headcase
21st April 2008, 07:33 PM
This is a subject I've been meaning to kick start for a while. As a first year genetics student, it's also something quite relevant to me. Unfortunately, whenever I've come across students or lecturers who oppose genetic engineering, I've been unable to provide counter-arguements until after the event due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. Hence, when confronted with fallacious references to the crops of "innocent farmers" being confiscated due to "accidental contamination", I could protest my disbelief at it, but had to conceed the point (see Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser)).
Of course, genetic engineering is an extremely broad heading. Too broad for a proper debate. We could argue the benefits or risks of modifying crops, of curing disease, of screening fetuses or of selecting traits - each with their own broad range of sub-categories.
So I'll simply gauge a reaction for now. Is there anyone out there who opposed genetic engineering before I brought it up? Why so? If not, I'll provide my own reasons for supporting it and see where that leads us. If absolutely necessary, I'll oppose it for the sake of arguement. It's a method that often gives you the best understanding of the subject matter :).
(It's probably worth noting that nothing I've studied this year covers the ethics or morality of genetic enginnering, so I don't have a head start in the subject. In fact, I spent most of the year studying chemistry and physics. I don't know why, you'd have to ask the college...).
Of course, genetic engineering is an extremely broad heading. Too broad for a proper debate. We could argue the benefits or risks of modifying crops, of curing disease, of screening fetuses or of selecting traits - each with their own broad range of sub-categories.
So I'll simply gauge a reaction for now. Is there anyone out there who opposed genetic engineering before I brought it up? Why so? If not, I'll provide my own reasons for supporting it and see where that leads us. If absolutely necessary, I'll oppose it for the sake of arguement. It's a method that often gives you the best understanding of the subject matter :).
(It's probably worth noting that nothing I've studied this year covers the ethics or morality of genetic enginnering, so I don't have a head start in the subject. In fact, I spent most of the year studying chemistry and physics. I don't know why, you'd have to ask the college...).