This may not stay out of science fiction but it isn't that way to start as researchers have really done this using human cells for the base. (The Guardian: First almost fully-formed human brain grown in lab, researchers claim)
The original project started from skin cells and so what about that as there's no ethical issue when skin peels. However, the cells are cultivated up until they are representative of the components of the human brain. Their creation is only about the size of a pencil eraser but, in this context, size doesn't mean anything.
There are more ethical considerations in this than the Dick Cheney Sunday Crossword Puzzle. The scientists said there is no chance of consciousness nor awareness so there is no ethical issue.
Um, Doctor Schweitzer, how do you know that.
He says there are no sources of input (e.g. visual, audio, etc) but we take that to mean the good doctor never read "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo. Johnny had no inputs left but he was clearly conscious.
The researchers do not know what organic boundary is crossed to go from being a collection of cells in a Petri disk to becoming something with some type of awareness. Whether it's aware of this physical reality is irrelevant as the only question is whether it is aware of anything.
Many are irate over GMO corn, etc but there's so much genetic vulnerability in these gigantic monocrops that I can't get too excited about it. Life requires genetic diversity and this type of farming is working to the opposite of that.
Someone said, "If architects built buildings the way programmers write programmers then the first woodpecker to come along could destroy civilization."
And so it is with the GMO teams on the corn fields. The threat isn't they will poison you but rather they will poison this species of corn by making it too rigid to defend itself against attack.
Playing God with corn is one thing but doing it with a human brain or any analog of it is something out of a Boris Karloff movie. Science moves at a speed dazzling to all but ethical standards do not evolve anywhere near as quickly.
One suggestion is to ask the Vatican.
(Ed: if you tell the longhairs you will bring the Vatican into the lab, the response will be Christ, no!)
My response is Christ, yes.
There is no purpose nor intention to inculcate Catholicism or Christianity into anyone as I am not Catholic and I don't care what you believe. I'm not a Christian but what I believe isn't any more important than what you believe. Nevertheless, if there's any central religious authority in Christianity, the Vatican is where we find it.
Here at the Rockhouse, we see a clear need for dialog as scientists are notorious atheists and are frequently dismissive of anything which may slow them in the pursuit of pure science. We can be sympathetic to that as we love it when they discover cool things but we see a clear need for discussion when you're cooking a brain in a teapot.
(Ed: what's wrong with atheism?)
Nothing but there's a lot wrong with bad science.
The original project started from skin cells and so what about that as there's no ethical issue when skin peels. However, the cells are cultivated up until they are representative of the components of the human brain. Their creation is only about the size of a pencil eraser but, in this context, size doesn't mean anything.
There are more ethical considerations in this than the Dick Cheney Sunday Crossword Puzzle. The scientists said there is no chance of consciousness nor awareness so there is no ethical issue.
Um, Doctor Schweitzer, how do you know that.
He says there are no sources of input (e.g. visual, audio, etc) but we take that to mean the good doctor never read "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo. Johnny had no inputs left but he was clearly conscious.
The researchers do not know what organic boundary is crossed to go from being a collection of cells in a Petri disk to becoming something with some type of awareness. Whether it's aware of this physical reality is irrelevant as the only question is whether it is aware of anything.
Many are irate over GMO corn, etc but there's so much genetic vulnerability in these gigantic monocrops that I can't get too excited about it. Life requires genetic diversity and this type of farming is working to the opposite of that.
Someone said, "If architects built buildings the way programmers write programmers then the first woodpecker to come along could destroy civilization."
And so it is with the GMO teams on the corn fields. The threat isn't they will poison you but rather they will poison this species of corn by making it too rigid to defend itself against attack.
Playing God with corn is one thing but doing it with a human brain or any analog of it is something out of a Boris Karloff movie. Science moves at a speed dazzling to all but ethical standards do not evolve anywhere near as quickly.
One suggestion is to ask the Vatican.
(Ed: if you tell the longhairs you will bring the Vatican into the lab, the response will be Christ, no!)
My response is Christ, yes.
There is no purpose nor intention to inculcate Catholicism or Christianity into anyone as I am not Catholic and I don't care what you believe. I'm not a Christian but what I believe isn't any more important than what you believe. Nevertheless, if there's any central religious authority in Christianity, the Vatican is where we find it.
Here at the Rockhouse, we see a clear need for dialog as scientists are notorious atheists and are frequently dismissive of anything which may slow them in the pursuit of pure science. We can be sympathetic to that as we love it when they discover cool things but we see a clear need for discussion when you're cooking a brain in a teapot.
(Ed: what's wrong with atheism?)
Nothing but there's a lot wrong with bad science.
6 comments:
Did you really suggest that the Vatican be the moral compass for this type of research ?
In fact, I did and I'm not being facetious. I do not propose, however, it is THE moral compass but rather it is A moral compass which should be represented.
Science is inherently bereft of any compass and it has to be for pure science. However, I do not view that as a carte blanche license to do whatever you like. For example, let's stick dog ears on humans so we can hear better. Some stuff and you go pfft, that would never happen. Sure and that's true but other stuff does and it is a concern.
This artificial life stuff is deeply concerning and I'm sure there is plenty of room for some fascinating discussion of ethics. I don't see any reason at all to be moving forward at breakneck speed ... when they don't really know where they're going.
How about a council of multiple cultures and religions ? Seems like the Vatican has the Crusades and the Spanish Inquistion in its background
Seems to me the must be a far better choice
I'm open to any satisfactory answer as the importance to me is the ethical discussion rather than the specifics of those who will engage in it.
The Catholics have some bloody stuff in their history but all that Injun-killin' doesn't look too good for Protestants. What I conclude from that is humans have done some horrible things on this world and ... rim shot, please ... largely because of insufficient ethical consideration.
If the bible is right the early days all were one and as one could accomplish anything.
Then the Tower of Babel to disrupt that.
So if all are represented and speaking to the same issues then they should arrive at sound policies
Or another is to take a group of lemmings using day to day logic to decide But that sounds like Congress
I do believe that unified answer is the right one, however it gets that way. I also agree Congress is a pack of lemmings but much of that comes from the vagueness of medical ethics now. When you put wimps within a wimpy system, looking for Olympic heroism is improbable.
(I mean wimpy system as in weak definition of ethics)
Post a Comment