelty. I think you are failing to consider the huge benefits that transgenic organism research can provide.
Deleteyou go yui! i so agree with that.
DeleteI think it can be beneficial, but if people are not willing to use Human DNA. Then people should not use the DNA of any living animal. But i do agree there should be a limit on how much people use human DNA.
DeleteI agree with Devan and Taeja. This is wrong. It's horrible. If we have different DNA than an animal, why should we inject another animal with our DNA? If it was not meant to have our DNA, then we should not give it our DNA.
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you claim that another organism is "not meant to have" different DNA?
DeleteThe reason scientists inject organisms with foreign DNA is to research. There are many possible benefits that transgenic organism research can provide that not acknowledged in your argument.
Excuse the typo; I meant to say "There are many possible benefits that transgenic organism research can provide that are not acknowledged in your argument.
DeleteIt helps everyone experiment new medicines, but treating other organisms like they're nothing but a test freak is WRONG!!! >:o
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you claim that animal testing is wrong?
DeleteThere is a large precedent of beneficial findings that were made through animal testing--insulin, for example.
For more information on the discovery of insulin through animal testing, see http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/insulin/discovery-insulin.html
DeleteThis is actually somewhat good. With it, you can grow human organs on some animals, and transplant them onto humans who need them.
ReplyDeletei can see how this is helpful because those who are on waiting lists for organs may not have to wait as long to get what they need to survive; however, did you take into consideration that many organs we need to to survive. what if someone needed a heart or both kidneys? the animal supplying this would die! and for all the experimentation they do on animals is horrific. you may not know what you are going to get as a result when inserting the DNA into that animal.
DeleteAllow me to pose a question to you. Would you rather the donor animal die, or the human needing the organs?
DeleteTransgenic Organism Production is extremely helpful.
ReplyDeleteIs killing a cow for its meat wrong? Some transgenic organism production is a good thing; some of you fail to recognize this. As Christina said, we use this method to provide insulin for diabetes patients. People exterminate mice and rats all the time, would that not be animal cruelty? I think about it like this -- stupid people should not be doing it. It needs restrictions as Christina said.
While I am typing up my post, those who state Transgenic Organism Production to be animal cruelty, please explain how this is so.
ReplyDeleteI could see how it is animal cruelty. I don't think animals should have to put up with getting something foreign injected into them, and vice versa (Though because we ARE humans, and not mice/rabbits/etc., I highly doubt this would ever happen to us). However, if we are talking about something like testing makeup on animals, I am for that, because if you can't test it out on animals, you would have to test it out on humans, because as advanced as science is, it still can't make a human skin out of scratch, so I could see it both ways.
DeleteA quick note here: with the results of stem cell research, we are currently able to culture human skin cells.
DeleteBuy AXE spray on skin today!
DeleteThis is so wrong. It's basically torture for the animals. Their bodies don't contain our DNA for a reason; we should not be doing this. We are treating these animals like they are nothing, they are ALIVE. It is absolutely revolting that some people would support this kind of research knowing that it could possibly harm the animals involved.
ReplyDeleteIt's not necessarily hurting them. When humans have cancer they still try things on humans and it may or may not hurt us too.
DeleteThere are many possible benefits that transgenic organism research can provide that not acknowledged in your argument.
DeleteWhile you find it revolting that animals can be harmed, others may find it revolting that you are against a technology which could save millions of lives in the future. Remember, the research only needs to be done once. The fruits of that research will benefit humanity for the rest of its existence.
Excuse the typo; I meant to say "There are many possible benefits that transgenic organism research can provide that are not acknowledged in your argument."
DeleteI believe that the saying of "No Pain, No Gain" may apply here. I have stated this elsewhere as well, but you still must think about the greater good. The animals who die in testing will generally have not died in vain.
DeleteWithout animal research, you wouldnt have a lot of the things you have now so stop complaining
ReplyDeleteThis could be considered animal cruelty because I heard Ali talking about one and she said that they grew an ear on a mouse's back. And then cut it off to see if it grew back.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases it could be considered animal cruelty, but as I said it needs some restrictions. In alot of cases they test on animals but it usually doesn't affect the animals in a bad way. I support it as long as it has restrictions.
DeleteUsing animals for scientific experimentation, especially scientific experimentation that benefits humanity, does not fit my definition of cruelty. I think you are failing to consider the huge benefits that transgenic organism research can provide.
DeleteI must agree with David. Some questions cannot be answered without experimentation. You would run into a lot less trouble with rights groups by using animals than you would with animals. It may not sound pretty to some people, but it is for the greater good
DeleteI chose to defend the side of transgenic animal production is more beneficial than not. Transgenic production has a great potential to better the future health of the human population.
ReplyDeleteIn the late 1990's, scientists have found a way to inject animal DNA into different animals to greaten the chances of creating the ideal animal. They do this by injecting the desired genes into a fertilized cell in the organism.
This has benefits by being able to gain transplant organs from animals into humans, and they can enrich the meat and milk from animals to make them healthier, and more abundance of it. As an example, the injected genes into pigs to let their organs be able to be transplanted into humans, they were also genetically engineered to grow faster and have leaner meat.
I am completely against this in the sense that animals have adapted over time their own way without human interference. Crossing the genetics of two different animals can create something disastrous such as (this is supposed to be funny) the man-bear-pig from South Park. When we cross genes, we have no clue what may happen as a result of it.
ReplyDeleteThe killer bee was an effect of Trangenic Organism Production, but people are living because of it. People who have diabetes need insulin. We wouldn't have the insulin without Transgenic Organism Production.
DeleteOn what basis do you claim that other organisms are not meant to altered by humans? Domestication of animals, for example, has been carried out for millions of years with no issue.
DeleteYou argue that "When we cross genes, we have no clue what may happen as a result of it." Is this not evidence that we need to research? If we don't know something, the scientific method invites us to investigate it with an open mind.
I chose that Transgenic animal production isn't right. It is really unethical. Animals aren't supposed to have other animals DNA, it isn't right. It would be cool to have an animal that can walk upright and speak the human language, but that doesn't make it right. Animals are who they are for their DNA. The bad outcomes out weigh the good outcomes by alot! Your causing something natural to become a test subject. as Taeja said earlier, why would you grow an ear on a mous's back to cut it off to see it grow. that's just horrible.
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you claim that other organisms are not meant to have different DNA?
DeleteYou ask, "why would you grow an ear on a mous's back to cut it off to see it grow." Have you considered that there are people who have lost their ears, and that this technology will allow us to simply grow new ones?
This is completely wrong! We should not do this because we are using animals like a tissue and then throwing them away like yesterday's trash. We have different DNA, so their bodies will try to either reject the DNA or will become mutated because of our DNA mixing with theirs.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that "We have different DNA, so their bodies will try to either reject the DNA or will become mutated because of our DNA mixing with theirs." What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?
DeleteThere are many potential benefits to transgenic organism research that are not acknowledged in your argument.
I believe that Transgenic animal production is wrong. It seems like the people doing this are trying to act like God by making a new and better organism. I understand that new organisms aren't being made, but the concept of mixing DNA seems unethical. The animals do not deserve this!
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that Transgenic Organism Production is not solely used on developed animals. Most of it is used on a cellular level to aid in the survival of humans. Without insulin, made from injecting insulin from a human body into a virus, the 346 million people world wide with diabetes would probably die within a year.
DeleteThey aren't just trying to make new and better organisms. They are trying to cure stuff and help.
DeleteStill, your are injecting yourself with something foreign. sooner or later, people are going to use it for bio;ogical warfare and cause a turmoil
DeleteThis could help us win wars though.
DeleteOn what basis do you claim that "mixing DNA" and other genetic engineering technologies are unethical?
Delete@ Christina: This won't help us win wars. It would lead to biological warfare reminiscent of the propaganda during the Cold War: the USSR threatened with a resurgence of the Black Plague. It prolongs war, and does not promote peace.
Delete@ David: I understand utterly that you are refraining from any bias,starkly neutral. The problem remains that you are being completely unrealistic; it seems that you ignore the fact that people will have a problem concerning ethics.
You have not answered the question, so I will state it again.
DeleteOn what basis do you claim that "mixing DNA" and other genetic engineering technologies are unethical?
I am not ignoring anything, and I fully understand that people will have a problem with ethics and genetic engineering.
I am asking YOU what basis you have for claiming that genetic engineering is unethical. You have not provided any reasoning to your claim and therefore do not have a valid argument.
I am not sure I fully agree with you. In my view animal cruelty is completely wrong and should most certainly be punished. The animals do not deserve bad treatment, but this technology could save you or many others one day. I have very mixed opinions with this subject.
Delete@Javier:
DeleteDo you believe that animal testing constitutes cruelty?
If so, on what basis do you claim that animal testing constitutes cruelty?
Slippery slope detected!
DeleteRaymond, who are you addressing?
Delete@David
DeleteI apologize for not answering your question earlier I do not check blogs much. I believe animal testing constitutes cruelty because most of the animals tested on usually end up dying or suffering. People who test any product on animals will keep testing with trial and error, meaning that if the organism dies or ends up with serious health issues they will move on to another organism. They will kill many creatures in search of the outcome they wish for.
I just think this is unnatural. I can see the pros and cons all listed above. The methods people above stated on how we can use this to an advantage is great, but it just seems like something is just inhuman about it. I believe that it is wrong to do it on any human (well except if they want it), but it is BETTER to do it to an animal than human. I mean, I don't want people looking like creatures from Cantino on Star Wars.
ReplyDeleteI am sure laws on ethics would probably prevent something like that, but I see what you are saying
DeleteActually i am pro because what if injecting that DNA into another organism creates a whole new species that is helpful to other people. Yes you never know what is going to come out of it but what if that one combination creates a far better outcome and benefits society altogether.
ReplyDeleteThere appears to be a significant contention among opponents of transgenic organism research that it is wrong to inject one organism with the DNA of another. This implies that each organism is "meant" to have its own DNA. As far as I can ascertain, there is no basis for this claim.
ReplyDeleteOrganisms have been evolving for millions of years and continue to do so in the present. The genetic code of each organism has been constantly changing all throughout the history of life on Earth. If you make the claim that each organism is "meant" to have its own DNA, how can you reconcile that belief with the fact that there is no single genome for a given species, and that species constantly change?
The only possible conclusion is that organisms are not “meant” to have any one genome. The genomes that they have are the ones that, through the process of natural selection, have been determined to best fit the organisms’ environments.
If you can refute the above argument, however, there is one more question that I have to ask. Meaning is not objective; it is ascribed to things on a subjective basis by an intelligent entity. What intelligent entity tells you what genes an organism is “meant” to have?
If DNA is meant to be mixed, not that I am saying that you said that, then why can't two species that are similar, such as a tiger and a lion, reproduce without human interference and have a fertile baby?
DeleteWait, So what is your OPINION? Now that you have commented on everybody elses, have you even chosen a side?
DeleteI agree with you Annie. Donkeys and horses can have babies, but how come their baby is infertile? If DNA was meant to be crossed, then different animals would be able to have fertile, fully capable, without human interference, babies.
Delete@Annie:
DeletePlease provide a basis for your claim that because tigers and lions do not produce fertile offspring, DNA is not meant to be mixed. I do not see the logical relationship between these two statements. As I have previously stated, transgenic organism research can provide many potential benefits to humanity.
@Ali:
I support transgenic organism research on the basis that it can provide many potential benefits to humanity.
@Kylie:
Please demonstrate how you can objectively determine whether or not DNA is "meant" to be mixed. Meaning is subjective and must be assigned by an intelligent entity. I do not see how infertile offspring have any bearing on the current debate.
"And what basis did you state this clain?"
Delete*Claim
DeleteThis is what I stated in my last post:
Delete"@Ali:
I support transgenic organism research on the basis that it can provide many potential benefits to humanity."
Did you not read that correctly? I provided my basis right there in clear, unambiguous terms.
I will say that I support the production of transgenic organisms because it is scientific research. It is better to perform experiments on animals before letting them affect humans. I think it is okay as long as there are constraints on the experiments.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Transgenic Organism Production is an extremely beneficial area of study. The potential to make humans immune to a plethora of diseases may save millions of lives world wide. World hunger could be ended if humans could be genetically altered as to reduce food intake through our bodies absorbing nutrients more efficiently. I am sure that boundaries of what you can and cannot alter would need to be set to prevent people from making what could be viewed as abominations, but I believe that the gains outweigh any costs of this technology
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris. Transgenic Organism Production is very beneficial to humans. Testing on animals for scientific knowledge and information on how to cure disease is not wrong at all. Testing on animals for the purpose of cosmetics is wrong.
ReplyDeletei can see both pro and cons for transgenic organism production. however i am on the opposing team to which says that this practice should be stopped. with transgenic organism production, DNA or RNA of an organims is extracted and inserted in another organims. often these new or "improved" species are created to benifit humans such as insect resistant plants or animals with more meat or milk in them, but has anyone considered how these animals are affected by the mutations? for example: cows that have been genetically altered to have larger udders may produce more milk, however, the larger udder provides the cows with the burden of carrying around more weight. this puts stress on the limb and may cause the cows to have more limb injuries. this is basically animals cruelty. like devan said, why put people in jail for beating, starving, and giving possible worse treatments to their animals and allow these experimentations on animals occur? if it isnt animals cruelty, then what is it then?!
ReplyDeleteaside from experimentation on animals, this also occurs in plants. insect repellant crops, herdicide resistant soy beans, and many others have been altered to decrease the stress in maintaining crops from such problems as insects and diseases destroying crops. however, these genetic alterations may have been helpful for the crop survival but proved unhealthy and caused side effects when eaten. British biochemist Arpad Pusztai warned that genetically modified potatoes stunned the growth and impaired the immune system of lab rats.
Provide the source at which you found your evidence stating that "genetically modified potatoes stunned the growth and impaired the immune system of lab rats."
DeleteCan you find a source that states that humans are also susceptible to the problems found in the lab rats?
Additionally, I would like you to provide the source at which you found your evidence stating that "cows that have been genetically altered to have larger udders may produce more milk, however, the larger udder provides the cows with the burden of carrying around more weight. this puts stress on the limb and may cause the cows to have more limb injuries."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCrossing DNA is WRONG. If DNA was to be mixed, then they would be. There would be multiple mutation that would be a result from Trangenic.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your statement. DNA has been mixed successfully for millions of years. It is mixed every time sexual reproduction occurs. DNA mixing is an integral part of how life adapts on Earth.
DeleteWrll excuse me "Transgenic Organism Production" is wrong, and like I said earlier, if we were meant to be mixed, then we would not need science to help it happen.
Delete*well*
DeleteScience is the process by which humans use experimentation to learn about the natural world. It is a process, and its result is information. We do not need science to make transgenic organisms; we need only the knowledge and technology.
DeleteFurthermore, your claim is a non sequitur. There is no logical connection between needing technology and something being "meant" to happen.
Something being "meant" to happen has absolutely zero bearing on its ethical value. If you would like to argue that transgenic organism production is wrong, you need to present a clear moral or ethical justification for your point.
Just because we have the knowledge or technology to do something does not mean that we shuld try or test it or even use it. I never said there was a connectin between technology and what IS MEANT, so please do not place such things in my mouth, and I know well enough that there is not a connection between them. Aparently I do have a clear moral because by the looks and sounds of it a mass majority of people do not find this being very good.So I have presented everything that I FEEL I should Mr. Davd Zhang.
DeleteYou stated in your second post that "if we were meant to be mixed, then we would not need science to help it happen." This is a clear statement from you that places a logical connection between science and what is meant. What I stated is that you are confusing science and technology. I therefore amended your statement for you, replacing "science" with "technology." I have not placed anything in your mouth.
DeleteYou state that "I know well enough that there is not a connection between them." However, you used this connection as part of your argument. If you admit that a premise of your argument is wrong and that no such connection exists, then the content of your argument is invalid.
Furthermore, your claim that "Aparently I do have a clear moral because by the looks and sounds of it a mass majority of people do not find this being very good" demonstrates the use of the bandwagon fallacy and therefore does not constitute a valid argument.
You have yet to present one logically sound argument for your position that mixing DNA is wrong. If you would like to continue this discussion in an intelligent manner, please present your basis for being against transgenic organism research. Make sure that the basis you present is backed by either solid logical reasoning or credible evidence.
There seems to be a significant contention from the anti-transgenic organism circle that mixing DNA is wrong. This is largely based on a belief that if certain animals cannot produce viable offspring, then DNA is not meant to be mixed.
ReplyDeleteThis reasoning does not constitute a valid argument for a position opposing transgenic organism research. A single incompatibility does not justify the belief that DNA is not meant to be mixed. You would dislike ice cream with green beans, for example, but this does not justify the idea that foods are not meant to be mixed.
Furthermore, a belief that DNA is not meant to be mixed has no bearing on the ethical validity of transgenic organism production. You might believe, for example, that hamburgers are not meant to contain pork. However, this does not mean that it is unethical to create pork hamburgers.
If you would like to argue against the ethical validity of transgenic organism production, you need to present a clear, logical ethical basis that demonstrates that the creation of transgenic organisms is ethically wrong. Until you can do this, please refrain from making such non sequitur arguments.
Your claim seems invalid. Who are you to say that I can't eat ice cream with green beans? Comparing transgenic organism production to pork in hamburger makes no sense to me at all. This is a false analogy. You're comparing something that is highly controversial because of the ethics factor to personal taste in cuisine.
ReplyDeleteIt appears you have some misunderstandings about the argument I am making, so I will clarify.
DeleteThe point I am making is that a single incompatibility does not mean that something is not meant to happen. This comes from the anti-transgenic organism argument that because separate species cannot produce viable offspring, DNA is not meant to be mixed. My contention is that these incompatibilities have nothing to do with whether or not DNA mixing is meant to happen.
I used an everyday example to illustrate this point. You can't say that foods are not meant to be mixed just because two foods are incompatible. In exactly the same way, you can't say that DNA is not meant to be mixed just because two genomes are incompatible.
My second point is that something being meant to happen has no bearing on its ethical value.
DeleteEven if you believe that hamburgers should not be made with pork, you cannot use that belief to justify the statement that making hamburgers with pork is unethical.
In exactly the same way, even if you believe that DNA is not meant to be mixed, you cannot use that belief to justify the statement mixing DNA is unethical.
A false analogy uses a comparison of two things to draw another (false) comparison. In other words, a false analogy states that because both X and Y have property A, they both also have property B.
As you can clearly see, I have never made any such argument. The comparison to foods serves as an example, not an analogy, and has no bearing on my actual arguments. It simply makes these arguments more accessible. If you remove the examples, my argument is still just as valid.