Post comments for all to see

Genes are the strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that code for the hereditary traits passed down from one generation to the next. Genetic engineering involves the direct manipulation of these genes in a multitude of ways. We hope that these excerpts will serve as starting points for your declaration to the Forum/Againstum concerning genetic engineering. Feel free to use examples that illustrate your point, or facts from other sources. Just be sure to tell who the sources are, so that those whom you are trying to convince know the weight of your evidence! In Improving Nature? (Cambridge University Press, 1996), Michael J. Reiss and Roger Straughan quote critic Jeremy Rifkin as follows: "Now please just imagine introducing thousands of genetically-engineered organisms: bacteria, viruses, plant strains, and animal breeds in massive volumes for commercial purposes. Sheer statistical probability, my friends, suggests that they are not all going to be safe. "Whenever a genetically engineered organism is released there is always a small chance that it too will run amok because, like exotic organisms, it is not a naturally occurring life form. It has be artificially introduced into a complex environment that has developed a web of highly synchronized relationships over millions of years. Each new synthetic introduction is tantamount to playing ecological roulette." Reiss and Straughan go on to quote philosopher John Harris. "We must not act positively so as to cause harm to those who come after us, but we must also not fail to remove dangers which, if left in place, will cause harm to future people. Thought of in this light, there is a clear dilemma about genetic engineering. On the one hand we must not make changes to the genetic structure of persons which will adversely affect their descendants. On the other hand we must not fail to remove genetic damage which we could remove and which, if left in place, will cause harm to future people." In And Justice for All (Rowman and Littlefield, 1982), Stephen P. Stich states the following: "If a line of research can lead to the discovery of knowledge which might be disastrously misused, then that line of research should be curtailed.’ Once it has been made explicit, I think relatively few people would be willing to endorse this principle. For recombinant DNA [DNA that is recombined in other organisms] research is hardly alone in potentially leading to knowledge that might be disastrously abused. Indeed, it is hard to think of any area of scientific research that could not lead to the discovery of potentially dangerous knowledge. So if the principle is accepted it would entail that almost all scientific research should be curtailed or abandoned." The applications of genetic engineering are incredibly diverse, complicating the issue of how we should deal with the technology. What do you think? Head back to the 'Forum/Againstum and speak out! Don't stop here! Find out more about the genetic engineering debate by visiting these sites. We want you to be as informed as possible when arguing in the forum. Just don't forget to come back! Students for Alternatives to Genetic Engineering A strongly anti-genetic engineering site that emphasizes other ways to obtain the promises of genetic engineering. http://www.peak.org/~armstroj/ This site provides a relatively balanced view of the ethical and scientific considerations behind genetic engineering. Genetic Engineering and its Dangers A collection of essays on how genetic engineering might affect our lives in a negative way. Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering An easy to read, neutral site--as long as you don't mind much of the information centered on Australia! Spark of Science, Storm of Controversy Besides having a great title, the page gives you a plethora of opinions from the folks at Princeton on biotechnology's much-touted accomplishment, Dolly, the cloned sheep. What do you think? Head back to the 'Forum/Againstum and speak out!