Mar 1, 2007 9:47:27 PM cite

When the first priority is not to generate profit with genetic research, but only medical or ethical indications, no one must fear the escalating misuse of genetic engineering. When the governments want so, the health-systems could have brought in a condition, where the first priority is not generating profit. The only disadvantage would be the slowly progress of investigations then. This could be a wise reason to intervene in genetic science at a later time. But there’s no guarantee for doing foolish things with no profits at all! Although that’s not a question of allowed or not allowed. I assume a physician, who’s used to have a look at profit is more likely being ready for doing not allowed foolish things than who’s used to have a look at the ethical way he sees himself. I’m a simpleton, for real?

by Edgar

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: It's so complicated question. It's very dangerous to give a wrong answer to this question.´There are not so many cases where we need genetic engineering. Certainly, for treating some diseases this science is very interesting and useful. But specialists must use genetic engineering only in some finely selected cases. We must always think of consequences and what result it could have. We must think not only of positive but also negative sides. Genetic engineering is to be used in a narrow and local way and only in order to correct some defects. Of course, we use genetic engineering treating cells in order to correct some health defects, heart diseases and imperfections of organs. But all these cases are exceptional. It’s a question of careful and selective choice.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: I do not know.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo:

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea: We have to bear in mind that human beings are not to be treated like in a laboratory, as if they were extraterrestrial beings. People should make genetic tests with human beings when they are sure that there will be a change, a positive result. Up to now there are no genetic engineering cures for important diseases that human beings have suffered from.

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: A very interesting question. The question is more about how much evil becomes necessary, and which imperfections are considered imperfect. So on the one hand should we absorb the developments of science that will solve and alleviate the terrible disease, and at what level does that begin to interfere with the balance of our humanity? At what level is our – what happens when we begin to kind of deal with imperfections, human imperfections as perceived? So, it is a tough question [and I’m] not sure that I’m capable of answering it. ‘Cause once you allow genetic engineering you have to embrace to possibility that the good and the bad will come with it.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Answertext will be available soon.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: I actually don’t feel qualified to answer this question because I don’t understand enough about genetic engineering to answer it and I really don’t also understand the question’s definition of defects and imperfections, although, I will say that certainly the concept of defects and imperfections has a political basis that I think should be foremost in how that question is addressed.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I see genetic engineering as an imperfection itself. So, I don’t know how one could use technology to correct. And then more important, I am not sure I understand what is an imperfection as who gets to define what a defect is? Who gets to define what is imperfect? If all of us were to do that, we would have a society like that Hitler tried to create. So, I am a little bit wary of when people talk about using technology to actually fix imperfections or fix so-called defects. I think it’s the differences that make this world far more beautiful and perfect.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think this question actually answers itself. Because although they are potentially harmful forms of genetic engineering, this question is asking what kind of genetic engineering should be allowed to correct defects and imperfections. In dealing with the frontier of science, there is always an unknown dimension, which we don’t want to foreclose. Because great new innovations are always coming and can come. So, we want to remain open. But I think human wisdom requires that we always be cautious, experimentally cautious and test carefully as possible before we take risks that can be harmful to humanity. Clearly, genetic engineering has a potential to correct defects and imperfections in the human genome and in our genetic reproduction. And, so the question is saying that those that may help to correct these defects are obviously the ones to select carefully, experimentally, and encourage, while also at the same time being cautious to ones that might bring irreparable harm. And that really is the line of wisdom I think that we need to follow.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Before that question can be answered, I think we have to understand what is the capability of genetic engineering to correct defects and imperfections. I don't think that we are at the state where all kinds of defects and imperfections can be created [speaker probably meant "corrected"]. So until there are technologies that address the kinds of defects and imperfections that can be corrected and we have fully come to understand what the implications of those corrections can hold for the human family, this is a very difficult question to answer at this point in time. I think that we have very much taken an interest in seeing how imperfections of the body can be corrected and in particular with the rise of plastic surgery to see how we can correct facial flaws or defects. And some plastic surgeries have a very beneficial effect, for example in children who are born with cleft palates. So, but then you have people who often, may often become obsessed with imperfections that they perceive within themselves that are actually distorted and really need to be addressed more in the realm of the --by the psychiatrist than by the plastic surgeon. So we really need to look deeper into this whole question of [audio ends]

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: I wouldn't dare to answer such a question at all. The scientists and researchers can do it. I think those people who try to limit these inventions and developments talk about things they don't understand. I wouldn't dare it.

by Avi Primor