The Furrowed Brow
What do you want to talk about, seriously?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
The blog for the afternoon news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
Subscribe to PM
You can stay up to date with PM via these feeds.
PM Feed(RSS)
PM Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
No, seriously, though, triple or quadlatte, Eddie? Kettle's just boiled.
Complain about this comment
For some reason, I was puzzling over this yeaterday:
If sea levels rise as a result of global warming will:
a) heights of mountains have to be adjusted?
b)there be an impact on atmospheric pressure?
c)the earth actually increase in size?
Funny what pops into your head whilst riding a bike.....
Complain about this comment
yeSterday
Complain about this comment
This is [as far as I know, or am I quoting somebody?], original.
Feminism is a virago of claim and counter-claim.
H.
Complain about this comment
The votes this week on the hybrid embryology bill raise all sorts of questions about animal dna being incorporated into the human body. The scare stories lead towards frankenstein type scenarios. However, heart valve replacements using pig valves and the lessor known cow valve alternative have been around for quite a while. So is there a problem with this type of work or is a case of the healthy denying hope to the seriously ill?
Complain about this comment
mygloriousleader (5):
<em>The votes this week on the hybrid embryology bill raise all sorts of questions about animal dna being incorporated into the human body</em>
Except of course that the human DNA which is enveloped in the shell of animal DNA, not only don't mix (incorporate) but never get into a human body - unless the researcher is dangerously careless and licks a petrie dish of cuts themself with one of those microtools.
You will get animal DNA *in* your body if you eat - say - a beefburger. You won't turn into a cow though.
Complain about this comment
Much as I respect your view, SSCat (6), I personally feel I need to know a lot more about this business of hybrid embryos than we've received in the public.. and I worry about how much the politicians charged with making the decision have understood.
Instinctively, I am uncomfortable with the idea of messing with embryos ... it's OK while it's in the hands of benevolent scientists seeking cures for truly ghastly diseases, but what if things up-top change?
Complain about this comment
Fifi (7):
Yes, there's always a place for more information. The trouble with the debates so far is that they tend to polarise into on one side, "This is a sin! Human life begins at the moment of first twinkle in the milkman's eye!" and on the other, "It's science! The quest for knowledge trumps all!". A proper, public debate by people who understand what's being talked about would be good.
I was amused (and slightly gobsmacked) to hear on the 6pm news an MP asking why we should trust the intentions of scientists. Um, Pot = spectral emissions(Kettle)!
Complain about this comment
Fifi (7):
And if you're worried about genetically engineered superhumans, don't be. Homo Sapiens will be supplanted much sooner by sentient machines.
(And why not?
"I believe the robots are our future,
Teach them well and let them lead the way,
Show them all the beauty they possess inside,
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier,
Let the robot's laughter remind us how we used to be...")
Complain about this comment
Re: the embryology debate.
Just because a thing *can* be done doesn't mean it *should* be done. Even if it *should* be done, then why here in the U.K.? Tamper with the fundamental building blocks of life at your peril.
This is not a religious objection, but one based on the rule of First Aid 'First, do no harm'. Not only do we not know whether these measures might be medically effiacious, we also have no idea of the harm that might potentially result.
The objections to this kind of practise being carried on are the same as those which apply to GM foods, only much more so, since they apply to DNA from sentient beings.
The arguments I have heard in favour seem to focus on the commercial benefits of the U.K. being a world leader and completely overlook any kind of moral / ethical dimension as to whether it is acceptable to experiment with the natural order of things in this way. This does the whole genetics 'industry' a dis-service. They must not only justify themselves in terms of medical need, but also answer directly the ethics directly instead of ignoring it or sweeping under the carpet. Only then can they hope to command our respect and earn our approbation.
WR.
Complain about this comment
WR 10, A bit like introducing cane toads to Australia.
Complain about this comment
SSC 6,
But depending on the source of the beef, you could get mad cow disease.
Complain about this comment
David (12):
A very good point. All the more reason to *test* things like that. To research. To find things out. To experiment under controlled conditions, so that things like that don't happen.
Complain about this comment
I'm of the same view as SSC on this. Whilst strick rules about what is allowed are required, this is an avenue of scientific research that may prove to have significant benefits to large numbers of people. I feel the problem is that usually, the reporting of this on TV tends to be very short, and it doesn't give enough time to the actuality of what's involved. Thus we end up with soundbites such as "Frankenstein science" which do nothing to add to the debate.
Regarding the Human/Animal admixed embryos, there is so much confusion about what is being talked about. This is *NOT* some attempt top create some half man/half animal creature. An animal cell has it's "contents" (nucleus) removed, and the nucleus of a human cell (typically from a skin cell) is implanted. The result is that a cytoplasmic embryo is created (99.9% Human tissue with an outer 0.1% animal cell membrane).
As for your comment, WR (10) about "Just because a thing *can* be done doesn't mean it *should* be done." I believe the same could have been said in the 18th century when vacinnation with cowpox was first trialled. Yes, we have to have caution about new advances, particularly in Biologic fields, but I *do* feel we should allow scientists to determine if there are potential benefits to human-kind from this line of investigation
Complain about this comment
We seem to be pulling two ways at once on this question, suggesting on one hand that 'they shouldn't do this' and another that 'they should test this', and I don't see how they can both not-do testing and do it at the same time.
I think there is a lot less chance of a few dozen cells escaping from a lab and remaining viable than there is of a cane-toad escaping into the wild, or oil-seed rape getting into every hedgerow in the country.
And I am unconvinced by the 'embryo' label, because if something is not viable and going to develop into something that lives and breathes I don't see how that can be the right word for it. It isn't made clear, but I think we are talking more about 'samples of potentially-foetal tissue' rather than an embryo (or presumably two embryoes, one human and one animal) being used for research purposes, and I would have thought that was a somewhat different thing just as a small bunch of stem-cells from an adult body are not exactly 'a human being'. 'Embryo' is an emotive term and 'cell-sample' isn't, for most people, though I suppose that one who would refuse a blood-transfusion of any but his or her own blood on religious grounds would feel differently about that point.
The motive remains dodgy, as in the 'can' is not the same as 'should' and economic advantage is not a very good reason to do things, but it does seem possible that the end is a good one for a lot of people, and might well be felt to justify the means.
'Do no harm' is a good rule; I'd like a bit more on what about this is doing harm before I judge that bit of the argument.
Complain about this comment
As you have all said this is a difficult area but I found the BBC's coverage about and around the Parliamentary debate informative. I do have some reservations, mostly about boundaries and when they should be drawn. If you want to scare yourself read Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. Definitely insufficient boundaries there but it is fiction.
Complain about this comment
CG 15,
To be serious for a moment, we used to keep rabbits in our garden and one was a rare variety from Pakistan called a Frow. It dug so far down that we lost track of it. We called it the 'burrowed Frow'.
Complain about this comment
One of the things, what I want to talk about, seriously, is the "new towns" that are up for competition at the mo.
I think that along with the new towns, the competition should include existing major cities who could vye to build vertically. An enormous wopping great skyscraper that could house 10000 people.
Why?
Because: cities have already got all the infrastructure. Many have major airports nearby too. All have train links, and road/motorways.
there would be a smaller eco footprint - for many many reasons.
the 'new jobs' could be included in several floors of this skyscrapper.
the cost of building a percentage of 'affortable' homes within the skyscrapper would be easily absorbed.
the integration of shops, schooling and facilities within easy access
and more
nick
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS