Work in healthcare?

[prelude91]

I would donate the synthetic organs to those who have an immediate need, depending on which synthetic organs I had on stand-by for myself, and judge 'guess' which one(s) would be readily available if I needed them / it at any particular time. I would also make my choice of potential recipient depending on their quality of life before / after, and family circumstances. Hate to say it, as it's a much larger subject than us, but effectively my largesse / richesse, would allow me to play god.

[mercutio]

but if people need organs and they can be grown using regenerative methods you wouldn't need to give away your organs as they would be able to grow some that would have a better chance of not being rejected by the host body

[prelude91]

In which case, the core issue you have raised is: should research go into 'regenerative', presumably with unlimited supply, or 'synthetic' which may be limited supply? Or is that an assumption for both areas on my behalf. Then, of course, should research resources be based on which area will produce the 'best' long-term benefits. Or are we assuming regenerative and synthetic are the same for the purposes of this debate? Synthetic to me suggests, plastic or completely man-made using hydrocarbons and other scarce resources (Precious metals etc..). Regenerative suggests the use of stem - cell type creation of one organ based on 'samples' from other living organisms.

[prelude91]

And if I could keep my organs purchased in advance, I wouldn't need to be playing God.

[mercutio]

I saw this on the news they were using skin cells to create new organs ?

[Donald]

Induced pluripotent stem cells, merc. But yeah basically any cell can be turned into another.

[Sailor]

I'm conflicted on the gene therapy issue.

On the plus side, it's easy to understand how the identification of genetic 'flaws' in an individual or related group could be rectified to give health benefits. I'm even nearly persuaded by the argument that genetic engineering has been going on for millenia in the guise of selective breeding.

Of course, too rapid a change in the genome of any organism might have unseen side effects, both in the organism itself and/or in the environment to which it relates. For example, it's really too early to say whether GM crops have negatives that were unforeseen at the time of their introduction. And I believe that the same doubts exist in gene therapy. The reason why the genome works at all is rooted in the inter-connectivity of its internal data and systems. How careful can we be when playing with it? Perhaps not as careful as we need to be. Are we clever enough to play god? Are we mature enough as a species?

Part of me says 'no'. The fact that the patent argument still rolls on despite the US Supreme Court's ruling shows that at least some people involved in the research aren't necessarily doing it for the right reasons. More than that, and on a Gaia scale, what may be right for an individual may not be right for the race or planet as a whole.

This is really, really important stuff. It feeds directly into the Transhumanism discussion. Being on the outside, as most of us are, makes it very difficult to be sure that ethical and balanced steps are being taken. And makes it easy to feel uncomfortable.

[Donald]

Good points. I think perhaps things are moving too fast for the general public, the population that is, as you say, on the outside.

Especially when you consider the time between the discovery of DNA (Miescher 1869), the proposed composition of DNA (Levene 1919), discovery of rules that were true of all species' DNA (Chargaff 1950), the critical work on the structure of DNA (Franklin & Wilkins 1950-53) and finally Watson & Crick essentially poaching their work in '53 and publishing the completed structure. 80-odd years between the suggestion of DNA and the confirmation of the structure. 60 years later and Synthia was created.

I'm sure the vast majority of people don't even know there are several types of DNA, it's no wonder people are up in arms over GM crops.

Another thing that gets me is the lack of understanding of the difference between viral and bacterial infections, and the skepticism surrounding a lot of vaccinations and hysteria over disease. I read of someone the other day asking for a vaccination against Ebola for their child, but when told they don't have one but can offer a flu shot instead they responded with "I don't believe in that".

[wurlycorner]

Is it possible that perhaps what they didn't believe in, was that the nhs would be spending money on something that (for most people) is an inconvenience if caught rather than deadly (the flu I mean) and that isn't 100% guaranteed to work, because it's based on predictions of what will be the most virulent strains of flu for that year?

(not my opinion btw, just suggesting that might be what they had meant)

[wurlycorner]

I think GM crops could be a great thing in many ways.
My concern with the trials though is that, as sailor says, I think there's a good chance we don't know enough about the possible side effects and yet once the trials are out there (particularly the external trials) then they're out there - there will be cross contamination and cross pollination etc. You can't stop it. So there's no turning back. If you're lucky there won't be any bad side effects, or they won't be of the sort that ravages across the country, but if you're unlucky, then you've drokked it!

The bigger concern is that in same way that I think they can bring huge benefits, I also think they can be hugely bad news, because they could re-contribute to (and exacerbate) unsustainable ways of living on the planet, instead of where that ship is very slowly starting to turn now in an understanding that we need to change to become more sustainable.