Genetics & Ethics (was Re: [Techtalk] Open Standard for Video Streaming)

[Alvin Goats]

> > On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 05:10, Alvin Goats wrote: 
> > >In a study performed in the early 1980's, it was found
> > > that the life sciences (botany, biology, zoology, medicine, et al) had
> > > the least amount of religious believers. That includes christian,
> > > budhist, jew, muslim, hindu and whatever else. 90 percent (at that time)
> > > were atheist or agnostic and had ethics of less than honorable quality.
> 
> Whoa!  Congratulations on the most bigoted, biased statement I have seen
> on list in a very long time.  I find bigotry against atheists and
> agnostics as repulsive as anti-Semetism (and I'm Jewish) or any other
> religious bias.
> 
> Was anyone else incredibly offended by this?

And re-reading my last sentence, I can see why the thought that I
attacked atheists and agnostics, when I was trying to express that the
life sciences from the surveys had ethics of lower standards to the
public norm.

And as usual, I flounder in my attempts to express a thought. 

Not all of the life sciences or atheists or agnostics have a lack of
ethics. That was not my intention. And there are unethethical people who
do have religious beliefs and in other fields.


If you were offended, you have my appologies.

With each person, each individual, our experiences form much of our
beliefs, our ethics, our being. So each of us has our own bigotry and
bias, and that bias is based on our experience, what we were taught, how
we were raised. In that light, what I said *IS* biased, but I would not
go so far as bigoted. Follow my personal approach below, and if you
still feel a need for reply, reply to me directly and maybe we can come
to mutual understanding.


Now, an attempt to rephrase what I failed to express properly the first
time (and probably subject to more flaming later... :) ):


In playing with genetic code, it is tempting to "play god", so to speak,
and often for noble goals. Getting rid of genetic diseases is a great
goal. But there are those people who have something missing in their
ethics that wouild seek to either replicate themselves (which most of
the world finds dangerous and/or offensive), replicate some historical
figure (ranging from Abraham Lincoln and Ghandi to Adolf Hitler and
Stalin), or to create a super race (which brings to mind the Nazi's of
WWII). 

Religious conviction has a tendancy to suppress or reduce such ideas as
it tends to be contrary to most religions, thus creating a bit of a
safety net. 

When the safety net is weakend or nonexistent, then the chances of
unacceptable behaviour is more easily justified. The Nazi's were a prime
example of this, and the attrocities of Communist Russia as well.  With
nothing to create a "conscience", then everything is possible, including
the abhorrent. So the breeding of jewish women with "prime" aryans to
note human genetics in the children of the coupling, just to create the
super race, was more easily accepted by the reduction of religion. Not
all germans felt that way, but it was acceptable to the Nazi's (I try to
distinguish between a people - german, and a group - Nazi). With no
religion, Communist Russia was able to justify the mass killings of it's
citizens, it was able to justify human experimentation with diseases,
poisons and more. The lack of belief in something superior to humankind
made it easier to adopt a more cavelier attitude about life and living
things.

True, the religious zealots and some other radical groups do the same in
the name of religion (Al-Qaida and the Spanish Inquisition come
immediately to mind). However, some faith in a superior force does tend
to suppress the attempt to do bad things for the majority of us. 

It gives us pause to wonder about what will come of us in an afterlife,
which most religions have in some form. Whether the after life is a
re-incarnation (bad you comes back as a lower creature, maybe a slug;
good you comes back as a happier being with higher status), a joining of
the spirit to a spirit complex if good (disipation and loss of the
spirit if bad), a heaven (reward) and hell (punishment), or a wandering
ill spirit if bad and into nothingness if good (a VERY poor
approximation of Navajo belief).

Now, your experience may be different, but MY dealings with many of the
life scientists with no religious convictions has been: 'cloning is good
and should be done.' 'Hitler can be reborn and was a victim of society,
so he really wasn't bad' (this would be a major afront the Jews, but the
non-religious scientist would reason his way out of any responsibility).
'We should manipulate genetics so that mankind is immune to all
diseases, his brain power increased, his physical strength increased, in
essence, the super human' (aka - the Nazi super race). 

Experimentation with genetics that creates monsters of lab animals is
easily justified by: 'it is just an animal/, 'I'm doing this for the
betterment of mankind', 'I'm seeking to destroy a major disease.' Again,
a cavalier aproach to life.

In the physics, where I hail from, we were indoctrinated into what
attrocities we can commit and made to feel guilty about what we could
do. I have not seen this in the life sciences (and I do have friends in
the life sciences: biology, zoology and medicine). We saw films not
available to the majority of the public about the nuclear holocaust of
Japan, the destruction of buildings, ships, everything, the dead and
dying (and in Kodacolor, too) due to nuclear weapons. The only
justifying reason for the weapons were the Nazi's, who were trying to
build the weapons first and conquer the world. Japan was doing the same,
though never admitted to it until sometime in the 1980's or 1990's (I
can't remember exactly when, it wasn't major news). Added to our
religious convictions, such attrocities and the ability to create more
loathsome attrocities are avoided or skirted around. There is much the
military and government is never told as we find it intolerable. 


It is MY preference that genetics be governed by others who are more apt
to suppress those things that the majority of the public finds
reprehensible. From *MY* personal experience, leaving this to the life
sciences to govern would be a mistake. 


As for the surveys, they were performed in the US in the 1970's and
early 1980's due to various ethical questions going on at the time
(bacterial warfare, nuclear testing, the cold war, racial unrest,
testing on animals, genetic testing, creation of life in the lab) and to
get a better idea of what was of interest to the scientists in the
fields surveyed. It was thought that the physicists would be the least
religious because of the atomic bomb and the life sciences more
religious due to the sanctity of life. The reverse was found to be true,
which surprised everyone. The surveys asked other ethical things that
affected that area of science: nuclear issues with physicists, cloning
and disease with life science. The ethics were different and disturbed
quite a few people.

As for the "religion", it was the vaguest form of religion. Pagans,
wiccans, druid, christians, hindi, muslim, budhist, if there was a
religious form whether it was acceptable or universally recognized, it
was counted as a "faith" in something. In addition, there was whether
you were atheist, or agnostic. Most agnositics ascert that they have a
faith, but that the supreme being is not interested in or that concerned
about mankind, per the surveys.

Now, dissect the entire collective; express differences of opinion and
justification of your reasons based on YOUR experiences and knowledge.
I've given the angle from MY viewpoint and experience. Vive la
difference!

And if you desire to reply, reply to me directly so that the flames on
the list are minimized. 



And let us go on, in peace. 

Alvin