![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I happened to stumble across this article about rice genetically modified to fight diarrhea.
(nice idea; though eating cooked rice (non modified variant) was my grandmother's recipe against common diarrhea since I know her. Anyway, diarrhea - esp. in poor areas - is a lifethreatening condition esp. for children and elderly that kills by dehydration (afaik); hence: nice idea).
Scientist's musings about ethics in a coffee break - Start
What caused me to stop and read carefully, though, is this:
"with a human gene"
I don't believe than gentech is all bad, though we need to do way more to understand the risks and connections before we actually spread GM organisms in the wild (as is amptly done in a lot of places. *EEK*!).
However, I seriously wonder if we shouldn't begin to define a line between what is "human" and what is "not human". How much of human DNA, how many genes, does qualify a product for being considered human?
If we say all, it virtually excludes humanity itself because we do have variants (even if in small numbers).
If we say none, it prevents help for millions suffering and poses the questions what about the genes we - to some extend - share with other creatures such as chimps (for example; no prez pun intended)?
And where is the line where Genetically Modified rice becomes Soylent Green rice?
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story "Food of the Gods" in which all food is artificially designed from harvested proteins, and the taste most appealing that finally brought the authorities onto the plan was "human meat" (of course it was sold under a different name).
I can't help but wonder if we're going in the same direction, starting with a gene, ending with eating clones...
...or will yet again a debate arise out of it between two, both virtually undefinable, undefendable positions, such as happened with abortions?
Scientist's musings in a coffee break - End
(nice idea; though eating cooked rice (non modified variant) was my grandmother's recipe against common diarrhea since I know her. Anyway, diarrhea - esp. in poor areas - is a lifethreatening condition esp. for children and elderly that kills by dehydration (afaik); hence: nice idea).
Scientist's musings about ethics in a coffee break - Start
What caused me to stop and read carefully, though, is this:
"with a human gene"
I don't believe than gentech is all bad, though we need to do way more to understand the risks and connections before we actually spread GM organisms in the wild (as is amptly done in a lot of places. *EEK*!).
However, I seriously wonder if we shouldn't begin to define a line between what is "human" and what is "not human". How much of human DNA, how many genes, does qualify a product for being considered human?
If we say all, it virtually excludes humanity itself because we do have variants (even if in small numbers).
If we say none, it prevents help for millions suffering and poses the questions what about the genes we - to some extend - share with other creatures such as chimps (for example; no prez pun intended)?
And where is the line where Genetically Modified rice becomes Soylent Green rice?
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story "Food of the Gods" in which all food is artificially designed from harvested proteins, and the taste most appealing that finally brought the authorities onto the plan was "human meat" (of course it was sold under a different name).
I can't help but wonder if we're going in the same direction, starting with a gene, ending with eating clones...
...or will yet again a debate arise out of it between two, both virtually undefinable, undefendable positions, such as happened with abortions?
Scientist's musings in a coffee break - End
