Bioethics
So, this is a very interesting TedTalk about bioethics. Wow!
And here is a link to the NCBC
What is the crux of the argument presented in the TedTalk? What strategies, find at least 2, does the speaker use to argue his point?
Then, find a topic about bioethics on the NCBC website and tell us what you think about it. No repeat topics please!
Bioethics and genetic engineering is one subject that I never fully comprehended in science. I understand why it's done and I understand the repercussions of some of the results. Why and how this ever began or what it has come to is where my knowledge of the matter stops. Watching this Tedtalk, I was completely dumbfounded as to what to even make of how far Science has come. I knew that scientist have such a greater advantage in the 21 century with all the resources provided to them. However, I thought making cells with human parents would be for the future, and much further away than now. The whole argument of the tedtalk wasn't about whether the speaker, Paul Root Wolpe, thought this new emergence of bioethics was right or wrong. His argument was simply how far should this be allowed to go. From watching, his body language and word choice hinted at a sense of disapproval but he didn't state what his opinion of the matter was. To argue his point, he used scientific evidence to educate the audience and he used pictures to back up his evidence further. The article I read about in the NCBC website was about Euthanasia and when you think about it, it's not that different from bioethics. In the Tedtalk I learned that scientists had discovered a way to create life. In the article I was reminded how scientists also have created a way to end life. According to the Catholic Church teachings, this power and responsibility was initially out of our hands. That's how God made it. But recently there has been a rapid increase of such means. As humans were supposed to be conceived naturally and to die naturally. Instead, we've taken God's job into our own hands, deciding when and how we're going to die or when and how a baby will be born. This is all wrong and will eventually lead our world to further self destruction. We are not God. He didn't make us to be like Him. At one point angles tried that and look what happened to them. Satan is the master of deceit, and that's exactly what this world is running head first for. I personally think the intentions of both projects were good, but the outcomes will only reap sorrow
ReplyDeleteAbby, I toatally agree with you! I like how you took a very formal approach to this blog. You said your thoughts about the topic and I couldn't agree with you more! Keep up the good work!
DeleteAbby, I loved that your article and the talk ended up relating like they did. Your explanation of what the Catholic Church believes was a great addition! I also liked that you ended the blog with your stance.
DeleteAbby, I like your application of the war in heaven to help provide understanding to your article. When I saw that zebra horse animal in Wolpes presentation, I got the feeling that it wasn't right and it's not natural.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePaul Root Wolpe gave an outstanding and incredibly interesting TedTalk about bioethics. I'm not going to lie, when I first saw the blog this week I had no idea what bioethics was, but after watching the talk I'm totally interested in this topic. In Wolpe's talk, he gave an in depth description about bioethics as well as arguing the ethical side of these bio-engineering experiments and how far our society will take this new technology.
ReplyDeleteTo develop his argument, Wolpe used visual rhetoric and appealed to logos during the talk. With every point Wolpe brought up, he had a corresponding picture to go with it. Due to his large amount of information brought up in the talk, Wolpe used visual rhetoric to help visual learners fully understand the topic, and to easily follow along with his argument. He also appealed to logos throughout a large portion of his talk. Wolpe stuck to the the facts and was very straight forward with his argument. This allowed the audience to know that Wolpe was not being bias, but rather he was telling the truth about bioethics and the advancement of bio-engineering experiments.
The Podcast I chose was very relevant to Wolpe's TedTalk. The interviewee was a priest named Fr. Nick. He talked about about CRISPR, a gene editing tool, through an ethical standpoint. Fr. Nick explained that it is easier than ever to get ahold of kits to genetically modify a common day objects. For example, one kit could be used to genetically modify yeast to change the color. With this said, new technology has made genetic modification in people, animals, and objects more advanced and accessible. Fr. Nick also made a point in saying that technological advances have made it possible to make human embryos healthier. He explained that this is a great advancement in technology to help the next generation become healthier, but where is the line of fixing and improving? This is what stuck out to to me the most in the Podcast. I would have to say that I am on the same standpoint as Fr. Nick because I agree that gene editing is a great tool for the improvement of the child's health, but there are boundaries that need to be made as well. My biggest concern with genetic modification is how far will our society will take this new technology? I do believe that it is our duty to help make another human life healthier, but I do not believe that it should be our choice to decide how an individual physically looks or what talents they possess through genetic modification because that is God's job.
Marcy, I agree with you than we should not determine the physical characteristics of humans. If everyone was designed to be "perfect" than no one would actually be perfect. Keep up the good work!
DeleteFrom the beginning of this TedTalk, I was extremely interested. I have always been interested in hearing other people's opinions and stances about this type of topic. Personally, I thought Paul Wolpe took us on a roller coaster of feelings. My ideas changed throughout the entire talk. Wolpe was able to formulate his argument of what is ethical and who will be responsible for these engineered organisms, around this rollercoaster. He started out soft with the engineered glow-in-the-dark cells from jelly fish that make everyday household pets glow as well. I thought this was just a waste of time and money for the people who developed this. He continued to escalate into a few more examples of seemingly harmless effects. Then he introduces a new idea with the cloning of animals, and how scientists can use this technology to save endangered species. Now my mind has changed again, maybe this is a good idea scientist's have created. He escalates the examples even further and showed us the trackers scientists have put into the brains of bugs and mice. I was completely against taking away a living organisms ability to use its own brain. Now I'm back to being against this technology. Wolpe didn't stop there. He showed us the picture of the mouse with an ear on its back and explained how we can make body parts for human transplants. Now I'm back to thinking this is a good idea. Wolpe ends on a series of questions that really make us think about what he just put us through. Is it ok to take the innocent life of an animal to benefit humans? Who is responsible for this? He successfully put his argument acrossed with the use of visual rhetoric and how he found ways to keep the humor in the situation without loosing sight of the serious issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first articles that came up for me was about opposing assisted suicide by lethal injection, which a pharmacist prescribes. Deacon Peter J. Gummere has been devoting much of his time to fighting this bill in Vermont that has made assisted suicide legal. I believe everyone on this earth has a purpose until God is ready for us because there is always a way you are meant to impact someone's life. This idea of assisted suicide started in the 1970s and has experienced many up and downs until it was passed as legal in Vermont in 2013. Since this article was written, no one has used the law since it was passed and the two that had a prescription for it, died of natural causes before the had the chance to use it. Vermont has tried to educate their people on the bill, which seems bizarre to be letting the public know there is an option to end your own life. Many of the people who oppose the bill are pharmacists who think signing a prescription for a lethal injection is opposite to why they went to pharmacy school. I agree with this statement. Other people who support this justify the bill with the idea of people who want to end their physical pain. I have had a personal experience with this situation and a family member who was in a serious accident. Doctors told us he would never be the same when he came out of his coma, if he even did. He ended up making an almost full recovery and is better than ever. Deacon Peter J. Gummere ends his article with the power of prayer. He tells us to align with groups who oppose the assisted suicide and pray for its repeal. I myself believe in the power of prayer and believe God will listen to them.
Bobbi, I really liked how you explained your total mindset throughout the TedTalk! I thought it was a different approach and it help me to understand your thoughts on this issue. Great job!👍🏼
DeleteI really liked your blog and how the different apraoch was explained by you! Great work!
DeleteYou too a different approach than everyone else and I can appreciate that.
DeleteThe topic of how far we should take our scientific research is a very sticky subject. On the website introducing the TedTalk discussing this issue, I finally realized my definite standpoint concerning our limits we should place on science. I consider myself an ethical person, I believe everyone should express who they are as long as the don't do anything to ruin the lives of others or try to make others just like them. With that said, the subtitle below the TedTalk had the phrase "glowing dogs?" in it. On the topic of bioethics, my question is "What does this do to benefit everyone?" That specific example is something that is so completely useless that we wouldn't need to do it because it's so ridiculous. Why would we try it if it's so pointless? As I was watching, I loved the way he came across with his message. He gave several reasons as to why we should be cautious with this topic. Most people giving a talk on this would say that we are "playing god" and "He doesn't like that." This speaker covered the entire spectrum of negativity and left the audience with a haunting feeling of "where did we go wrong?" If he had focused on one aspect of an argument, say the idea of playing god for example, he would've only gotten through to a certain group of people. He used other strategies because he knew there were other people in this world except Christians. The website NCBC is a perfect example of what I think is wrong with protesting certain controversies. We have established a separation of church and state, and organizations such as this are trying to destroy that separation. Bioethics and the limits placed on them are not to be established by one particular religious organization, and it's always Catholicism that's the culprit in this scenario. I read a few articles on the NCBC's webpage, and I loathe the fact that they are the ones that want to set these restrictions rather than other people. The Church made it about themselves, again. The church has no authority on this matter, the legal system does. We need to govern our scientific morals using common sense, not an old book that happens to have some laws in it. It's rare that we see other faiths get involved with these issues, because they understand the separation of church and state. This is a "legal morality," meaning we need to look at everyone's views and have the government reach a consensus on what should be done rather than just ask one faith group. As I said previously, if it's pointless and doesn't benefit anyone and it's a stupid experiment like a glowing dog, don't do it. Focus on the things that will give us a better understanding of science, rather than perform dumb experiments that don't mean anything. Do what you know is right, but don't consult a religious organization when it comes to defining what your ethical decisions. The church has some dumb rules and horrible beliefs that we all ignore. I didn't want to make this a religious discussion, but it is. All of the people of this country, no matter what origin they are, have a right to say what should be done in these situations. Catholics have one standpoint, it's time they started realizing theirs isn't the only solution.
ReplyDeleteI really like your view about this subject, Nick. You're right when you say we need to look at everyone's views, but there comes a time when a line needs to be drawn. You said the church is always trying to set limits, but that's it's job! From a different stand point, thatd be like you saying the president of the United States is always sticking his nose in the business of its citizens. He does this because it's his job. The Church has to stand up for herself and her beliefs. This doesn't even just apply to Christians. What if it were a Muslim? Then the tables would be turned and he or she would only be standing up for her faith. Or an atheist, who believes there is no God, has the right to say exactly what you said. But all of these different views are only standing up for their believes and or faiths because they feel the right to do so.
DeleteNick, I respect other people's opinions and will listen to what other people have to say on different topics. But You constantly tell us how we need to respect other religions, but when you talk about ours and say things like "not an old book that happens to have some rules in it" I don't thinks that's respecting other religions. It's hypocritical to tell people to respect other religions when you don't do the same.
DeleteI agree with the fact that respecting everyone's views is important but you should read your blog as if it were someone else's because you could take some of your own advice. Good blog though
DeleteBefore I get too far into my blog I would just like to point out that I take a more scientific approach to topics such as this that can cause controversy in many areas such as religion and communities. You may think differently of my opinion and even go as far as to argue against it in the comments below if I go against your opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis Tedtalk was very interesting just by the title, when I started listening to the talk I got even more intrigued of bioethics and when the speech ended I was slightly disappointed because I wanted to hear more. The argument of the talk was that Bioethics is advancing so quickly that we can now make a synthetic cell for a human, but where is the line drawn? In the beginning of the talk the speaker states that there are animal hybrids that have to pass a FDA approval to be able to be sold in stores for eating, however but most of the food sold already has genetic changes in them and that we shouldn't be worried about eating a salmon that had testing done on it to provide more fish meat. Throughout the talk the speaker used the strategy of tone, where he used a lighter voice in the way he was speaking and laced humor throughout the speech. I feel this was used to lighten the tension that the topic brings just by mentioning its name in a room full of people. Another strategy he used was representative where he used examples of the topic he was talking about, in this case examples of the advancement in animal hybridizing, in animal control with electronics, and finally in creating synthetic human cells. The speaker used a PowerPoint to show pictures with the experiments and then fully explained each. Most experiments were done with animals and I feel that some people are ready to argue that we shouldn't use animals to do the experiments that further our species. I would reply to that, what would we use then? Some people are so against using animals for experimentation but then they can go to a zoo where we use them for our entertainment, or go out and wear their new leather jacket. I feel that if you truly want to argue against something like this topic you need to fully understand it and the outcomes of your argument.
PART 1
The article I found was quite interesting because it talked about how we are now using pigs to make human kidneys and livers that can be transplanted into humans. Father Tad Pacholczyk writes that this breakthrough may be a good thing because of the shortage of organ transplants. I agree that this would help immensely with the transplants people need and so they wouldn't die waiting for a kidney or liver that would probably never have come in time. Father Tad then goes on to say that it would not be ethical to use a human cell or embryonic cell to start the process of the kidneys or livers formation in the pig. He argues it is unethical to use such ways of starting the experiment because it is using a possible human and that is killing the human. In such cases I can say yes it is terrible, but what about the kidney and liver that is made? One embryonic cell could save three lives. I may sound twisted but is there any one way to make this experiment ethical? Yes, the experiments could be cancelled but then what about those people on the waiting lists that are going to die if they don't receive that organ produced by the experiments? Should we just let them die because of people who don't believe in using human cells in this experiment? We must choose what is morally right to us but we should not shove our opinion down each other's throats. I believe that this experiment is quite a phenomenal thing that could change many people's lives and that it should be seen through. This is just my opinion from a more scientific view than a religious standpoint. Science will always be expanding and making new breakthroughs everyday, the boundaries of ethics with always be pushed, as well as the boundaries of what is morally right and morally wrong. PART 2
ReplyDeleteI like how you examined the shortage of organs and how that relates to the general topic and purpose of the talk. I also liked the idea of not shoving beliefs down the throats of others. Well done
DeleteThis was sooooo good. I agree with you 100% about the experimentation on animals. I love how you took a scientific approach to this because I don't understand science and this was very enlightening. Good job
DeleteThe TedTalk from Paul Wolpe centers around controlled evolution created by scientists. Wolpe explains the complex topic by using a presentation with the history and development of the evolutions. The main purpose for the presentation is to enlighten the public on what is happening in the scientific world, while also arguing for where we should draw the line on controlled evolution. Wolpe tries to not fight for any side over the other, but rather have the audience decide. His use of a PowerPoint to display examples of what he is talking about helps to further explain his topic. He uses some comedy and hand gestures to help pursued the audience. His tone is informative, which to an audience member who doesn't know much about the topic, I'm very persuaded to believe what Wolfe says as truth.
ReplyDeleteThe topic that I chose from the NCBC is "The NCBC Comments on Human Subject Research." It talks about how the NCBC supports a change to the definition of "Human Subject" so that reproductive tissues would need the requirement of the individual who donated them, as well as the requirement for a subject to not get pregnant while being researched on, and giving the subjects the ability to abstain instead of having to use contraceptives. I think it's a good idea giving human subjects the ability to decide if they want their body parts to be researched on or not, because it helps to erase some ethical conflict that would result if it was without their consent. On the TedTalk, I think "the line" that Wolfe argues about should end at when modifying the DNA of humans to be "perfect" starts. Controlled evolution ought to not hurt the sanctity of human life, because if everyone becomes "perfect" than no one is really perfect are they? There would not be anything appealing about humans if we all had the same hair, eye color, height, and so on. I'm also not too keen on modifying any animal DNA, only plants, but the line ought to end no later than modifying human DNA to create completely perfect people.
I really enjoyed your blog and I agree about if everyone is perfect then it isn't really perfect then! Good work!
DeleteI love reading your blogs because it's almost like you are reading it to me! Your voice is so strong! Great work!
DeleteYour blog this week was very ... Timmy, as always. But, I would have liked to see more of what you thought rather than just the strategies he used. You have strong opinion on this, I believe that if you provide some personal writings along with the logic of the piece, it will have a greater affect. But overall, good blog.
DeleteIn the TedTalk by Paul Wolpe, "It's Time To Question Bio-engineering", he talks about the three ways of evolution; Darwinian Evolution, (animal to human being), Civilization Evolution(controlling the environment), and Directed Evolution (trying to design nature). He uses different tone. Sometimes he talks with a sense of authority and other times he talks as if he wants you to feel sad. His argument is that today our world is trying so hard to make new things that people are straying from what is truly natural and things that are being altered. He uses one specific example of genetic modification. He emphasizes that our world today is using bio-engineering to clone animals and make certain animals glow. In my opinion, this TedTalk isn't to give the audience facts about the subject but to give them an idea of what is truly going on in our work today. This TedTalk makes my heart drop and fill with sadness. I look at the pictures of all the animals being used in experiments and it makes me feel guilty even though I haven't done anything to harm them. I have two fish that are both glow in the dark and I haven't thought about how that is possible until after I watched this TedTalk. What is happening to animals is cruel and it could possibly happen to people as time goes on. When will there be rules? Scientist can basically do what they wish with these animals but when will things like this stop. It's up to us.
ReplyDeleteMy worst subject in school is without a doubt science. It was always very difficult to understand. I don't get why our world needs to know everything about nature and even more change things about it. Then I look at it from a different perspective, Christianity. There are so many different extents of Christianity in the world today. There are people who say they don't believe and others who would do anything to spread the word of God. On NCBC I found a small article about Christianity in the public world. Look back to the beginning of this blog, what did you thing? Did you understand the WHY about bio-engineering? I can relate thread two topics because I don't think that scientists should be altering animals and soon humans the ways that they are. What God gave us is what we should be happy with. The public is trying to change the ways of Christianity. Over time religion has faded and idols have become bigger but the people of a community shouldn't try to change the way a Christian should live. What God gave us is what we should be happy with. He gave us enough about religion so that we could follow HIS rules. The rules of God can't be changed and neither should His creations.
I totally agree with your argument against this TedTalk. When you stated seeing the animals and what these scientists are doing to the animals made your heart drop and fill with sadness not only provides a personal and emotional support to this, but you used your own sort of rhetorical strategy to support your claim. I really liked your blog this week.
DeleteJust as disclaimer, I am more disgusted with this topic than I am fascinated. Bioethics is something I was never familiar with, and that's no fault but my own. Now that I've been introduced to a few experiments and theory's that are taking place allows me understand why I have never put the interest or responsibility into gaining insight of this argumentative advancement. However, Paul Root Wolpe's TedTalk was well prepared to the point where it intrigued me hear what he was going to say next. Although I was appalled by certain topics he was supporting, for myself, it was evident that he related to imagery and logos through his speech. This strategy kept a viewer, like myself, intrigued even though my so called hatred of the topic of discussion. He referred to the three stages of evolution our planet has lived through, while he integrates the new, technological genetically modified evolution. The new advancements of the bioluminescent gene in deep sea jellyfish implanted into mammals which in the process of the experiment allow the organism to glow in the dark outrages me to the highest degree. This goes back to the one piece we analyzed about looking through the car window and appreciating nature as it has been created by God. I understand this isn't the 80s anymore and in this day in age, technology has a big influence on our world. However, I am against this experiment and ponder on the thought of why this is even necessary? It is bad enough that the implants are in mammals, but the future implants in human beings is not ethical and morally correct. Why in someone's right mind would experimenters strive to make living organism that are not biologically created to glow in the dark, glow? What is the point? Another bothersome experiment is the placement of a computer chip onto the head of cockroaches and rats that are meant to control the movement of the organism? Why can we just let organism move at their own leisure, or be a natural functioning organism? Maybe for the reason of my disgust of American engaged experiments is due to the lack of ethically correctness these experiments are engaging in. God didn't create this world, organism, and nature to directly designed to be an opposite of a biologically born organisms. Even through my disagreement of experiments taking place, I do acknowledge that times are changing and it is our responsibility to change with it and adapt to our new upcoming world. Wolpe's crux of the argument is just that. The world is changing and it is not just scientists duty, but everyone's responsibility due to the fact that it will determine the future of bodies and planet.
ReplyDeleteThrough reading an article from the NCBC, I chose the one that seemed to be a pressing issue in society today; transgender bathrooms. One particular school is for students able to pick which bathroom do use based on their given gender. From what I can remember, there was no concern or even issues of transgender faculties since the Caitlyn Jenner scandal. Society was not faced with this issue until a popular public figure engaging in actions such as those mentioned in the TedTalk. Through this article, it relates to the support of bioethics and the consideration of changing naturally produced organisms.
I agree that transgender issues, especially that of the bathroom, is a huge bioethical issue. It is sometimes considered taboo, so I'm glad you brought it up. Bold.
DeleteThe crux of the argument presented in TedTalk by Paul Wolpe was that humans are changing their own evolution. His stance on this, I believe, is that we may be worse off because of this fact. He deleoped this argument by using examples that convinced the audience that some developments may be unnecessary, such as making humans glow in the dark. Al so, his tone was angry and questioning, as well as matter-of-fact.
ReplyDeleteA bioethical issue discussed on NCBC is abortion. Where is the line drawn from rights of the pregnant mother and rights of the fetus? Who's rights are more important? This is called into question by both pro-life and pro-abortion activists. When is a fetus considered a baby? There are many bioethical issues involved with abortion that I can further discuss upon request, but overall, this is one of the biggest reasons for abortion being so controversial. Science confuses me!