Poll: So whats your opinion?
Poll Options
View poll results: So whats your opinion?
Yeah its great
54 86%
I think its wrong
3 5%
Indifferent...
6 10%
Voters: 63.
Page 1 of 2
#1
Ok so most of us know what biotechnology is because it is always in the media and such. All that stuff about stem cell research and embryos and working to understand diseases better. A lot of religious figures and that don't like it because of some random reason but I think that its great and that it will help the human race cure disabilities like Parkinson's disease and alzheimer's.
So anyway i was wonderin what UGers thought about this controversial subject.

If you disagree with it could you post why?
Same goes for if you agree with it.

Peace
Last edited by paper shredder at Sep 6, 2007,
#2
There are reasons for and against, which is why I'm indifferent. I'm sure it'd be a huge deal for me if my dad had Parkinsons or something. But right now, I'm not too fussed.
#3
i'm definately for it. the reason religious people are against it ( or at least one of the reasons) is that they believe an embroyo, even at an early stage of development, it a real human, and needs to be treated with dignity
Gear:
Ibanez Destroyer
Roland Cube 60
Boss TU-80
Ovation acoustic
Original Crybaby

"If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried" Josh Homme

My Profile

^^Check out my profile for some improv solos^^
#5
There's always that arguement against preventing the natural progression of evolution. Not that I'm all that bothered about it. Just thought I'd mention it so you guys don't all just assume that only religious people are against it.
#7
Quote by Xeus
i bet jesus as a foetus would have some good stem cells




Jesus is not a foe.
''Technological advancements are like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.'' - Albert Einstein
#8
Generally Im for it but I do believe it needs strict control and regulation so no one can corrupt the good name of science for their own ends (people like me basically who wouldnt care who they hurt unless they made money).

The whole "halting the natural process of evolution" argument is a bit weak for this since we have the intelligence to cure the defects in the evolutionary chain. Yes the defective genes will still be in the gene pool, but if we have the tools to correct them via stem cell research or other avenues, then we have by passed thousands of years of evolution. I know its a generalisation but think about it for a moment.
Sat in a lab, curing diseases. They actually LET me play with chemicals!
#9
Quote by Guitardude19
Generally Im for it but I do believe it needs strict control and regulation so no one can corrupt the good name of science for their own ends (people like me basically who wouldnt care who they hurt unless they made money).

The whole "halting the natural process of evolution" argument is a bit weak for this since we have the intelligence to cure the defects in the evolutionary chain. Yes the defective genes will still be in the gene pool, but if we have the tools to correct them via stem cell research or other avenues, then we have by passed thousands of years of evolution. I know its a generalisation but think about it for a moment.



Don't you understand that due to the seperation in classes, people will not only be differenciated by the fact they have money, but they will be a physically/etc better Human. That is not right.
''Technological advancements are like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.'' - Albert Einstein
#10
i'm for it, since when has religion stopped anything? they don't have any power in the government, religion is just a cult, go to church this sunday, you'll see that they ask you for money, and to repeat after them, now go to wiki or a dictionary and search cult
Gear:
Jackson DKMG Dinky (EMG 81/85)
Ibanez GIO (i put a Dimbucker in the bridge)
Crate GT65 (65 watts) to be upgraded soon, suggestions welcome (must be tubed)
Floor Pod (for sale)
#11
Quote by rickyy
Don't you understand that due to the seperation in classes, people will not only be differenciated by the fact they have money, but they will be a physically/etc better Human. That is not right.


But to be fair, the division in classes already causes that kind of friction anyway. Money already separates people. Although I see what you're saying. People with money will be able to afford it. The poorer people won't. The poorer people will therefore get sick and die. Which isn't exactly fair.
#12
Quote by Discouraged
But to be fair, the division in classes already causes that kind of friction anyway. Money already separates people. Although I see what you're saying. People with money will be able to afford it. The poorer people won't. The poorer people will therefore get sick and die. Which isn't exactly fair.



You've just described Natural Selection.


It's nature...Harsh, but nature.
Quote by Last_Serenade
dimebag put as much emotion in to 9/10 of his solos as hitler showed when putting jews in syanide showers.

Quote by P-Laverty
QUESTION! Does emo porn have blood everywhere from wrist wounds?

Quote by Dabey
HAHA U IS TEH EMOZORZ

no but seriously, HAHA U IS TEH EMOZORZ
#13
Quote by rickyy
Don't you understand that due to the seperation in classes, people will not only be differenciated by the fact they have money, but they will be a physically/etc better Human. That is not right.


Its not no, and its not fair... But neither is life. I learnt that the hard way. Also we have free health care in England and anyone would be able to access this technology and the treatments it provides.

Edit: Just like to add a further point.

It might not be fair but I think it would be unfair to deny treatment to those that it can help (rich or poor) rather than stop using something because some people cant access it.
Sat in a lab, curing diseases. They actually LET me play with chemicals!
#14
I personally am not for it. I believe humans live to long already, I mean do we need to become old and decrepit and useless? all this will do is make that problem worse, once we are of no longer use to society why do we need to stay alive? We arnt helping evoloution were going backwards about it. If something doesnt have a use why keep it. I sure as hell know I dont wanna be a burden on my family and just slowly rot away.
#15
Quote by Guitardude19
Its not no, and its not fair... But neither is life. I learnt that the hard way. Also we have free health care in England and anyone would be able to access this technology and the treatments it provides.

Edit: Just like to add a further point.

It might not be fair but I think it would be unfair to deny treatment to those that it can help (rich or poor) rather than stop using something because some people cant access it.


I don't think the NHS will cover gene therapy. Unless they could find a way to make the process cheap.
But I agree that whilst it is unfair to let the poor people die because they can't afford it, it's even worse to have the technology to save someone's life and then refuse them the treatment.
I wouldn't exactly call it 'natural' selection though. Seeing as the selection process would be purely based on who can afford to have the treatment, and who can't.
#16
Quote by Discouraged
I don't think the NHS will cover gene therapy. Unless they could find a way to make the process cheap.
But I agree that whilst it is unfair to let the poor people die because they can't afford it, it's even worse to have the technology to save someone's life and then refuse them the treatment.
I wouldn't exactly call it 'natural' selection though. Seeing as the selection process would be purely based on who can afford to have the treatment, and who can't.


Well thats the thing. There are thousands of suffers of diseases that could be cured by gene therapy and I think there would be a huge public outcry if it was withheld from the public. Then again the whole Herceptin case comes to mind....
Sat in a lab, curing diseases. They actually LET me play with chemicals!
#17
Quote by Feel bad inc.
I personally am not for it. I believe humans live to long already, I mean do we need to become old and decrepit and useless? all this will do is make that problem worse, once we are of no longer use to society why do we need to stay alive? We arnt helping evoloution were going backwards about it. If something doesnt have a use why keep it. I sure as hell know I dont wanna be a burden on my family and just slowly rot away.


The idea of bio-technology is that we won't become so old and decrepid. Sure we'll still get old and die, but the idea is tat we'll still be of use to society for a much longer period of time.

You have a point though. If we're all living longer, and not enogh people are dying, what do we do about the ever increasing population? There are places in the world that are already getting overcrowded. China for one. The UK is soon to follow.
I'm just asking really. I'm more for it now than I was when I first entered this thread. But will this mean that we'll have to curb how often people are allowed to reproduce, like in China?
#19
I'm most likely to study bio-technology in a few years if i don't find anything better, but I wonder if it's interesting
#20
Quote by Feel bad inc.
I personally am not for it. I believe humans live to long already, I mean do we need to become old and decrepit and useless? all this will do is make that problem worse, once we are of no longer use to society why do we need to stay alive? We arnt helping evoloution were going backwards about it. If something doesnt have a use why keep it. I sure as hell know I dont wanna be a burden on my family and just slowly rot away.

stem cell research isn;t trying to make people live forever, they are trying to cure people's diseases and afflictions, making millions of people's lives better
Gear:
Ibanez Destroyer
Roland Cube 60
Boss TU-80
Ovation acoustic
Original Crybaby

"If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried" Josh Homme

My Profile

^^Check out my profile for some improv solos^^
#21
Quote by High_o
stem cell research isn;t trying to make people live forever, they are trying to cure people's diseases and afflictions, making millions of people's lives better


But ultimately more people will live for longer. When people get old, they're more likely to contract illness and disease. Not always, but alot of the time, it can be the illness that kills them. With the research, the elderly won't have to worry about fighting off disease, so technically, they'll live longer.

I assume.
#22
the religious views on this argument make no sense what so ever therefor

SCIENCE HAS PREVAILED!

rights lol
Ibanez RG770DX Reissue

Ibanez Apex 2

Ibanez S520EX w/ EMGs

Marshall DSL100 Halfstack

NEWCASTLE UNITED!
#23
Quote by ChaoticVengence
i'm for it, since when has religion stopped anything? they don't have any power in the government, religion is just a cult, go to church this sunday, you'll see that they ask you for money, and to repeat after them, now go to wiki or a dictionary and search cult

funny stuff
you know religion control the world
and if you dont believe masonim and the illuminati you got the new coservatives like bush and all that ****
and he actually think jesus talk to him
#24
Quote by MetalheadA7X
the religious views on this argument make no sense what so ever therefor

SCIENCE HAS PREVAILED!

rights lol


No one has really brought Religion into this, it's just common morals.
''Technological advancements are like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.'' - Albert Einstein
#25
Quote by rickyy
No one has really brought Religion into this, it's just common morals.


Exactly. Bashing religion when it's not even involved is pretty fucking stupid. I studied Biotech for a short while and I can tell you there's some amazing stuff being done out there in the world. If anything has the potential to stop a lot of needless suffering in the world, this is the form it's going to come in.
I do believe that it does need strict regulating though. The public needs to know what's going on, rather than having it all behind closed doors.
"Everybody, one day will die and be forgotten. Act and behave in a way that will make life interesting and fun. Find a passion, form relationships, don't be afraid to get out there and fuck what everyone else thinks."
#26
Quote by MetalheadA7X
the religious views on this argument make no sense what so ever therefor

SCIENCE HAS PREVAILED!

rights lol

How about you go back to being a subservient human worm-baby?

Anyway, they no longer need embryos to make stem cells. It's possible to now extract the fibroblasts directly from the patient and reverse the differentiation process - creating a stem cell without destroying an embryo.
Welcome to BUCKETHEADLAND

Last edited by Colonel Sanders : Yesterday at 10:54 PM.
#27
If relegious people is against it because they think the truth will screw up their belevies, I don't really care about them. Bio-technology is great.

Ain't seeing american television, so I don't really know the conflict. It's not THAT much on here. And nothing about moral, or relegion.
#28
Quote by Dr. Faustus
How about you go back to being a subservient human worm-baby?

Anyway, they no longer need embryos to make stem cells. It's possible to now extract the fibroblasts directly from the patient and reverse the differentiation process - creating a stem cell without destroying an embryo.


I'm not gonna be able to pull a source out for this(sorry) but i think the non-embryonic stem cell method is far more difficult and error prone than the embryonic method. The non-embryonic method is touted by critics of stem cell research as a viable alternative but most researchers won't go that way due to the impracticality when compared to the embryonic method.
I wanna grow up to be a debaser
#29
Quote by bart munch
I'm not gonna be able to pull a source out for this(sorry) but i think the non-embryonic stem cell method is far more difficult and error prone than the embryonic method. The non-embryonic method is touted by critics of stem cell research as a viable alternative but most researchers won't go that way due to the impracticality when compared to the embryonic method.

At the moment, that's definately the case. However, it's a recent development and in the end, has more potential benefits than the embryonic method. Any tissue rejection issues are completely void if you use the patient's cells.
Welcome to BUCKETHEADLAND

Last edited by Colonel Sanders : Yesterday at 10:54 PM.
#30
Quote by the_random_hero
Exactly. Bashing religion when it's not even involved is pretty fucking stupid. I studied Biotech for a short while and I can tell you there's some amazing stuff being done out there in the world. If anything has the potential to stop a lot of needless suffering in the world, this is the form it's going to come in.
I do believe that it does need strict regulating though. The public needs to know what's going on, rather than having it all behind closed doors.

The public mostly won't understand it. Hell, they rename a ton of stuff because the public is stupid.
MRI, anyone?
#31
Quote by bart munch
I'm not gonna be able to pull a source out for this(sorry) but i think the non-embryonic stem cell method is far more difficult and error prone than the embryonic method. The non-embryonic method is touted by critics of stem cell research as a viable alternative but most researchers won't go that way due to the impracticality when compared to the embryonic method.

This is actually false. Since you're using your own cells they are less prone to rejection then if you were using embryonic cells. In fact, the only documented cases of stem cells curing people have been non-embryonic. This being the case the majority of funding from the private sector such as venture capitalists is going to non-embryonic research which is why the government is getting involved in the first place.
#32
Quote by denizenz
This is actually false. Since you're using your own cells they are less prone to rejection then if you were using embryonic cells. In fact, the only documented cases of stem cells curing people have been non-embryonic. This being the case the majority of funding from the private sector such as venture capitalists is going to non-embryonic research which is why the government is getting involved in the first place.



I can't back this up with a reference, but I teach two doctors who are working on transplant research, they do some stem cell work and when I mentioned non-embryonic methods they basically said that at present it just isn't feasible for the majority of applications. My own knowledge of this area is limited to what I read in New Scientist.
I wanna grow up to be a debaser
#33
Stem cell research and other bio-technology is fine. I can't see how people can ban it.

Religion has no right interfering with the running of a country. Just because some people in the country believe there's a guy wearing robes sitting in the clouds watching us who says it's bad, doesn't give them the right to interfere with other peoples' lives and prolong their suffering.
#34
Wow

I was just saying that religions views on this subject are really wrong and that it shouold be alright and that this is a major step forward for science.

therefor in my eyes science has prevailed
Ibanez RG770DX Reissue

Ibanez Apex 2

Ibanez S520EX w/ EMGs

Marshall DSL100 Halfstack

NEWCASTLE UNITED!
#35
Quote by rickyy


Jesus is not a foe.


Jesus isnt alive. Nor did he do the things mentioned in the bible. Or if he was a doctor/carpenter, it was ****in exaggerated alot. And all this **** about Jesus not having a baby, bull fricken crap, of course he wanted to have some 'sexy time' with his wife.


Back on topic, Bio-tech ftw. My dad is working on this stuff called 'micro bubbles' at the moment. He's trying to introduce it to hospitals after the trial stages etc.
Basically, its to do with ultra-sound. The bubbles are made of an inert gas, surrounded by a shell which does not interfere with how the gas reacts or resonates the waves. It can be used to detect cancerous cells at a very early stage, thus saving many lives. As far as i know, this can only be utilized in the liver so far.
Last edited by _Tenacious_ at Sep 6, 2007,
#36
The problem religion has is that it hasn't been proven that embryos are not human life. Therefore very well could be murder. To quote Ronald Reagan, "in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life". If this is the case then you are left with the fact that you are taking an innocent life to save another. Which is not moral, and falls on the government's fundamental position to protect every individual's right to life...
#37
Nanotechnology > Biotechnology

Biotechnology may help humanity, but it wouldn't help the world, however it is a very revolutionist way to apply technology.
...Up to the battlefield to where the spirits walk...
#38
Human life. Considering most people cannot remember anything of their birth, and months after that then i highly doubt ANYONE can remember feelings/sight etc of inside the womb.
So foetus' as early as 6 weeks will not constitute to being human, because they simply have no feelings, characteristics, formality and general aspects of a living creature.
#39
Quote by _Tenacious_
Human life. Considering most people cannot remember anything of their birth, and months after that then i highly doubt ANYONE can remember feelings/sight etc of inside the womb.
So foetus' as early as 6 weeks will not constitute to being human, because they simply have no feelings, characteristics, formality and general aspects of a living creature.

So we should kill people in comas or the mentally handicapped? I'm sure this could ease some of the need for heart transplants at the very least.

I don't think those are the only factors that define life.
#40
You have to bear in mind, embryos used for research are not fertilised, so it's not like they have human rights, or whatever, due to the fact that they aren't actually foetuses.

I have to say, I also quite like AYO Technology.
Page 1 of 2