PZ Myers loses patience with priests: Catholic geezers deny biology in Louisiana

[BurtWorm]

An amusing and edifying rant against harmful priestly ignorance in Louisiana:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/hBCarRiFBB4/catholic_geezers_deny_biology.php

Legislators in Louisiana are considering a bill to prohibit human-animal hybrids. We've been all over this subject before — it's ridiculous and founded on complete incomprehension of what the research is all about. How ridiculous is it? SB 115 bans the "mixing of human and animal cells in a petri dish"!




Guess who is pushing this ban? The Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops, a collection of professional ignoramuses, like this guy, Archbishop Alfred Hughes: old, white celibates with clerical collars and heads stuffed full of decaying dogma.

Look, Hughes, let's face up to reality. You aren't promoting this ban because you have any knowledge of the science; if you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that culturing cells of different species is common. Those cell lines to which George W Bush limited government-funded research? Many of them are grown on beds of mouse feeder cells. We could grow specific human cell lines on human feeder cells, but you'd freak out over that, too. There are gene mapping procedures that use fused rodent/human cells to produce cell lines with partial chromosomal losses. Monoclonal antibodies are made by combining immune system cells with immortalized cancer cell lines. And then there's the ultimate miscegenation: bacterial cells made with copies of human genes, to make human gene products, like insulin. You look old enough that if you aren't diabetic yourself, you probably have friends who are…and they're shooting up the product of a human-non-human hybrid. Are you going to ban those next?

Let's not pretend this is a decision based on morality, either. People are not harmed in the production of these hybrid cell lines, the work is biomedical in intent and produces knowledge and treatments that help people. The decrees of the Catholic church seem to have little to do with human values any more; they're all about enforcing a rigid dogma and regimenting people, not in mutual cooperation to help one another, but instead to perpetuate your authoritarian hierarchy.

You aren't promoting this silly because it's good science or good morality: it's simpler than that. You're doing this because biology disgusts you. This isn't unusual at all — many people are squeamish about the oozy, squishy, squirty, gooey, slimy, sloppy, messy wet business of what goes on beneath their skins. That it makes you feel icky is not grounds for demanding that others unburdened by that bias must follow your taboos. Your personal sense of revulsion is not an argument for your position.

Worse, this is a topic all tied up in your, umm, issues with sex. Your priesthood is just plain weird in its denial of a basic and healthy human urge and its obsession with regulating the private behavior of others. You are not normal. You are the wrong people to be taking on the responsibility of dictating anything about human sexuality — you're just too far out on the fringe of perversity. There are a lot of weird sexual practices out there, but I'm afraid denial and repression and the kind of self-loathing that characterizes the professional celibates of the Catholic church are among the weirdest. That doesn't mean you have to stop, of course — your kinks are your kinks, and I will defend your right to not do whatever you want in the privacy of your bedroom — but you have to realize that in the face of the riotous diversity of human sexual behavior, no one gets to use their personal preferences to instruct others on what they may do in private and between mutually consenting adults.

And that includes using a little polyethylene glycol on an assortment of cells in a dish to encourage a bit of fusion. As long as no aware, autonomous individuals are slithering out of the dish, you don't get to argue that it is wicked and hurting people.

[emilyg]

1. Oh goody

another Catholic rant.

[TZ]

7. Maybe because we don't need eight more years

Of superstitious fools who don't know a damned thing about science making SCIENCE POLICY.
I'm sorry..but Catholic Priests have NO PLACE in decreeing what science is or should research. Or weren't you paying attention to what people like this idjit did under the Bush Administration. Stem cells?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. Yep, and spot on, too

Sometimes these "rants" do a good job illustrating the pathetic hypocrisy of the church hierarchy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. It's not about dogma.

It's about dog-people. We CAN'T have mad scientists creating dog-people in test tubes!

[MineralMan]

3. Or, heben help us, THE FLY!!!!11!!!

No more Jeff Goldblum movies, please...they are an abomination, to be sure.

[MADem]

4. Cat people. Better still--they can point out the best seafood restaurants. NT

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I'll vote for cat people

http://dic.academic.ru.nyud.net:8080/pictures/enwiki/67/Cat_People_1982_movie.jpg

[MADem]

14. My head was going more in this direction!!!

[damntexdem]

5. He shouldn't worry -- many of them are likely not celibate.

Hey, do you suppose some of them ARE animal-human hybrids? Maybe they just want to limit the competition.

[TZ]

6. You know what ?

This ignorant fucks are too late actually. Nobody tell them about humanized mouse monoclonal antibodies or transgenic mice that have human genes so THEY CAN BE INFECTED WITH HIV FOR research for cures.
Stupid ignorant jackasses. If they are gonna interfere in MY FIELD I should have a say in who becomes Pope.

[BurtWorm]

8. You'd probably make a better choice than they usually do.

[SidDithers]

10. Go PZ!...

Edit: want to really freak out the Bishop? Show him the ear-mouse :)


Sid

[struggle4progress]

11. It always surprises me how little light these threads shed. I don't know how competent a biologist

Myers is, but he has a nasty anti-Catholic bias -- and I say that as a non-Catholic who sometimes has serious differences with the views of Rome. Last year, Myers was busy promoting desecration of the eucharist: it was scarcely a scientific venture; as far as I can tell was done simply in order to offend Catholics. The whole OP is simply an opportunity for Myers to spout his anti-Catholic venom

When one thinks carefully about the power modern biology has given us, it seems natural to wonder whether our power to tinker brings with it some real moral issues. Would anybody here been upset if somebody added a gene to produce botulinum toxin to E. coli? How about if a gene producing some poison were added to a standard food crop such as corn? People have already put jellyfish genes into zebrafish to make them fluorescent green: maybe we could do the same thing with babies -- anybody have any problem with that?

I pulled up SB 115 off the Louisiana State Legislature site: http://www.legis.state.la.us/

The version I found doesn't even contain Myers supposed quote about "mixing of human and animal cells in a petri dish." I'd like to pretend I'm surprised, but I'm really not

Here's the summary (page 3 of the .asp file which I opened with Adobe Acrobat):

SLS 09RS-516
ORIGINAL
SB NO. 115
Page 3 of 3

Proposed law provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly:
(1) Create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid.
(2) Transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb.
(3) Transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb.
Proposed law provides that whoever violates proposed law shall be imprisoned at hard labor
for not more than ten years, or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.
Proposed law provides that whoever violates proposed law and derives pecuniary gain from
such violation shall be subject to a civil fine of the greater of $1 million or an amount equal
to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by two.
Proposed law defines the following:
(1) Human-animal hybrid means:
(a) A human embryo into which a non-human cell or cells or the component
parts thereof have been introduced to render the embryo's membership in the
species homo sapiens uncertain.
(b) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with
a non-human sperm.
(c) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a non-human egg
with human sperm.
(d) An embryo produced by introducing a non-human nucleus into a human egg.
(e) An embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a non-human egg.
(f) An embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a
human and a non-human life form.
(g) A non-human life form engineered such that human gametes develop within
the body of a non-human life form.
(h) A non-human life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a
brain derived wholly or predominately from human neural tissues.
(2) Human embryo means an organism of the species homo sapiens during the earliest
states of development, from one cell up to eight weeks.
Effective August 15, 2009.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It was a Catholic lobbyist who came up with "mixing of human and animal cells in a petri dish"

Sen. Danny Martiny, R-Kenner, has filed Senate Bill 115 on behalf of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Conference lobbyist Danny Loar said the bill is designed to be a "pre-emptive strike" against scientists who might want to mix "human and animal cells in a Petri dish for scientific research purposes. . . . It is becoming more of an issue globally."

Martiny and Loar said they are unaware of any attempts to do that type of research in Louisiana.

Loar said the British Parliament recently approved legislation allowing scientists to mix human cells with those of cows and pigs for possible stem cell research or other scientific experiments. He said the bishops feel the use of human cells in such experiments is unethical.

"The archbishop asked me to file it," Martiny said of a recent conversation he had with New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes.

http://www.nola.com/news/?/base/news-1/123994621930560.xml&coll=1

Maybe if the Catholic church didn't use lobbyists to get involved in politics, they wouldn't get criticised. Or if they didn't use such stupid lobbyists.

[struggle4progress]

16. I haven't the foggiest what you're trying to say. I pointed out that Myers misrepresents

the bill. You find a similar misrepresentation by Loar. As far as I can tell, what we've established is simply that neither Myers nor Loar accurately describes the bill

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Loar works for the Catholic church. They paid him to say the bill was about

"mixing human and animal cells in a Petri dish". It is the Catholic church's fault that the phrase was used. It's part of their politicking. If the Catholics misrepresent the bill they got introduced, it's their spin. That's what I'm saying.

[struggle4progress]

32. Myers wrote: 'SB 115 bans the "mixing of human and animal cells in a petri dish"'

That's what he put on his blog as a summary of the bill. It's an inaccurate summary. He doesn't provide a more accurate summary in the post. If he can't summarize the bill accurately, I really don't care from what source he lifted his inaccurate summary: he doesn't deserve more of a free ride than anyone else

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. So you're saying: don't trust the Catholics, they'll lie about what they're doing

And that Myers was a fool to do so. OK, I can accept that.

[struggle4progress]

35. Not quite what I said, but if that's all you can get from it, I won't labor the point

[BurtWorm]

15. Perhaps it's natural to wonder, for most people.

For authoritiarians it's natural to try to clamp down, whether you've wondered or not.

[TZ]

29. He's an excellent biologist

and you have a VERY well known pro-religious bias so why should anyone believe you?
FWIW, I'm a pretty comptent biologist and PZ Meyer's biology rant IS SPOT ON! You want to tell ME I don't know my profession? Go on.
Defend this anti-science fool to an NIH trained and published biologist.
THis law is fucking stupid because they don't even have a clue about this research. It would severely disable MAJOR MAJOR disease research. But hey, in this guys world (and in your world) anybody who gets HIV deserves to die right?

On edit: Bush tried the same thing. He even said it in the State of the Union address. I know EXACTLY what the Catholic Church thinks about science. EEK evul scientists out to kill fetus and clone people. Plus the Church has tried to push similar legislation in other states. Fortunately as far as I know..its not passed.

[struggle4progress]

34. So much heat, so little light. I can't find any evidence in this thread that anyone

posting here has actually read the proposed law: the thread contains no links to specific research, critical or otherwise, that would be affected by the law; proponents of the law seem to claim it affects no current research

I made no claims about your competence as a biologist, though I must wonder why you regard the claims in the OP about Catholic sexual anxieties (for example) as related in any way to the ethical questions about experimenting with human embryos

If my religious views ever actually affect my logic or my ability to gather facts or my scientific conclusions, I hope you will feel free to point that out -- but your objection to the fact that I do have religious views seems , in itself, simply an insistence that you cannot accept other people having different philosophical attitudes than yours -- and (of course) science itself takes no philosophical stands, as philosophy is largely irrelevant from the scientific point of view

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. No current research *in Louisiana*

but that's not a claim of no current research elsewhere in the USA (which that federal law, which seems to have stalled in Congress, thank goodness, would do); and there's research in the UK which is now going ahead, thanks to the specific law allowing the regulation of what the Catholics' bill would ban:

A licence to create human-pig embryos to study heart disease has been issued by the fertility watchdog.
...
"We will take skin cells from patients who have a mutation for certain kinds of heart disease (cardiomyopathy, which makes the heart lose its pumping strength) and put them into pig eggs after their chromosomes have been removed. We will then make embryos so that we can attempt to derive embryonic stem cells which will allow us to study some of the molecular mechanisms associated with these heart diseases.

"Ultimately they will help us to understand where some of the problems associated with these diseases arise and they could also provide models for the pharmaceutical industry to test new drugs. We will effectively be creating and studying these diseases in a dish.
...
Teams in Newcastle and London are already creating hybrids. The former have already created hybrids with cow eggs to study the basics of how the use of genes changes in early development, the latter a range of species to generate stem cells from people with neurodegenerative disorders.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3345954/Human-pig-hybrid-embryos-given-go-ahead.html

I see no reason why Louisiana universities should be held back by their local clerics. Just because they haven't got research going at the moment that would be affected, that doesn't mean they won't want to do some in the future. After all, Bush crippled embryonic stem cell research in the USA with his federal funding ban, and that's closely related to this, so so it's not surprising to see Louisiana universities a few years behind those elsewhere.

[struggle4progress]

51. Yes, that would seem to be covered by the Louisiana ban. Since I don't much like The Telegraph

as a source, here's a better link

Clinical Sciences Research Institute
The generation of human embryonic stem cells by transferring a human cell into recipient pig eggs (R0183)
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/1582.html

[struggle4progress]

52. The objections to using human clones as commercial products, that I indicated in #41,

has already arisen with respect to pig-human "hybrids" in a European patent case, with objections being raised by a group unlikely to be heavily influenced by Catholic clergy:


Greenpeace Prevents Patents on Pig-Human Embryos
Genetic Crossroads
October 16th, 2000

In early October, Greenpeace Germany exposed a patent application at the European Patent Office (EPO) for embryos produced by putting human DNA into pig eggs. The EPO then announced that it considered "certain claims" in the application to be "contrary to morality." Shortly thereafter, the two companies that had filed the patent application said they would abandon it, and would no longer include human embryos in their patents anywhere in the world.

The patent, filed by Massachusetts-based BioTransplant Inc. and Stem Cell Sciences (Australia), covered the cloning of human embryos and of mixed-species embryos from pigs, cows, sheep, and humans. It also covered the genetic manipulation of those embryos. According to the application, company scientists had already produced pig-human embryos.

The companies were presumably interested in non-reproductive cloning for the purposes of producing tissue or organ transplants for patients using their own cells, which would be immunologically compatible. Greenpeace pointed out, however, that "no specific concrete medical reasons were given ... The experiments were performed mainly to demonstrate that such nuclear transfer technology could be applied to humans as well as animals, with the intention to then obtain a broad patent on the technology used and on the embryos produced."

Greenpeace called for changing the European Union Patent Directive to prohibit all patents on life. "The existing patenting regime is the driving force behind a kind of speculative research in the rush to claim ownership of new techniques," it said ... http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=2858

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. That's objecting to having patents on the processes, or even the life itself

That's not objections to the existence of hybrids; it's about the commercialisation of the area.

[struggle4progress]

54. Greenpeace's concerns probably aren't primarily about abstract commercialization or patent issues

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Who knows? The article was about objecting to the patents, though

If Greenpeace do object to other things, it would be more useful to point to where they do. Not that I agree with Greenpeace on everything, of course.

[struggle4progress]

56. .

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greenpeace+genetic+engineering+concerns+

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Greenpeace is worried about engineering fully grown organisms

That search won't tell you anything about their feelings on medical research.

[struggle4progress]

17. Friends of The Earth: Human-Animal Hybrid Ban Introduced in Congress (2007)

Bill Draws Support From Diverse Coalition Concerned About Ethics and Safety

WASHINGTON, DC - November 19 - Senators Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act on Thursday, November 15, a bill that makes creating part human, part animal beings illegal.

“The science in this area has been advancing so rapidly that we haven’t had a chance to sit back as a society, take a deep breath, and ask ourselves important ethical and environmental questions,” Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said. “This isn’t some far-flung possibility—it’s happening right now. This could potentially change what it means to be human. Additionally, mixing the genetic material of humans and animals opens a pandora’s box of potential consequences, including threats to human health, such as cross-species disease transmission” ... http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1119-05.htm

[BurtWorm]

18. Those are great progressives there.

I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the most conservative Democrats and one of the most conservative Republicans in Senate teamed up for that one. Is that bill based on more careful science than the Lousiana bill? I doubt it.

[struggle4progress]

19. It seems to me such issues deserve a more thoughtful and factual discussion than this thread

provides

If (for example) you actually looked at that bill, you would see its wording very closely resembles the wording of the Louisiana bill. So such topics have been considered for a while now, and perhaps more interesting things can be said here, than merely deriding the ideological proclivities of certain people supporting the bill

I provided a quote from FoE, which would normally seem an unlikely partner in such an alliance, arguing that trans-species hybrids could have untoward environmental effects, such as changing the rate at which pathogens adopt new species as hosts -- and in fact this may not be a vacuous concern, since studying such host-hopping has been given as one reason for such research

Questions and Answers
Posted: August 10, 2005
What are chimeras and why are they created?
... researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota created pigs with human blood pumping through their veins. Not only do the pig blood cells flow with human cells, but some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids. The research gave scientists a better understanding of how viral infections can pass from animals to humans ... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/chimeras/qanda.html

But of course this thread isn't really about substantive issues, is it? It's about finding excuses to attack Catholics

[BurtWorm]

20. Friends of Earth have no better understanding of the results this ban would have than the pope does.

Notice the phrase "The research gave scientists a better understanding of how viral infections can pass from animals to humans"? Would they have had that understanding if the chimera were not created?

The church and their allies want to ban research when it might only need regulation. What do they think they're trying to ban actually? What do you think they're banning?

[struggle4progress]

21. Perhaps you have not completely thought through your sneer: a model that allows one

to study host-hopping may facilitate host-hopping, which is the concern raised by FoE

[BurtWorm]

22. Are you and FoE suggesting that those studying host hopping

might be creating frankenviruses that can escape from the lab? Do you understand what they do in the lab when they create the conditions they're studying? Have you completely thought through your fear, in other words?

[struggle4progress]

24. It can't happen: Anthrax Spores Escape a Lab At Ft. Detrick; Incident Believed Accidental

Anthrax Spores Escape a Lab At Ft. Detrick; Incident Believed Accidental
From: The Washington Post | Date: April 20, 2002| Author: | Copyright 2002 The Washington Post


Spores of the anthrax bacterium have been discovered in two areas of an Army research building at Fort Detrick, Md., and an Army scientist involved in research there has tested positive for exposure to the potentially deadly microbes, the Army said last night ... http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-357762.html

[struggle4progress]

25. It can't happen: Plague Mice Escape Newark Lab

Rapid Fire 9/16/05

Just when we we starting to breathe a sigh of relief, that nothing toxic appears to have escaped New Orleans' anthrax labs. Now comes word, from the Star-Ledger, that three mice "carrying deadly strains of plague" have disappeared from the biodefense lab at the University of Medicine and Dentistry in Newark, N.J ...

http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/001811.html

[struggle4progress]

26. It can't happen: U.S. labs mishandling deadly germs

updated 10:39 a.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 2, 2007

WASHINGTON - American laboratories handling the world’s deadliest germs and toxins have experienced more than 100 accidents and missing shipments since 2003, and the number is increasing steadily as more labs across the country are approved to do the work.

No one died, and regulators said the public was never at risk during these incidents. But the documented cases reflect poorly on procedures and oversight at high-security labs, some of which work with organisms and poisons so dangerous that illnesses they cause have no cure. In some cases, labs have failed to report accidents as required by law.

The mishaps include workers bitten or scratched by infected animals, skin cuts, needle sticks and more, according to a review by The Associated Press of confidential reports submitted to federal regulators. They describe accidents involving anthrax, bird flu virus, monkeypox and plague-causing bacteria at 44 labs in 24 states. More than two-dozen incidents were still under investigation.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The number of accidents has risen steadily. Through August, the most recent period covered in the reports obtained by the AP, labs reported 36 accidents and lost shipments during 2007 — nearly double the number reported during all of 2004 ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21096974//

[struggle4progress]

27. It can't happen: Shabby' lab blamed for disease

An independent review of last year's foot-and-mouth outbreak has criticised the laboratory at the source of the disease as "shabby and dilapidated".

The report's author, Dr Iain Anderson, said the foot-and-mouth virus should never have escaped the government-run Pirbright complex in Surrey.

He identified poor regulation by several organisations, including the Department of the Environment (Defra).

The government says Defra will no longer regulate the laboratory ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7290078.stm




U-turn over 'foot and mouth' lab

Redevelopment of the laboratory at the centre of the last foot and mouth outbreak has been vetoed - raising fears over risks to animal health


U-turn over 'foot and mouth' lab

Redevelopment of the laboratory at the centre of the last foot and mouth outbreak has been vetoed - raising fears over risks to animal health

* David Adam
* The Observer, Sunday 22 February 2009

A government U-turn has forced scientists to scale back plans to replace the crumbling Surrey laboratory that triggered the foot and mouth outbreak in 2007.

The environment department, Defra, has scrapped a pledge to fund a major redevelopment of the Institute for Animal Health (IAH) lab at Pirbright, where a leaky drain allowed the disease to escape. Experts say that the move threatens Britain's ability to combat the rising threat of animal diseases that will arrive with global warming, and goes against a key recommendation of an inquiry set up by ministers into the 2007 outbreak. Defra says that costs have risen and the project is now too expensive ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/22/foot-and-mouth-laboratory

[BurtWorm]

28. None of these studies are relevant to the animal-hybrid question, are they?

But if you want to have biodefense studies stand for animal hybrids, then I want to ask you, should studies on biohazards be banned? Would that solve the problem of biohazards escaping into the environment?

[struggle4progress]

30. Mayo researchers observe genetic fusion of human, animal cells -may help explain origin of AIDS

09.01.2004
... Importantly, the hybrid cells were found to have the porcine endogenous retrovirus, a distant cousin of HIV, and to be able to transmit that virus to uninfected human cells ... http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-24611.html

[BurtWorm]

36. Another instance of hybrid-animal research that seems to improve human understanding.

Ok? And your point?

[struggle4progress]

37. See my #31. I followed a consistent sequence of ideas here

[struggle4progress]

31. Let's recap a bit. The OP is an anti-Catholic rant whose author didn't even bother to read

the legislation in question

I've indicated how to get a copy and have indicated there may be sometimes be serious ethical questions involved in genetics research

I have also provided a reference to earlier national legislation whose wording closely resembles the Louisiana legislation and have pointed out that concern about related research is not limited to rightwing groups

In particular, there is the question, raised by FoE, whether hybrid animals might not facilitate pathogen host-hopping: of course, this could occur in any number of ways, such as evolution of the pathogen. Such host-hopping via hybrids is known in the lab, and pathogens are sometimes known to escape from laboratories

[BurtWorm]

38. You're talking apples and oranges, and you don't seem to know it.

You're trying to equate anthrax or small pox with the types of animal-human hybrids used in research that the legislation would ban. They're not at all the same. Or do think an animal-human hybrid must be pathogenic, just because it's a hybrid?

Let's get real here: I suspect that what you, FoE and the Pope are all afraid of are animorphs running around--centaurs and minotaurs and satyrs and The Fly, etc. You think this is a slippery slope: insert one human chromosone into a mouse today and tomorrow you'll have ferret-people skittering around. Is that what you're really worried about?

[struggle4progress]

39. You persistently put your own words in my mouth. It's tiresome. Bye

[BurtWorm]

40. Bye?

"People have already put jellyfish genes into zebrafish to make them fluorescent green: maybe we could do the same thing with babies -- anybody have any problem with that?"

That is what you're afraid of? That's all this law would affect? Mad scientists who want to make babies glow?

[struggle4progress]

41. More of the same: not a link or cogent argument in sight. Does it escape you, for example,

that some people have always been willing to commodify other people and to treat them as commercial products? There is a long history of that, and you can find examples in the news almost every day. People not only sell others as slaves, they mutilate them if the mutilation makes the product more saleable. Some people are happy to kidnap others and steal their organs for the international market; there has been some suspicion that countries profit from executions in a similar manner. If you search, you can find stories about folk who want to have another child to serve as an organ donor for the first. You can ask yourself what sorts of other things might be done. It may well be within reach to learn how to clone a child and abort the clone in the seventh or eighth month to produce a compatible replacement heart, if that's what one wants to do. If one can genetically engineer cute fish for the commercial market, one might also learn how to produce novelty dogs or children for clients willing to pay enough

You sneer, but you provide nothing aside from the sneer, and you persist in putting words such as "mad scientists" into my mouth. Upthread, I merely indicated that genetic technology was giving us powerful tools that will continue to raise serious ethical questions. Techniques for transferring genetic traits from one organism to another have were discovered fifty or sixty years ago, with a major breakthrough about forty years back. This is not an immature technology: there is still much to be learned, but what can be done today was unthinkable when I first heard of DNA. I don't think most people are stupid or immoral, but enough are, and the final limits of immoral idiocy are unlikely to be exhausted during my lifetime. The forms of this immoral idiocy might be various: they could include, as I suggested earlier, introducing deadly toxins into common enteric bacteria, or devising strange inter-species that resulted in inadvertent pathogen host-jumping, or any of a number of other things

The bill in question is rather limited and does not really begin to address all the possible issues: it may, in fact, address a matter that does not currently interest many people; there may be all manner of things that could be said about it, either in defense of it or against it. Disappointingly, nothing like that appears in this thread: most of the thread is simply an ugly anti-Catholic dump, which provides no real arguments and no real evidence

Frankly, I just wish a lot of the folk who posted in this thread would grow up

[BurtWorm]

43. You confirm that your defense of the legislation is based on fear.

That's Myers' point, that the priests and science-phobes who are pushing this legislation are using it to ban a strawman threat and in doing so don't seem to realize or care that it could have implications for useful applications of animal-human hybrids that deepen our knowledge of diseaases and help save lives. Myers sites new types of insulin production, for example, that splice human and mouse genes together. You have cited two instances of researchers combining human and animal tissue to study the effects of transpecies diseases. These would be banned under legislation outlawing human-animal hybrids. Now why put into the hands of science-ignorant legislators the power to tell scientists what they can and can't do in the privacy of their labs based on uninformed fears about complex biotechnology? Again, why is an outright ban a more intelligent solution than a system of regulation--or even just a program for public education on the issues so that we know what we're actually banning? Do we want the benefits biotechnology promises? Do we want to be able to replace organs with genetically identical copies? Ask someone with a bad kidney or heart while you're thinking about that.

[struggle4progress]

44. Your post confirms once again that you put words in other people's mouths. Grow up.

[BurtWorm]

45. Grow up?

:wtf:

That's such a sad tactic to use in a dialogue. It's on the order of "I feel sorry for you. You need help." I think I prefer the directly evasive "bye" tactic. It's more honest and less pompous-assed.

:hi:

[struggle4progress]

46. Yeah, let's grow through this, step by step. You're acting like a juvenile jack-ass. The evidence:

(1) You post a ugly anti-Catholic piece that is allegedly about a bill introduced in Louisiana but is really just an opportunity for ugly ad hominem attacks against Catholics, such as this is a topic all tied up in your, umm, issues with sex. Your priesthood is just plain weird in its denial of a basic and healthy human urge and its obsession with regulating the private behavior of others. You are not normal. The resulting thread provides an opportunity for people to vent their anti-Catholic prejudices and contains absolutely no real discussion of the bill that it purports to discuss

(2) I point out (#11, #16, and elsewhere )that the OP misrepresents the bill (which does not appear to ban all "hybrids") and note When one thinks carefully about the power modern biology has given us, it seems natural to wonder whether our power to tinker brings with it some real moral issues, describe how to get a copy of the actual language and provide the legislature's summary. I also provide a reference (#17) to earlier national legislation that involves almost exactly the same language and again quote Friends of the Earth as saying The science in this area has been advancing so rapidly that we haven’t had a chance to sit back as a society, take a deep breath, and ask ourselves important ethical and environmental questions

(3) When you attempt to poo-poo, for example, the host-hopping scenario raised by FoE, I provide (#19, #30) links showing that such host-hopping is possible; when you express doubts (#22) that pathogens can escape from the laboratory, I provide links (#24, #25, #26, #27) indicating that pathogens do sometimes escape from laboratories; having raised the issue and been rebutted by evidence, you claim the evidence is irrelevant (#28) and then pretend to be unable to follow the line of reasoning you yourself insisted upon (#36), claiming that evidence pathogens can escape from labs represents an effort on my part to equate anthrax or small pox with the types of animal-human hybrids

(4) By the time we get to your #43, you are insisting that combining human and animal tissue to study the effects of transpecies diseases .. would be banned under legislation outlawing human-animal hybrids. That provides good evidence you have still not read the legislation referenced in the original post, which was (after all) the alleged topic under discussion -- but that is unsurprising, since the real purpose of the post you linked was not to discuss any actual ethical or scientific issues associated with the legislation, but rather to provide an opportunity to insult Catholics

(5) You continue to make claims about my views: you .. are .. afraid of .. animorphs running around -- centaurs and minotaurs and satyrs and The Fly, you say in #38. In #40, you claim I am afraid of mad scientists. Finally, in #43, you claim my defense of the legislation is based on fear -- but I have nowhere actually taken any particular stand on the legislation; I have merely attempted to find out what it actually says and have pointed out that modern genetics raises some ethical issues. The fact, that you really know nothing about my knowledge of or my attitudes towards modern genetics, does not deter you in the least from claiming to summarize my supposed views. That is dishonest and juvenile argument from you. I'm quite capable of expressing my own views (as in #41), and I neither need nor appreciate your asinine "help" in this regard

(6) Available evidence in this thread indicates that neither you, nor other posters in this thread, bothered to examine the actual legislation or to make any cogent argument based upon it. So please do grow up: the next time you feel the need to attack Catholics, maybe you could have the integrity at least to exhibit your prejudices directly, rather than attempting to disguise the attack behind some other issue that you will not discuss seriously

[BurtWorm]

47. You have extremely thin skin.

And you're not worth talking to. You're basically a sour puss and one-trick pony. You think I'm tiresome? Try reasoning with yourself sometime!

:eyes:

[struggle4progress]

48. Do feel free to put me on Ignore

[BurtWorm]

49. I will just actively ignore you until I sense something more than a grouch behind your moniker.

[and-justice-for-all]

42. Why does any even listen to those morons...nt