| Posted by: sones | |  i am a student working on a debate on the human genome project. being that my team is on the negative rather than the affirmative, the biggest argument we have on our side is ethics, morals, religion, etc. while the name of science and technological advancement (SP and grammar???  ) is on the other side. does anyone have any suggestions of where to look or what would help us rebutt with more than just thins one aspect of the POV that we are taking?
the debate is not so much about cloning, but also, i would like to understand what role, if any, the human genome project holds in cloning.
thanks a million!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: mystic | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by sones
anybody there??? i nead some help here please!!!! |
Sones...you sound so desperate  ...will these help? 
SOME RECOMMENDED BOOKS ON THE DANGERS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING
Bill McKibben. Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. NY: Henry Holt, 2003.
Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, eds. Engineering the Farm: The Social and Ethical Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology. Covelo, CA: Island Press, 2002.
Kathleen Hart. Eating in the Dark: America's Experiment With Genetically Engineered Food.Pantheon, 2002.
Brian Tokar, ed. Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. McGill-Queens University Press, 2001.
Ronnie Cummins and Ben Lilliston. Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. Marlowe & Company, 2000.
Richard Heinberg. Cloning the Buddha: The Moral Impact of Biotechnology. Wheaton Il: Quest, 1999.
British Medical Association. Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity. London: BMJ Bookshop, 1999.
Mae-Wan Ho. Genetic Engineering, Dream or Nightmare. Gateway Books, 1998.
Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey. Against the Grain:the Genetic Gamble with Our Food. Common Courage Press,1998.
Jeremy Rifkin. The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World. Tarcher/Putnam, 1998.
Vandana Shiva. Biopiracy : The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Boston: South End Press, 1997.
Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald. Exploding the Gene Myth. Rev. ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997.
Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon. The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.
Robin and Laura Ticciati. Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide. Keats, 1998.
John Fagan. Genetic Engineering: the Hazards, Vedic Engineering: the Solution. MIU Press, 1995
Check out this link, I really dont know what you are looking for but maybe this has some scientific answers:
From:www.i-sis.org/xeno.shtml
Potential arguments against gene patenting:
Patents of partial and uncharacterized cDNA sequences will reward those who make routine discoveries but penalize those who determine biological function or application (inappropriate reward given to the easiest step in the process).
Patents could impede the development of diagnostics and therapeutics by third parties because of the costs associated with using patented research data.
Patent stacking (allowing a single genomic sequence to be patented in several ways such as an EST, a gene, and a SNP) may discourage product development because of high royalty costs owed to all patent owners of that sequence; these are costs that will likely be passed on to the consumer.
Because patent applications remain secret until granted, companies may work on developing a product only to find that new patents have been granted along the way, with unexpected licensing costs and possible infringement penalties.
Costs increase not only for paying for patent licensing but also for determining what patents apply and who has rights to downstream products.
Patent holders are being allowed to patent a part of nature --a basic constituent of life; this allows one organism to own all or part of another organism.
Private biotechs who own certain patents can monopolize certain gene test markets.
Patent filings are replacing journal articles as places for public disclosure --reducing the body of knowledge in the literature.
The Human Genome Project is not without controversy, however Many scientists fear that funding for it will be diverted from other areas of research, rather than obtained from new funding sources. This has enlivened the debate about the relative value of ''big'' versus ''small'' science. Also, the value of undertaking a complete sequencing of the genome has been questioned, especially given the high proportion of nongenic sequences .
Fears of abuse From CNN article June 2000
Despite the potential for medical advancements, many Americans are divided over the implications of the genome project.
In a CNN-Time magazine poll taken two weeks ago, 46 percent of respondents said they expected harmful results from the endeavor. Forty percent expected benefits. About 41 percent of respondents said the project is morally wrong; 47 percent disagreed.
Nevertheless, a majority of respondents -- 61 percent -- said they would want to know if they were predisposed to developing a genetic disease. About 35 percent would not want to know.
The question of who should have access to genetic information is one of the most controversial stemming from the project.
In the poll, 67 percent of respondents said doctors should be able to get genetic information. About 20 percent said it should be available to insurance companies, and only 14 percent said it should be available to the government.
Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said providing genetic information to insurers or employers could have negative consequences if a person is predisposed to a particular disease.
"They might say, 'We don't want to hire you if you're going to have high medical costs. We don't want to give you life insurance,'" Caplan said.
Protecting the privacy of genetic information is extremely important, Caplan added, as is the issue of consent. "We need to have a law, a federal law -- probably an international law -- that says no testing without the express permission of the person," Caplan said.
I hope this helps, because like I said, I dont know what you are actually looking for. Well, I undertand what your looking for, but I'm not really sure if this is what you need.
You wont find many scientists that are against this type of mapping, but they are definitely afraid of it taking away from other projects such as cancer research, and other diseases. Also they should be aware of Corporations running these mapping issues, instead of the scientists themselves, such as corporations taking over medical insurance and running our health instead of our doctors.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: sones | | o god, thanks! i'm having sooo much trouble with this stupid debate and my team is doing NOTHING to help! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: sones | | o god, thanks! i'm having sooo much trouble with this stupid debate and my team is doing NOTHING to help! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: helen55 | | An other site to check is
http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/
Your question was somewhat confusing to me.
The Human Genome Project (HGP) has really NOTHING to do with cloning except that both are based on DNA (like saying The Bible and Playboy are related 'cause both are on paper).
Cloning is a technology where (in the most simple terms) they start with whatever DNA they have from a living organism and inject it into a cell capable of reproducing an other living organism - if it went well the two are like identical twins. They need not know the genome at all to do that.
The HGP, which was just completed on the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA structure, consisted of fully deciphering ONE PERSON's full DNA, all the chromosomes. That person's identity will not ever be in public domain as far as I know.
The genome just by itself would be totally meaningless, like looking at the dump from the computer's memory - useless without the knowledge on how to make sense of it. In 1970's we HAD to read memory dumps, so I'm not sure if you even know what I'm talking about 
The genome has a lot of wasted code in it, unnecessary bits and pieces as far we know today. But as you know the real stars of the genome are the GENES - holding the true code for each living being, and so far we know very little about them within the genome.
Finding the genes within the genome is the tricky part, and Mystic has listed several good issues and sources to look at. The issues are quite complex and to debate them you may want to make sure that you know what aspects will come under debate, and assign your team mates those topics to study. You would need weeks to read up on your own to feel somewhat confident about what you are saying.
Especially do not confuse DNA and all DNA applications which have nothing to do with the genome. You could think of the genome being like the contents of the web: all pages laid out semi-random in a string. Then you need to find the pages to create a web site which makes some sense. Then try to figure out if it is a useful site and what for, who will use it, who will own it, how can somone best profit from it, etc?
The fact that we have the human genome, and now also the genomes of other living things, allows us to do all kinds of wonderful things which do not have issues like ethics, etc. to deal with.
It allows us to study the DNA to determine human origins: the age of the DNA (they know how to figure that out) allows us to track human migration on the planet way back thousands of years, differences between species, etc.
But like any new invention, it will bring MUCH good, MANY problems and questions, and unintended consequences (.e.g. who would have dreamed 10 years ago that the internet will be the easiest way to distribute porn around the globe?)
The technology to decipher the DNA from living organisms developed so rapidly in the last few years that the project was completed sooner than anticipitated. And the technology is now available cheaply for all kinds of good uses, medical diagnostics, crime investigations, etc.
Several countries participitated in the project. The genome is freely available. But because it is so difficult to find the genes, and specifically to find those genes that have huge profit potential if a cure is made based on it, the bottom line is:
We are still a rat race, with or without the genome.
GOOD LUCK!  | | Reply To this Message
|
Medicine & Biotech Forum: human genome project
|
