Could Your Genes Hold You Back?

I just finished reading this article by Stephanie Armour from SIRS Researcher. This article talks about how new scientific discoveries mandate employees to submit to DNA tests. Like GATTACA (see post below), except real, this article discusses how people are being discriminated against based on their genes. USA Today found that many applicants are being denied jobs because their DNA tests depict that they are predisposed to certain conditions and traits that have the potential to cost companies a lot more money. Just like the fantasy world of GATTACA, people are being denied a spot in the workplace because of their genetic makeup. This could possibly create a lower class of undesirable traits/genes. A survey that was done by USA Today shows that many companies are already not informing their employees about what medical tests are being done on them. Kim Roembach-Ratliff, a 39-year-old teacher from Kansas, told USA Today that she could not receive coverage from her insurance company because a test revealed that her unborn son had spina bifida, a fault in the spinal cord that can lead to paralysis. So, in answer to the article's main question: yes, your genes can hold you back. Your DNA is not something that you can hide under your clothes or in your brain; it is an identification card that is forever chained to your body. If genetic engineering was introduced into our world, the people who were created organically would be discriminated against. Why hire a person who has a 100% chance of developing a heart condition when you can hire the 100% healthy, GM one? The business industry does not tiptoe around people's emotions. They will take the best and they will take the ones that cost them the least amount of money. The engineering of humans would cause this exact problem, along with many others. 

Narrowing It Down

I have decided to focus my research solely on the genetic engineering of humans because the subject of genetic engineering is a little too broad. I picked humans because to many people, it seems a lot less tangible to genetically engineering a human than an animal, plant, or food (which have all been done before). The whole concept is surrounded by uncertainty and almost a little bit of fear. I think it would be interesting to investigate the current status of human engineering, the pros and cons, and where it has the potential to go from there.

Biotech on the Farm: Realizing the Promise

I just finished reading this article originally from "Futurist." It discusses the potential that genetic engineering has but also the precautions that we must take to ensure its safety and reliability. The passage began by listing some positives and negatives of biotechnology. One issue, toxic-waste cleanup, could largely benefit our society ecologically and economically. Genetically modified (GM) bacteria could eat up toxic materials which would be less expensive than conventional cleanup methods. But, unforeseen problems could arise, and you have to be very careful when cleaning up hazardous waste.

Scientists can GM plants so that they produce their own insect-killing toxins. Although insect pesticides are used to protect plants, they are dangerous to the environment and also expensive. Butterflies have died when scientists have tested the GM plants because they try to eat it. If they survive, though, they could potentially produce their breed of insects that are difficult to kill. It's hard to tell where you draw the line. I think that it should vary per situation. I do not think that any GM bacteria, plant, crop, etc. should be produced unless extensive tests have proved that they have no negative effects on the environment (including long-term effects). What is not visible at first sight may have a drastic effect later on. Also, as a citizen, do we have a right to know what is genetically engineered? For example, if you are at a grocery store, should a tomato be required to have a "GM" sticker on it? It think so. People have the right to decide what kinds of food they eat. To many, this decision is influenced by where the food comes from and if it is naturally grown.

GATTACA

I watched the movie GATTACA which is about a man named Vincent Freeman who was born naturally into a now genetically-enhanced world. Now, when you are born, the likelihood of disease and life expectancy are ascertained at birth. Myopic, due to die at age 30, and with a 99% chance of heart problems, Vincent does not have the opportunity to demonstrate his brains because he does not have the genes. Instead of discrimination against different races or religions, people are discriminated against based on their genetic make-up. Similar to the untouchables in India's caste system, people who are born the old-fashioned way, often called "Invalids," are at the bottom of society's hierarchy. So, Vincent goes underground and assumes the identity of a crippled "Valid" named Jerome Morrow. He uses Jerome's skin, hair, blood, and urine to constantly pass DNA tests so that he work at Gattaca Corp. and fulfill his lifelong dream: to embark on a manned mission to Saturn's 14th moon. With only weeks away from his launch date, the mission director is murdered and the police suspect Vincent Freeman (from an eyelash found in a hallway). Vincent now has to keep himself from arousing the police's attention while maintaining his fake identity while passing all of the random DNA tests.

Although this movie was not in the horror genre, it scared me. Not only does the world of GATTACA seem like something that might actually happen, but it seems like it already has in a way. We don't have rockets launching to Mars as often as air crafts, but certain groups of people have attempted to "purify" the world many different times. The Rwandan genocide is representative of this idea because of the Hutu's attempt to exterminate the Tutsi ethnic group. Another example is are the Nazis and their discrimination. GATTACA takes this idea of purification and prejudice to a whole new level. It is a believable world because technology is advancing every day; it's something that could ultimately ending up hurting the human race instead of helping them.

Vincent was born naturally, but his brother was genetically engineered. There was a scene in the movie where his parents had a consultation with a doctor in which they picked the gender of their baby-to-be and what diseases or disorders they did not want him to contract. They said that they wanted to leave some things up to chance, such as his hair and eye color. But at this point, did that really matter? This baby was not going to be organic anyways. This movie provided a lot of insight into what the world has the potential to one day be and it will be beneficial to taking a stance on this issue.

Genetic Engineering: Overview

I decided to research genetic engineering for the Marketplace of Ideas project. I am not entirely sure of where I stand on the issue, so I want to get a better understanding of its multiple perspectives. When I first came across this topic, I really only saw one side of the controversy. GE clearly affects the natural properties of plants, food, and animals. I could not see how it could be considered a positive contribution to society-- it brought on so many issues. Another problem I saw in it was the fact that one day, it will be possible for parents to selective certain traits and characteristics for their children to have. What would the world be like if parents were making their kids incredibly tall or specifically with brown eyes. There is definitely an ethical dilemma here. But, what I did not realize before, is that there are many positive components to GE. Simply by reading the short page that gives an overview of GE on the website, Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society, I was able to broaden my knowledge on the subject. Where there is a moral reason not to use GE, there is also a moral reason to use it. According to the World Health Organization, for example, 250,000 to 500,000 children in developing countries go blind every year because their diet lacks sufficient levels of vitamin A. But, scientists can genetically engineer plants or rice, for example, to give these children the nutrients they need to survive. The moral dilemma is simple: If you genetically engineer something, you remove the naturalness of a process. But if you do not genetically engineer that something, you would be withholding useful produce from people who would desperately benefit from it. Genetic engineering is a complex issue that is becoming more and more pressing with the advancement of technology and desperation for resources. I look forward to pursuing this issue.

What's Going On In The World?

One of the most prominent issues in the world today is the revolt that is going on in Libya. I read a couple articles and blogs on The New York Times's website about the situation. It seems like Africa has always had the reputation of being poor and underdeveloped, but its problems have also seemed to be out of our hands. For example, how can you really eliminate poverty even in one African country? The protests in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries appeared to give Libyan citizens the courage to stand up to their government. But, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi is firmly holding his ground. Ruling for longer than Egyptians former president, Mubarak, Qaddafi is an unpredictable and harsh ruler. He has no problem commencing a civil war in his country. So, what should the U.S. do? One point of view is that America needs to intervene by supplying Libya's rebel army. Some believe we should pressure other countries to intervene but watch from afar. Others think that by getting involved yet again in a foreign affair, we could end up in another undesirable situation like Afghanistan. I am under the impression that if we do not intervene, we are not only disregarding an opportunity to promote democracy, but we are also letting Gaddafi's troops kill innocent civilians. He has proved to be a relentless and very unreasonable leader. I don't think that just giving the Libyan rebels arms is enough, though. I believe we need to direct Libyans to the most efficient way to remove Gaddafi from power. I think the advantages of intervening outweigh the disadvantages.  

State of the Union Address

I always look forward to the State of the Union address because it is a time when the president is supposed to tell the country what is going on, not the media. I was especially looking forward to this year's address because I had heard that the members of Congress and guests that were attending the speech were going to be sitting amongst each other instead of divided by party. I thought this was a really smart idea because it always appeared childish to me when the each side would stand up and clap (for, in my opinion, unreasonably long periods of time) when they agreed with something that the president said. Although there was some obvious division amongst avid clappers, the speech seemed to have a different atmosphere. It felt like there was a little less tension and everyone seemed more civilized.

There were a couple of things about Obama's address that I liked, and there were a couple things about it that I didn't like. To begin, I thought he did a good job on saying things that were appealing to everyone. I believe that it was smart to not say anything extremely controversial (or declare a fixed opinion on sensitive issues) because it definitely did not create such a tense atmosphere. The only things he gave the impression that he was absolutely passionate and adamant about were issues that most everyone agreed with, such as rebuilding our country's economy. This was smooth on Obama's part, but I was also disappointed that he gave such vague solutions to certain problems. It definitely lightened the blow about some issues that require in-depth solutions, but I did not feel a heap of reassurance that he knew exactly what measures need to be taken to find reasonable solutions. He sort of danced around the tough topics by playing up his exceptional speaking skills and saying inspirational things about education and winning the future. He did a good job at pleasing the majority by not taking a contentious stance on certain issues, but I don't think he did not give a deliver enough specifics on the state of our union.

Abortion

After viewing both websites, I think that the NARAL website has a better argument than the National Right to Life (NRL) side. I liked the NARAL website because it discussed the issues surrounding abortion in a problem/solution way. They listed the possible (and probable) problems with certain aspects of abortion, such as healthy pregnancies, sex education, birth control, etc., and followed them with a list of solutions. While this is a civilized manner in presenting their information and discrediting the other side, it also realistically looks at this controversial debate. The NRL website does trigger strong emotions, especially after seeing some pictures, they never say what a supporter could DO about it. Their biggest focus is about changing people's minds and morals, not about preventing the problem in the first place. The NARAL website is an advocate of sex education so that more people will be more safe. If sex is what is causing all of these problems, why not eliminate the problems that come out of it? It's a simple, attainable solution. Also, I was looking at the fact sheet on the NRL's website and I came across some grammatical errors. Some of the information was extremely hard to believe and like nothing I had ever heard of before. This made me question whether their information was reliable. The only source that was listed was themselves, the NRL. There is a small section on their website that gives alternatives to abortion. They suggest counseling, pregnancy tests, and help with the baby's finances. While these are reasonable alternatives for some people, they are not applicable to everyone who wants an abortion. Everyone has a different financial and personal situation. Many people will simply not want to try to be talked out of an abortion.

I believe that parents should have a right to know if their daughter is receiving an abortion is she is a minor. Because it is a medical procedure and there are risks, parents should be notified of what is going on. I do not, however, believe that the daughter needs parental consent to get an abortion. The family may talk it over all they want, but in the end, this is the girl's body. She is the only person who should be allowed to say what is going to be done to her body.

I believe that the notification process should be the same with the father. After all, he is the baby's other half and should be notified of the woman's decision. If the mother and father disagree on what to do with the baby, I think that they should be required to go to counseling until they are in agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement after a while (because the pregnancy cannot be put on hold,) it should be the woman's decision. Like I stated before, she should be the only one who decides what happens to her body.

I agreed with most of the Illinois Abortion Laws, even the anti-choice laws. Although, I do not agree that the spouse's consent is required (explained in the paragraph above) or that more oppressive restrictions should be placed on abortion providers that aren't applied to other medical procedures. I think that it is okay to only allow abortion specialists to perform abortions to ensure safety, but I think that limiting the places that women can receive an abortion is just another way of making it less accessible.

#6: Final Reflection

I am so glad that I read this book because I loved exploring a different perspective like Foer's. Today, the people that share their opinions are usually the burn-down-a-building-of-humans-to-save-a-cow group or the people who love meat so much that they support the mistreatment of animals. It's refreshing to know that there's a person that exists who values animals but can still understand the opposing side. Foer talked about his grandmother who survived the Holocaust a couple of times. He shared how much she valued food, health, and tradition. The way we are raised is usually the lifestyle we will adapt in our younger years. One could reasonably conclude that it would be hard for a child whose family has endorsed hunting and leather coat wearing to question his values at a young age. I like and respect Foer's opinion because he establishes his values, but he pursues them in a realistic manner. He comes to terms with the fact that in the next 10 or 20 years, people will still be eating animals. There is nothing (besides the apocalypse) that would completely halt the human consumption of animals. So, why try to change everyone's point of view when you can change what you don't like about animal agriculture (which is MUCH easier.) Sentimentality can only be shared to a certain extent by polar opposites. You can't tell people what their morals should be. You have to be realistic. I think that Foer's message was to define your values in the most idealistic way and then sensibly pursue them.

#5: Anthropocentrism, Anthropodenial, & Other Big Words

Going along with the theory of relativity (Foer's not Einstein's), it's interesting to observe the extent to which humans either accept the relation with animals or refuse to accept it. After all, we are all animals. It's true that we have opposable thumbs and we do things that the average lion cannot, but we are very similar.

Foer first discusses the meaning of anthropocentrism. He says that it's the conviction that humans are the center of evolution. We can measure the "rightful" owners of every living organism and the lives of other animals in terms of human evolution. To me, this seems reasonable that the only living species on the planet capable of this kind of thinking should get to decide how to measure other living things. But what happens when humans believe they have the right to rule animals in all aspects, not just how to measure their lives. Then, I believe, problems arise. Religion, values, and truth are all things that make animal agriculture so complex and controversial.

Another term that Foer talks about is anthropodenial. Literally, it's the denial that anthropoids share similar experiences to humans. The denial that animals are similar to humans and other animals in terms of experience. Foer uses the example of how his son asks if their dog, George, will be lonely when they leave the house without her. His answer of, "George doesn't get lonely," is the epitome of anthropodenial. I believe that this state of denial is what allows some humans to be apathetic and merciless when it comes to animals. It is obvious that we are different from most animals, but it is not obvious and ignorant to assume that animals are not like us.

Another big word that Foer explores is anthropomorphism. It's the urge to project human experiences onto other animals (like the time Foer's son asked if their dog would be lonely.) An Italian psychologist, Emanuela Cenami Spada, wrote about anthropomorphism and how humans must do it to truly understand their own human existence and experiences. He writes, "The only available 'cure' [for anthropomorphism] is the continuous critique of our working definitions, and to that embarrassing problem that animals present to us." We need to keep questioning ourselves and keep evaluating our evolving relationship with animals. They are not who they were 100 years ago they won't be in another 100 years. The key, I believe, is to understand that neither are we. I think the "embarrassing problem" that Spada touches on is how animals depict human nature and human tendencies. Occasionally, other animals bring out compassion and empathy in humans. Other times, they bring out brutality and oppression. To make us feel comfortable with the creatures that we are forever here with, we must accept them and relate to them. This is the only way that we will be able to live harmoniously.

#4: Humans and Animals - It's All Relative

Foer writes, "Humans are the only animals that have children on purpose, keep in touch (or don't), care about birthdays, waste and lose time, brush their teeth, feel nostalgia, scrub stains, have religions and political parties and laws, wear keepsakes, apologize years after an offense, whisper, fear themselves, interpret dreams, hide their genitalia, shave, bury time capsules, and choose not to eat something for reasons of conscience." We eat animals because we're different than them, yet we refrain from eating them because we're different from them. Is it legal to justify the same thing in two different ways? I guess it is, but it's comical how two extremes can use the same reasoning to justify why they do something (or don't do something.) This idea reminds me of another issue: abortion. If the pro-choice side and the pro-life side both claim that they believe in what they do because they value life, then you know that the issue must be complex. I think that one way complexity is illustrated is when two polar opposites defend their side with the same reasoning. When this happens, you know that the debates will go past the rights and wrongs. Animal agriculture is not just about morality. It's about the environment, tradition, the future, and desire. Humans are animals but animals aren't humans. (?) It's all relative . . .

#3: War On Fish

For every 10 tuna, sharks, and other large predatory fish that were in our oceans fifty to a hundred years ago, only 1 is left. Many scientists predict that in less than fifty years, all fished species will totally collapse. This is no longer a means of survival; it is a war of extermination. Not so long ago, farmers used natural processes to farm. The term "factory farmers" doesn't seem to fit our image of a father-son in a wooden boat fishing trip. Today, factory farming considers nature an obstacle to overcome.

A natural obstacle to overcome when using contemporary fishing methods is bycatch. Bycatch refers to the sea creatures that are "accidentally" caught by fishing nets (there's nothing accidental about hundreds of animals being consciously thrown back into the ocean alive.) Massive amounts of catches equals massive amounts of bycatch. For example, the shrimp business throws 80-90% of the sea animals, dead or dying, it captures overboard as bycatch. People tend not to think about this because they tend not to know about it. Foer notes that there might be a different reaction to eating animals if our food was labeled, letting us know how many animals were killed to make this one possible to eat.

If you look at the massive tuna industry, you would see that there are tons of species that are regularly killed for the sole purpose of providing people with tuna (which, even though irrelevant, is known to have dangerous amounts of mercury in it.) Among the many species that are regularly killed to make tuna an availability are the manta ray, devil ray, spotted skate, bignose shark, copper shark, Galapagos shark, sandbar shark, night shark, tiger shark, sand tiger shark, great white shark, hammerhead shark, spurdog fish, Cuban dogfish, bigeye thresher, mako, blue shark, wahoo, sailfish, bonito, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, longbill spearfish, white marlin, swordfish, lancet fish, grey triggerfish, needlefish, pomfret, blue runner, black ruff, dolphin fish, bigeye ciagarfish, porcupine fish, rainbow runner, anchovy, grouper, flying fish, cod, common sea horse, Bermuda chub, opah, escolar, leerfish, tripletail, goosefish, monkfish, sunfish, Murray eel, pilotfish, black gemfish, stone bass, bluefish, cassava fish, red drum, great amberjack, yellowtail, sea bream, barracuda, puffer fish, loggerhead turtle, green turtle, leatherback turtle, hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley turtle, Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross, Audouin's gull, balearie shearwater, black-browed albatross, great black-backed gull, great shearwater, great-winged petrel, grey petrel, herring gull, laughing gull, northern royal albatross, shy albatross, sooty shearwater, southern fulmar, Yelkouan shearwater, yellow-legged gull, minke whale, sei whale, fin whale, dolphin, northern right whale, pilot whale, humpback whale, beaked whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, sperm whale, striped dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, and goose-beaked whale (just to name a few.)

Killing off so many members of so many species is not a healthy way to sustain an ecosystem. And now, I will prod at the morality of the contemporary fishing industry. Are a couple of tunas worth the lives of 145 species? This does not speak positively on behalf of the fishing industry. Like I said, people don't talk about it because people don't know about it.

#2: Define Your Values

People, music, and traditions define New Orleans, as we know from discussing Katrina. That city has deep roots, ones that can tell a story about the culture from past to present. Just like the city, the food you eat can define a part of your culture and, essentially, a part of who you are. What you choose to eat is entirely up to you, but not all labels tell the truth that you want to hear.

Free-range is a great example because it clearly demonstrates the morality of the food industry. When buying chicken, for example, the package is sometimes labeled "free-range." To a lot of conscientious buyers who wish to purchase their produce only from ethical farmers, they choose this package. Because, in your mind, free-range creates the image of chickens roaming on open grounds, eating fresh feed as they please, and having a decent shelter to retreat to. But, actually, according to the USDA, chickens raised for meat must only have "access to the outdoors," which is absolutely insignificant if you take that literally. A shed containing thirty thousand chickens that has a door which occasionally opens to a 5-by-5 square inch dirt patch is considered free-range. Foer says that he could keep a flock of hens under his sink and call them free-range. Now what does that say about the food industry? To me, it says that not everything can be trusted. What does that mean about cage-free animals? Organically grown products? Unfortunately, "farmers" have found a loophole in these terms as well. Organic and cage-free are just two terms that have basically no meaning. They are merely used to take the money of misinformed, caring consumers. This is not fair to anyone.

FUN FACT (courtesy of Jonathan Safran Foer): Modern industrial fishing lines can be as long as 75 miles--the same distance as from sea level to space.

Local? Hmmm . . .

#1: Eating Animals

Eating Animals caught my attention simply because of the title. I was hesitant at first because the last thing I needed to read was a one-sided book about animal rights that was written by a stubborn radical who worships PETA and its extremities. Then, I discovered the book was written by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of other great literary works. I decided that because he has such a unique, opinionated voice, I would see what he has to say about this very controversial topic.

I was extremely glad that I decided to read this book because Foer puts complicated concepts that typically surround eating and put them into a perspective that anyone can comprehend. Whenever someone, usually one of my family members, boldly decides to engage in an animal rights debate, I am always amazed about one subject: eating dogs. To some people, eating dogs are two words that should under absolutely no circumstances be paired together. Despite the fact that it's completely legal in forty-four states, most people cannot fathom how anyone could eat man's best friend. The fact is, we are one of the few cultures around the world who shun dog eating. For example, Eastern Indians would never lay a hand on their cows, but they sometimes eat their dogs. Foer cleverly explained the average human's reasoning by using a passage from George Orwell's Animal Farm. Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You can try to set rules such as "don't eat companion animals" or "don't eat animals with significant mental capacities," but then you just end up contradicting yourself. Dogs are normally companion animals in America, but they're not domesticated in all parts of the world. If you claim that you shouldn't eat smart animals, then you've just led yourself into another loophole. If a dogs fall under "animals with significant mental capacities," then you must also include pigs, cows, chickens, and many sea animals. And, sadly, it would justify eating severely impaired humans. So tell me, please, how do you choose which animals are considered ethical to consume and which ones are considered unethical to consume?

In America, millions of dogs and cats that are euthanized in animal shelters every year become the food for our food. Safran points out that if we leg dogs be dogs and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs. From an ecological standpoint, dog is a realistic food for our environment. But how can we do that? I just can't get over my sentimentality when thinking about my dog, Bailey, in a pot. But realistically, dogs are plentiful, good for you, easy to prepare, and reasonable to process. On one page, Foer includes a classic Filipino recipes: Stewed Dog, Wedding Style. I won't go into all of the details, but first you kill a medium-sized dog, cook it fur-less, cut the meat into 1" cubes, add some peppercorn and pineapple, do some more boiling, and lastly, blend in puree of dog's liver and cook for an additional 5-7 minutes.

Eating animals seems invisible and irrelevant when it's actually the most relevant thing. Thinking about dogs and their relationship to the animals we eat is a step towards making sense of why we eat animals.