DNA experimantation

[enyaj]

Below I give a quote from my recent blog.

<<< A few months back the NZ scientific council, a form of ethics committee that also controls experiments gave the go ahead for the continuing of an experiment where a small number of cows were impregnated with sperm that had been genetically modified --- with human DNA. The idea behind this experiment was that it was believed that the milk from such offspring would be medically beneficial for Multiple sclerosis sufferers. Previous experiments where the milk had been artificially manipulated gave good grounds for thinking there might be a cure for the disease, or at least a means of holding it in check. Another case of finding the cure without actually knowing the full cause.

Well the Greens found out and have been doing everything they can to stop the experiment, including court action on a technicality that the Sci Comm had not followed exact proper procedure in giving consent. The court ruled that the matter would have to be fully reconsidered by the sci com and the Greens demanded that the six pregnant cows and their soon to be born offspring be immediately destroyed. Well you can imagine how MS sufferers reacted to all this, not to mention the medical fraternity.........

..........The Greens of course are screaming foul and have started new court proceedings, also demanding the Govt. take action to prevent experiments involving any form of cloning or cross culture of genes, especially human ones. Well, like the atom, I guess once you split the first one there’s no turning back.>>>

Are such experiments contrary to the Gospel teachings? If we deny such work then surely we are denying the use of the intellectual gifts God has given to us. An argument often used against such experiments is that they go gainst nature, yet again, surely, the whole progress of mankind, and the development and use of intellect is in truth a natural progression, and, therefore, suchseeking after knowledge is also natural. Another argument is that such experiments lead to the development of events that are to the detriment of mankind. With referrence to the latter, surely all inventions have been used for both good and bad, according to the desires of the user. This is the nature on mankind, and short of total control of thoughts and actions of man, by those who know best for us all, will continue to remain so.

What stand should the Church take in all this?

Jayne (in Aroha, Hope, and Love. ) nz

. * . (\ *** /) * . You may be dissapointed
* . * ( \(_)/ ) * * if you fail, but you are
. . (_ /||\_) . * doomed if you don't try
* . /____\ *..*

[Ernest]

I believe that life is sacred. I don't speak for the Church but my own perspective.

I do not agree with abortion, experimentation with creating life artificially and than damaging and destroying it.

I do not agree with stem cell research from human embryos when there are other ways of growing stem cells.

I hear all of the scientific arguments about life saving uses and cures for illness and disease, but think that they are excuses for the exploitation of life and scientists self justification.

There is a hateful page here: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

Where individuals justify their murder of babies. How they live with themselves I don't know.

[marybeth]

I havn't looked at the link Ernest, but I agree with everything you have said.

Life is sacred. Jesus died that we may have life.

[enyaj]

I hear all of the scientific arguments about life saving uses and cures for illness and disease, but think that they are excuses for the exploitation of life and scientists self justification.

Surely this is not always so? An example is the transplantation of pig cells into people suffering diabetes. Experiments have shown that the long term success rate is high. Yet without experiments where are we? From time immemorial mankind has experimented, had this not been so we would still be living in caves and hitting our *wives* with cudgels.

To be honest I see less wrong with properly controlled medical research, than with the kind of warfare that allows many thousands of civilians to be killed through collateral damage. Where people are recruited for the purpose of going out and killing their counterparts from the other side in the name of *peace.

If it was not for scientific medical research many of us would not be here today, think of the work of Pasteur, Fleming, the invention of x-rays. Think of the myriad of drugs which prolong life, life which I agree is sacred.

Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz

* . (\ *** /) * .* Look at the birds of the air
* . * ( \(_)/ ) * * they do not sow or reap
* * (_ /||\_) . * See how the lilies of the field grow
* *. /____\ * . they do not labour or spin
(Mat.6:25-34

[Ernest]

I hear all of the scientific arguments about life saving uses and cures for illness and disease, but think that they are excuses for the exploitation of life and scientists self justification.

Surely this is not always so? An example is the transplantation of pig cells into people suffering diabetes. Experiments have shown that the long term success rate is high. Yet without experiments where are we? From time immemorial mankind has experimented, had this not been so we would still be living in caves and hitting our *wives* with cudgels.

To be honest I see less wrong with properly controlled medical research, than with the kind of warfare that allows many thousands of civilians to be killed through collateral damage. Where people are recruited for the purpose of going out and killing their counterparts from the other side in the name of *peace.

If it was not for scientific medical research many of us would not be here today, think of the work of Pasteur, Fleming, the invention of x-rays. Think of the myriad of drugs which prolong life, life which I agree is sacred.

Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz

* . (\ *** /) * .* Look at the birds of the air
* . * ( \(_)/ ) * * they do not sow or reap
* * (_ /||\_) . * See how the lilies of the field grow
* *. /____\ * . they do not labour or spin
(Mat.6:25-34

Jayne,

I take your point about "CONTROLLED" scientific research - the problem, there are now fewer and fewer controls, and science seems to wish to proclaim itself as the creator, rather than the created.

It has been demonstrated that there are always alternatives to killing babies by abortion or using embroyos for research. Scientists however, wish to take research to the ultimate degree, with no conscience about the destruction of life.

I also take your points about war. I have retired from the military. I did not join the military to go out and to kill people. I joined for a number of reasons, some social - money, learn a trade, secure employment, new friends, travel etc, some personal (family connections), for excitement, to get out of the mundane of working as a Post Office Messenger, and perhaps as an afterthought , to defend my country, which unfortunately, might mean going to war if required to do so.

The Military go where they are sent. They are there to serve their country and the lawful Government of the Country. Governments decide on war and peace, not individual soldiers. They also decide on the weapons used and finance the research and development of them.

The cold war was a prime example of a total waste of billions by all sides, building up a deterrent, which all sides knew if used, would end in destruction of life on the planet. But we persist with the deterrent, because others possess the weapons, or more dangerously, potential enemies or terrorists might well gain access to them in the future. It is futile, but necessary to maintain our guard - the Goverment's duty is to protect its citizens as best they can - the morality of such decisions is one which will be debated for centuries to come I am sure.


.

[enyaj]

Jayne,

I take your point about "CONTROLLED" scientific research - the problem, there are now fewer and fewer controls, and science seems to wish to proclaim itself as the creator, rather than the created.

If we are indeed made in the image of God should we not also be creators, or aspire to that end? Art is a valid form of creation, as is writing, surely? Is then science different? Are they not all the product of the God given human mind?

{quote]It has been demonstrated that there are always alternatives to killing babies by abortion or using embroyos for research. Scientists however, wish to take research to the ultimate degree, with no conscience about the destruction of life.[/quote]

I would not dispute that there are some scientists who fall into that catogory, but far fewer that you think, I suspect. Stem cells are normally taken from non viable foetus.

and perhaps as an afterthought , to defend my country, which unfortunately, might mean going to war if required to do so.

That is so often the case, though not always, yet the very act of joining any armed force is to be trained to kill.

The Military go where they are sent. They are there to serve their country and the lawful Government of the Country. Governments decide on war and peace, not individual soldiers. They also decide on the weapons used and finance the research and development of them.

Yet there have always been those who, for whatever reason chose not to fight. And when it comes down to it it is the man in the street who elects the politicians who make the decisions, and at election time what the prospective politicians will do to increase the money in the pocket is more important than whether we should send troops to fight other peoples battles. Thus we make the decision as to where and when our forces fight by abrogating our responsibilities.

Is this not as much a crime against humanity as the work some scientists do?

the Goverment's duty is to protect its citizens as best they can - the morality of such decisions is one which will be debated for centuries to come I am sure.

The second world war saw expenditure of both people and materials almost beyond counting, had the allied nations stood united against Germany in the 1930's it may well have never happened. But who knows! It did happen and medical experiments of many kinds were carried out on captive peoples in horrendous ways, ways that make todays scientific experiments look positively benign.

Man is a creature of progress, we may not like it, we cannot avoid it. The Church tried to suppress Galileo(Sp?), and any other who tried to show science new better than the church. Are we to judge and condemn science also?

Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz

* . (\ *** /) * .* Be beautiful inside, in your hearts,
* . * ( \(_)/ ) * * with the lasting charm of a gentle
* * (_ /||\_) . * And quiet spirit, that is
* *. /____\ * . so precious to God
(1 Peter 3:4 TLB)

[Isobel]

As someone with scientific training I would like to point out that talking about 'science' as a whole is a huge generalization, similar to talking about 'religion' as a whole. There is a vast range of scientific work, and only a small proportion is in controversial areas.
Definitely experiments should not take place just for the sake of knowledge regardless of the ethical cost involved.
I think each new proposal should be examined separately in terms of risks and benefits.
For example, the cows expressing human DNA to produce a potentially beneficial product in their milk. I don't know any details about this particular project but I would want to ask questions such as:
Is there any other way of producing this particular product?
What are the potential benefits of the product? eg might it provide a cure, or prolong life, or improve quality of life? Are the benefits proven yet?
What is the risk of harm to the cows including their offspring (you can't have milk without a calf)?

The difficulty with discussing these sorts of issues is that the mention of human DNA in a cow immediately conjures up for some people an image of a human/cow hybrid monster, whereas I imagine this project would result in an ordinary cow which produces something extra in its milk. It is true that there is always the potential for unexpected side-effects from any new technology, and this is something that needs to be taken seriously.

I'm not convinced by the argument 'it's not natural' in itself. There can be valid arguments against specific proposals for specific reasons, such as that we don't want to use foetal stem cells out of respect for those foetuses, but our lives today are a long way from being 'natural' in all sorts of ways.

In the UK any experiments involving animals must go to an ethics committee before they are given permission to proceed, and there are very strict rules (the strictest in the world I believe) regulating the welfare of the animals involved. This does not make the system perfect but I'm sure it helps.