AP and CNN are reporting today that the "New Eugenics" is already being deployed, per those Designer Babies that 'New Eugenicists' tell us will inevitably become the wave of the future. You know, those Barbie-girls and Ken-boys that activists for human rights are concerned will exacerbate prejudices and discrimination against less-than perfect human beings…

Creating made-to-order babies with genetic defects would seem to be an ethical minefield, but to some parents with disabilities — say, deafness or dwarfism — it just means making babies like them.

And a recent survey of U.S. clinics that offer embryo screening suggests it's already happening.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dawkins' essay about researching Saddam Hussein continues to generate discussion on the blogosphere. Orac provides a very thoughtful analysis that focuses on the ethics of such research:

Even while PZ admires Dawkins for "placing sticks of dynamite under people' chairs and blowing them up," because I have actually been involved in human subjects research, I cringed. Dawkins has never been involved with human subjects research (not unexpected, given his area of research and expertise), and it is painfully obvious that he hasn't bothered to take the time to educate himself about the ethics of such research.

While the ethical dimension is surely worthy of discussion, I would also point out that Dawkins' idea is very poorly thought out from a purely scientific perspective. Dawkins writes, "But perhaps the most important research in which a living Saddam Hussein could have helped is psychological." Yet, if we are to be charitable, we'll have to assume that the method Dawkins has in mind is nothing more than interviewing Hussein in his prison cell. Just how much valuable scientific information can be gathered from interviewing one person? Dawkins writes, "Psychologists, struggling to understand how an individual human being could be so evil and so devastatingly effective at persuading others to join him, would give their eyeteeth for such a rich research subject." But this is silly. Even if we assume that Hussein possessed some great skill of persuasion, someone like Hussein would be "so devastatingly effective at persuading others to join him" in a particular social setting at a particular time. How in the world would one gather this type of information from interviewing him in a prison cell? It would be like trying to figure out why a tiger is such a good predator by observing the tiger in the zoo.

Let's turn to some of Dawkins' arguments:
Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Dawkins wants put to Hitler behind us and resurrect a discussion of eugenics:

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

It's a typical example of Dawkins and his "consciousness-raising." Let's talk about religious people as child abusers. Let's discuss whether religion is the root of all evil. Now, it's let's discuss whether eugenics is really bad. The new Anti-Religion Movement is off and running.

The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine released a preliminary study yesterday (October 31), tracking cerebral blood flow and activity in the brains of five individuals experiencing glossolalia, a.k.a. "Speaking in Tongues." The report can be accessed through ScienceDaily at:

Language Center Not Under Control (shortened title).

Newberg went on to explain, "These findings could be interpreted as the subject's sense of self being taken over by something else. We, scientifically, assume it's being taken over by another part of the brain, but we couldn't see, in this imaging study, where this took place. We believe this is the first scientific imaging study evaluating changes in cerebral activity — looking at what actually happens to the brain — when someone is speaking in tongues. This study also showed a number of other changes in the brain, including those areas involved in emotions and establishing our sense of self."

Read the rest of this entry »

Two phenomenon in particular fascinate me in the intelligent design debate: One is how otherwise very intelligent persons with solid educations can nevertheless make singularly stupid arguments. The other is how people who are each other's sworn enemies end up looking like each other. As an example of the latter, consider coffee cups. More precisely, the coffee cups at Starbucks. The coffee company is printing "thoughts, opinions and expressions provided by notable figures" on their cups, as part of their "The Way I See It" campaign.

Some of these quotes have caused controversy, as when the Christians group "Concerned Women for America" accused Starbucks of promoting homosexuality because of a quote from author Armistead Maupin, in which he said that the only thing he regretted about being gay was that he had supressed it for so long. And now, some people are angry over another quote. On his blog, Secondhand Smoke, biotethicist Wesley Smith announced that Starbucks had used one of his statements as "The Way I See It #127":

The morality of the 21st century will depend on how we respond to this simple but profound question: Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human? Answer yes, and we have a chance of achieving universal human rights. Answer no, and it means that we are merely another animal in the forest.

- Wesley J. Smith
Bioethicist and senior fellow with the Discovery Institute.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today is the 61st anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations in war - Hiroshima. On Wednesday we 'celebrate' the second use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations in war - Nagasaki. There have been 61 years' worth of arguments back and forth on the issue of whether or not such weapons should have been developed at all, whether or not they should be deployed in wars, and whether or not they should be deployed against civilians rather than military targets. I won't re-hash those arguments.

For 45 years following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the possession, enhancement and targeting of nuclear WMDs served to prevent all-out war between the primary nuclear powers - the USSR and the USA. Other nations were allowed to develop nuclear weapons as well, a "proliferation" that proceeded by alliances with one major power or the other, further allowing major power nukes to be sited on foreign soil for strategic purposes.

Read the rest of this entry »

This blog started as a response to Krauze's David Barash thread about advocacy of creating a human/chimp chimera, but got too long on sources so I'm blogging it. I did not see Barash's publicly-stated motivation mentioned in that thread, and I think it's something that bears greatly on the issue of why the public so strongly distrusts science and scientists.

Barash isn't shy about his reasons for advocating something he knows to be unethical (though he's hoping it will be considered ethical in the future). Or, he doesn't shy away from publicizing A reason the one he wants to make public. From The LA Times article:

This may seem perverse, because even the most liberal ethicists shy away from advocating the breeding or genetic engineering of half-person/half-animal. Why, then, am I rooting for their creation?

Because in these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed. And this is precisely the message that chimeras, hybrids or mixed-species clones would drive home.

Read the rest of this entry »

According to many ID critics, intelligent design is a dangerous thing, capable of destroying Science, Democracy, and everything else we consider Good and Sacred. And we all know that desperate times calls for desperate measures. No one knows that better than David Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Barash advocates creating a humane-ape hybrid to teach religious fundamentalists a lesson:

This may seem perverse, because even the most liberal ethicists shy away from advocating the breeding or genetic engineering of half-person/half-animal. Why, then, am I rooting for their creation?

Because in these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed. And this is precisely the message that chimeras, hybrids or mixed-species clones would drive home.

Read the rest of this entry »

PZ Myers does nothing more than scoff at Sen. Santorum, who apparently said/wrote, "Most scientists unfortunately, those that certainly are advocating for this [embryonic stem cell research], and many others feel very little moral compulsion. It's a utilitarian, materialistic view of doing whatever they can do to pursue their desired goals."

Yet the June 13, 2006 issue of Cell has an article by Paul Root Wolpe, from the Department of Psychiatry and Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Wolpe's article is entitled, "Reasons Scientists Avoid Thinking about Ethics." Some excerpts from the article are below the fold:
Read the rest of this entry »

In case you don't know what to talk about, here's some stories to break the ice:

Robert P. George, Council of Bioethics at Princeton University: "I Was Wrong About Peter Singer" (HT: Positive Liberty). George has always defended Singer. Not his opinions, since Singer supports bestiality and the killing of infants, but his integrity in always representing his opponents accurately. See what made him change his mind.

More ancient genes: "Although lampreys and humans shared their last common ancestor some 560 million years ago, it turns out that the SoxE family of genes is involved in facial development of lampreys during neural crest development, just as SoxE is responsible for formation of the human pharynx and parts of the jaw." (HT: Red State Rabble)

"Parallel Evolution: Proteins Do It, Too": "Wings, spines, saber-like teeth - nature and the fossil record abound with examples of structures so useful they've evolved independently in a variety of animals. But scientists have debated whether examples of so-called adaptive, parallel evolution also can be found at the level of genes and proteins."