General Chat

that is very honest of you sue

i have not been in that position myself this far, thank goodness.

I do think that everyones own ethics are their own personal choice though and what one person chooses is not necessarily better or worse than another persons choice....just different

Here,here-we would be nowhere without hope & sometimes that hope comes in a form that scares us but its preferable to being pumped full of chemicals-aka synthetic genetics

Well being greedy I have three different types of cancer:)

I also have a daughter with spinal cancer so believe me when I say the most important thing to me is to find a cure for this terrible disease....but if it took genetic engineering to
do that I would say no thanks.

The trouble with science is that men control it until it controls them and there is always someone who will take that extra risk in the 'name of science'.

Jean x.

I understand where your coming from Jean but I would like to think if anything 'engineered' became available the testing would be as stringent as it already is,however,there are always charlatans who offer hope & are actually just in it for the money (re:recent stem cell scam)

In regards to " tests " and Genetic engineering . I was having a read on the Greenpeace website.....once those genes are spliced and crops etc are out there in our world there will be no getting them back and reversing any ill effects.......I hope the Scientists/ govenments take that into account .

Jean , you have my respect :)

HI JEAN,,,ONE SIDE IS,,WILL MY KIDS
OR WILL MY GRANDSON OR MY BEAUTIFULL GRANDAUGHTER
OMG I PRAY FOR ONCE IN MY LIFE NO NO NO.
BUT I WATCH FOR THE TELL TALE SIGNS
MY DAUGHTER NEARS FORTY
I WATCH,,,,,

ALL MYLOVE XXXXXXX

Gwen...I could say the same about my daughters. Are my cancers genetic? Jane
could worry that her sons would inherit her type of cancer.

As you know my father had Parkinsons Disease over 30 years ago but no-one else in the family has developed it.

I think that once they know what causes these illnesses then they can begin to find a cure but I think genetic engineering could unleash
horrors so much worse than those we already have.

As always my fondest regards.

Jean x.

Perhaps before people get too worried this page might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

Genetic engineering is a huge topic and to behave as if teams of mad scientists are out there trying to create subhuman monsters is to misunderstand what the topic is all about.

Sorry Colin.........you are entitled to believe what you like but it does rather seem as if you are determined to preach to us on nearly every thread about creationism.

Your literal beliefs may seem adequate to you but they make for a universe which is much smaller, younger and less extraordinary than the vast majority of scientists believe. There are huge numbers of people who manage to combine a religious belief with mainstream science quite happily.

Sue

Sue - yes, it is a huge topic with many branches and applications. I really hate the 'mad scientist' view and also the comaprisons with 'Frankenstein' - Hollywood did no favours to Mary Shelley's tale!

Sue, I admit I'm quite ignorant about the specifics of terms but I do have genuine concerns about interfering with genetics before birth. If science is allowed to develop so that it can legally alter DNA to eradicate certain inherited diseases, how far down the line will it go?

This is something that ordinary citizens do need to discuss and I hope many will have a part to play in regulating genetic modification when necessary.

People may not be aware that there are Citizens' panels and juries taking part in discussions about important matters like these. Three years ago I had a letter sent to me at random (one of 5000 sent out to people on the electoral roll). It invited me to apply for a place on a European citizens' panel debating advances in brain science. I was really lucky and did get accepted. For two years I took part in debates in this country and in Brussels and I helped write recommendations in a national and in a European report.
Despite what the media may suggest, politicians and scientists are interested in what ordinary people think and a number of our recommendations are already being implemented.

So I am all in favour of informed debate.

Sue

If you could help someone-would you do it?
If you could prevent suffering-would you do it?
It's still a very big IF & WHEN.
All medicine started somewhere & in each step forward it was a 'first' & probably generated the same questions & fears on this thread.It is as Sue says so incredibly complex that I doubt anyone could understand the whole 'field' fully,we just have to hope that if it continues the professionals in each department seek the best outcome for all.

This might interest people

http://www.meetingmindseurope.org/europe_default_site.aspx?SGREF=14

Sue

Yes we have come a long was in science, to learn more about how and why our bodies do things is on thing, but ti manipulate the grown of nature is setting up the dominos, we don't need to have plants spliced with animal genes and vica verca, we will end up with plants that walk and look for something to eat and animals with flower buds for heads and so on, we are not god, it was not meant to be.


Eldrick, the bible is a bl@@dy murderous book, it is scriptures of long ago, they are written by someone who was given the task to record events, today, it has been re-written so many times it is a bit like chiness whispers, we today really have no true account of what actually happened, therefore we must have faith that there is a better place and that there is a lord our creator that will care for the chosen.

It might suprise you to know, that i find genetics
a very facinating subject, one wich appeals to
my immagination.
And the building blocks of creation as scientists
call them, another interesting subject, since
they set the patterns on which atoms are built
Sorry to have to say this, but, i had a friend
living in Loggerheads who was a scientist and mathmatician, he worked on the A bomb and
was present at its test.

colin

Jean,

Only just caught up with this thread I really admire your stance. I am selfish regarding this and I would support almost anything in order for a cure to be found for those suffering from incurable diseases.

As I said I admit I was against research years ago but I do think it has become more targeted now and better controls are in place.

Sue x

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,IF
IS A FUDDY BIG WORD
THIS IS ONLY MY FEELING
,,IF
PELCILINAILIN (CANT SPELL)
,,,,IF
INSULINE
,,IF
ANTICULVUSANTS
..IF
...IF
,,,,,,,, IF
SOMEONE HADNT PLAYED WITH A CHEMESTRY SET,


WHATS THE DIFERENCE

OH AN I BEEN ATTACKED BY ANIMAL RIGHTS
FOR NOT SIGNING

TRANSPLANTS
BONE MARROW

BLOOD TRANSFUSSION
THESE FORM MY DAUGHTER

ALL ALTERING THE BORN BODY

TWO YEARS AGO MY DAUGHTER SAT AT HER MOTHER IN LAWS READ AN ARTICAL
ONE IN THREE WILL HAVE ONEFORMOF CANCER,,THREE SAT ON SOFA TOGETHER
ONE HAS CANCER BAD
ONE IN THREE

Gwen and Sue... I hear what you are saying but for me personally there is a line I would not cross.

When the discoveries you are talking about Gwen were made it was not done by 'tinkering' with genetics...that is what I am concerned about.

Once that line is crossed there is no knowing where it will all end....will only perfect human beings be allowed to survive.

I know it sounds like science fantasy and I am most probably overstating the
case but I do not trust scientists to monitor themselves.

Jean x.