Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Jim Watson is an advocate for gene therapy in plants and humans. I think such an assessment is skewed by a strict belief in hierarchy. Humans do not need to see the world in such a competitive “I-must-dominate” way when it comes to plants. Mutual symbiosis and natural managing techniques can protect both the “enemy” and humans. I do not agree with the view that people with diseases need to be fixed. Variation is not an absolute enemy that must be stamped out.
I would say that Jim Watson is trying to “play God”, but I think he is failing God is omniscient and knows consequences. I am not against humans who try to control their destinies. I believe in science and medicine for the furthering of a better world. But, I do not see gene therapy being part of that world. I think that genes should be left alone. Nature at least has its own patterns which we are cheating in ways that are unnecessary and even detrimental.
Even if animal genes are not used in the crops, the genes that are inserted still have moral implications. The segment of “DNA Episode 5: Pandora’s Box” about GMOs reminds me of the movie we saw on predator and prey with tuberculosis. I think that we could be creating a bigger monster in GMOs that we could not even imagine with our use of pesticides. There are already instances where the genes of these Genetically Modified Crops have mixed with the genes of weeds producing super-weeds that we now have to use stronger weed killers against. We thought that we could eliminate the need for weed killers but we have actually made the weeds stronger, amidst rumors that GM Crops have also contaminated more natural crops. I think it is a highly dangerous game that Jim Watson wants to play. I think that we should not enter tonnes of unnatural substances and organisms into our environment without knowing their effects. Disasters like Africanized Bees can occur. We don't know how GM food is affecting our bodies. I don't think that previous experience makes Jim Watson an ultra-authority on DNA in general, even though he was one of the remarkable scientists who discovered the double helix. I do not think he should be the one to make such a decision. I think that we should take the suggestion from "the Evolutionary Arms Race" movie that suggests that we can coexist or learn to manage other organisms without being excessive. I think that organic gardening could make weeds and pests more manageable and much less of threat. We won't have to use harmful drugs and pesticides on ourselves to kill the enemy, like how second-line drugs were needed in Russia. I think that Jim Watson is forgetting that evolution also means that not all beneficial genes will always be beneficial: it depends on the environment. These plants are not isolated from their world. Gene modifications in plants parallel the Pandora’s Box of problems that comes with gene therapy in humans.
Gene therapy in plants is one thing. The problems found there are compounded when it comes to humans. The biggest problem to me is that humans would be going inside ourselves and changing who we are as individuals. Instead of other species again being seen as pests instead of co-inhabitors, undesirable members of society would be silenced if gene therapy became widespread. Gene therapy has serious implications. I believe that once we start being able to change people's genes, variation is going to decrease because everyone will want the same "healthy" genes. This could leave humans more vulnerable to new disease.
The history of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is disgusting in my eyes. Charles Davenport and Eugenics speaks history and forewarning. Also, I think that people will try to change the sexes of their babies and their physical features, if not for sexist or racist motives, for a will to combat societal judgment and attain better mates. I believe that humans always look up to an ideal, and often do not embrace diversity. We call our differences disorders, for example. Gene therapy might not be preventing other people from marrying and Eugenics might have not been based on genes, but what if it was? It still would be equally disgusting to me, whether or not it was based in fact. He might not be advocating genocide, but Jim Watson, to me, is still advocating an elitist "Aryan Race" model.
I think it is terrible that people would opt for an abortion or change of a baby that has a disease, and that DNA analysis would aid them. I personally believe in the Amish line of thought that believes that disabled children are meant to teach us God’s love. I dislike that people with mental illnesses and disabilities are looked down upon. I think that parents should be told about the possibility of disease related to their compatibility, so as to prevent children being created who they cannot take care of, so they can avoid that situation. But, when it comes to actual pregnancy, I am against DNA mapping to figure out what possible problems a child might have. I certainly do not think that parents who are likely to produce a child with a disease should be prevented from having that child (except if there is a very high risk of early childhood mortality for the fetus). And for adults, not everyone who has a disease would want to change who they see they are. These people would be negatively judged even more so because they did not change their bad genes for the better when they could have. And who is to say certain traits are bad? I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that people have multiple intelligences. We have many different gifts. I do not care if society thinks one is more worthy than another. I think that a selection of traits can lead to even more prejudice against people who are different rather than attempting to “prevent” a subjective suffering that would render the life not worth living. I think that people should be accepted for who they are, including their difficulties. Suffering has its uses. A world without a struggle would be boring.
I do not agree with the statement that people are the products of their genetic code. I think that environment is the biggest factor for creating our persons. Genes do cause disease but environment is another factor. Along with genes, cultural and geographic pressures can have an effect on how well a person performs. A person who is starved may have the genes for a strong body but without nutrition, the genes are useless. It is the same with feral children who did not have socialization in their early lives: they cannot perform in society. And it has nothing to do with genes.
I think we should attempt to understand genes and how they work, but not try to create a “perfect” person, especially when we do not know how our manipulation is going to affect that person. My view is that variation is good, and that there are many sides of a coin. There is not only the overall judgment of society- I would never want to adhere to its fickle nature. I do not think it is selfish to care for the betterment of society, I just think that gene therapy is the same misguided attempt at Eugenics. Holding a standard that people should be same does not improve the world. Understanding and accepting difference does.

Jim Watson, who mapped the human genome.
who should make the descisions?
Where do you draw the line?
GMF genetically modified food.
No animal genes in plants.
I don't care if Jim Watson is "playing God". I beleive in sceince and medicine for the furtherment of the world. But, I also believe that God is omniscient and knows consequences. Nature at least has it's own patterns and we are cheating in our own ways that are unnessasary. This segment about GMOs reminds me of the movie we saw on predator and prey with tuberculosis. I think that we could be creating a bigger monster in GMOs that we could not even imagine with our use of pesticides. There are already instances where the genes of these Genetically Modified Crops have mixed with the genes of weeds producing super-weeds that we now have to use stronger weed killers against. We thought that we could eliminate the need for weed killers but we have actually made the weeds stronger, admist rumours that GM Crops have also contaminated more natural crops. I think it is a highly dangerous game that Jim Watson wants to play. I think that we should not enter tonnes of unnatural substances and organisms into our environment without knowing their effects. Disasters like africanized bees can occur. We don't know how GM food is affecting our bodies. I don't think that previous experience makes Jim Watson an ultra-authority on DNA in general, even though he was one of the remarkable scientists who helped to map it. I think that we should take the suggestion from "the Evoluntionary Arms Race" movie that suggests that we can coexist or learn to manage other organisms without being excessive. I think that organic gardening could make weeds and pests more managable and much less of threat. We won't have to use harmful drugs and pesticides on ourselves to kill the enemy, like how second-line drugs were needed in Russia. I thnk that Jim Watson is forgetting that evolution also means that not all beneficial genes will always be beneficial: it depends on the environment. These plants are not isolated from their world.

I think that gene therapy has serious implications. I believe that once we start being able to change people's genes, variation is going to decrease because everyone will want the same "healthy" genes. This could leave humans more vulnerable to new disease.
The history of the Polar Springs Labortory is disgusting in my eyes. Charles Davenport and Eugenics speaks history and forewarning. Also, I think that people will try to change the sexes of their babies and their physical features, if not for sexist or racist motives, for a will to combat soceital judgement and attain better mates. I believe that humans always look up to an ideal, and often do not embrace diversity. We call our differences disorders, for example. Gene therapy might not be preventing other people from marrying and Eugenics might have not been based on genes, but what if it was? It still would be equally disgusting to me, whether or not it was based in fact. He might not be advocating genocide, but Jim Watson is advocating an "Aryan Race" model.
I do not agree with the statement that people are the products of their genetic code. I think that environment is the biggest factor for creating passion. Genes do cause disease but environment also affects it.

Victoria Namanworth
ANT 266
Professor Matsuda Goodwin

Preliminary Bibliography

1. Kozma, Charhira. 2008. Skelatal Dysplasia in Ancient Egypt. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A Volume 146A Issue 23:3104 - 3112
2. Robins, Gay. 1993. Images of Women in Antiquity:The God's Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt. Routledge 65-66
3. Sullivan, Richard. 1995.A brief journey into medical care and disease in ancient Egypt. Journal of the Royal Soceity of Medicine 88(3): 141–145
4. Yamuchi, Edwin M. 1973. Immanuel Velikovsky's Catastrophic History:Oedipus, Ahknaton, and the Amarna Age. Journal of the American Scientific Association 25:134-139
5. Bourne, Aleck W. 1963. Consanguineous Marriage. British Medical Journal 2(5372): 1590, 1591
6. Ruffer, Marc Armand. 1919. On the Physical Effects of Consanguineous Marriages in the Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 12(Suppl): 145–190.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295132&pageindex=4#page
counter:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1873890&pageindex=2#page
ruffer:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=2067118&pageindex=6#page

skelatal dysplasia in ancient egypt. Charhira Kozma.

Existence of incest:
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1973/JASA12-73Yamauchi.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=96g-d90oDpwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA65&dq=Consanguineous+Marriages+in+the+Royal+Families+of+Ancient+Egypt+&ots=qJvj0O63Ad&sig=qvnUKvEg7qsCnl25Iav6bNcqhx4#PPP1,M1

Victoria Namanworth
ANT 269
Professor Matsuda Goodwin
Lab 2: Evolution
Chapter 1. Prologue

1.A predator is a living thing that hunts out another living thing to gain sustenance. The predator uses adaptations to gain an advantage over the being that it seeks to consume as food.
2.A prey is the object of the predator. It tries to avoid or counteract the attempts of the predator to kill.
3.A microbe is a bacterium that can reproduce 1 million times more than humans can. They are infectious diseases that have been present throughout human history- tuberculosis in Ancient Egypt, the Bubonic Plague of 14th century that killed 1/3 of the population in Europe, and the influenza epidemic in WWII.
4.Newly evolved strains of tuberculosis that are very resistant to antibiotics have been spreading in Russian prisons. Tuberculosis can lie dormant in the body for years but can be brought out with the stressful immune-system weakening conditions of prison. Overcrowding has exacerbated the prevalence of these cases.
5. Mutations that can make people resistant like a gene found in 10% of modern Europeans, can work against deadly bacteria. Evolution can harness such deadly forces like how bacteria actually help to break down plant matter in the intestines. It is possible for humans and bacteria to live in symbiotic relationships that benefit both parties.
Chapter 2. Newts, Snakes, and Co-Evolution

1.The rough-skinned newt is very poisonous because it is an adaptive safeguard against preying Garter snakes, a selective pressure.
2.Garter snakes gain food from preying on the newts.
3.The newt is highly toxic and can paralyze and slows down the snakes so that they become more susceptible to their own predators.
4.Garter snakes develop high resistance but also can be slower without the toxin.
5.“Evolutionary arms race” is where a predator evolves to prey and a prey evolves to a predator, they try to outdo each other in successfulness of their adaptations, trying to null out attacks and counter-attacks.

Chapter 3. Microscopic Predators

1.Modern humans only predators are microorganisms.
2.In the 14th Century, the Bubonic Plague killed one third of the population of Europe.
3.During WWI, 20 million people were killed by the Influenza virus.
4.Microbes reproduce 1 million times faster than humans.
5.Antibiotics have been misused in that patients have not completed their full course of medicine and doctors have overprescribed. This causes bacteria only to adapt to become more resistant to drugs, and humans racing to create stronger antibiotics.
6.Antibiotic use has lead to stronger strains of bacteria. Science has not defeated infectious disease: tuberculosis and polio have had outbreaks even in modern times.
Chapter 4. The Tuberculosis Epidemic
1.Tuberculosis is an infectious disease that can lay dormant in the system and affects the lungs.
2.Tuberculosis is airborn and can be contracted through sneezing, coughing, and spitting.
3. We are not prepared for an epidemic, especially if one occurs in New York City. There are not enough people to diagnose and treat tuberculosis and there are not enough second line drugs.
4. Drug-resistant tuberculosis mycobacteria evolve when people are infected and they recieve treatment but they do not finish their treatment. The strongest remaining forms of the disease become stronger.The offspring of the bacteria pass on their resistance to their offspring. Also, if anti-biotic drugs are overprescribed, the bacteria can also be prepared to fend them off. The bacteria "learn" to fight the anti-biotics and more powerful drugs are needed.
5. DNA "fingerprints" are barcode patterned similations of genes, in this article, from TB. They make strains of TB comparable to other strains.
6. Researchers collected TB strains from all over the world to help track the global spread of TB.

Chapter 5. Domesticating Germs

1. Biologist Paul W. Ewald provides hope with his notation that we can seek ways to make microbes evolve to be more mild.
2. Infections due to close contact are usually milder than those that are spread through food and water and by insects.
3. The 1991 cholera epidemic in South America infected one million with diarrhea and over 10 thousand people died. It was spread via contaminated water and food.

Chapter 6. Survival of the Wild Cats

1. Domestic casts suffer from FIV, a lethal virus.
2. FIV stands for the Feline Immunodeficiency Virus.
3. Evolution is happening where the cats are developing a resistance and the virus has become less deadly.
4. Wild cats are safe due to a mutation that occured one million years ago that made the cats resistant. The virus seems to have evolved to a less lethal strain.
5. There is a mutation in some people that prevents high-risk people from becoming infected. It is found in 10% of European descendants.
6. The bubonic plague was a deadly infectious disease that invaded Europe.

Chapter 7. Symbiosis and Leafcutter Ants

1. Mutualistic symbiosis is intimate living together of different kinds of organisms in which there is a partnership which benefiets both of the partners.
2. Leafcutter ants feed tropical leaves that have a toxin on them to a fungus that breaks down the toxins while forming proteins and sugars that the ants can eat as their own food. The ants and the fungus are cooperating and inter-dependant organisms.
3. Ants cultivate their fungus where a queen buries a piece of fungus in the ground and starts a new colony. They are even more like the human agriculture in the way that they have a complex system of keeping up their relationship that truly depends on the interactions. The ants also use anti-biotic mold on their bodies that help fight garden pests.

Chapter 8. Good Germs

1. Too- clean environments are causing our immune systems to overreact causing allergies and asthma. A too-clean environment could prevent a person from learning how to react to the environment.
2.Humans evolved due to many selective pressures in the environment, along with other organisms. We have actually used the evolution of other organisms, too, to our advantage, for example in the domestication of cats, dogs, sheep, goat, barley and wheat. Other organisms are crucial to our survival, as Edward O. Wilson as stated.
3. Humans are surrounded and supported by other organisms who are involved in beneficial relationships with us.