Thursday, January 30, 2020
Bio-ethics
So, this is a very interesting Ted-Talk 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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The ted talk titled “ It’s time to question bio-engineering” uses examples of scientific experiments and logical assumptions to argue the negative effects that can come from genetic engineering. The speaker begins by giving a basic break down of evolution, which helps simplify his following discussion. He calls the newest version of evolution “design”. He talks about current examples of genetic engineering such as gmo’s in food and also the breeding of animals with different traits. He begins with simpler discussions about genetic design and then leads into more dangerous versions such as cloning. He goes from more acceptable talks to more extreme to help the argument progress in way that shows the dramatic effects of biology abuse. After discussing the harms of designing animal traits and cloning, he narrows in on his argument. The speaker explains that our scientific advances have allowed us to use genetic engineering, physiotechnogy, and xenotransplantation to alter animals bodies and also humans. With this information he comes to the question of this argument “Is it okay to manipulate life with unprecedented power?”. This question can be applied to the ideas of physician assisted suicide, or euthanasia, discussed in NCBC bioethics articles. The article argues that assisted suicide can force health care workers to violate their conscience. Physicians can be asked to take away food and drink known as VSED or give pills to stop a patients heart. It also argues that euthanasia violates the right of patients unlimited autonomy to health care access. When presented with this argument, the ted talks question makes the answer clear. The idea that humans can take an extreme amount of power to end someone’s life should not be acceptable. By doing this humans are manipulating the natural course of human life and taking away the protection of rights.
ReplyDeleteI think that you did a great job explain what the video was about then incorporating the ideas into the NCBC bioethics idea.
DeleteMegan, I also think that you did a very nice job tying the Ted talk into your bioethics idea. Nice job!
DeleteI think when you added the question of is it okay to mess around with life with that type of power, it really helped transition your article from one idea to the next. I also looked at that article on NCBC, and I thought that was quite concerning myself. Overall, you’re presentation of ideas was well constructed.
Delete“It’s time to question bioengineering” is a TED talk discussing the lack of ethics behind bio engineering in today’s world. This speech focuses on specific, real world examples of cloning and other forms of genetic modification to help prove his argument. While showing pictures, he told his audience about some of the very impressive experiments done in the more recent past. By discussing genetic modification in food and household pets such as dogs, he appeals to both sides by talking about how incredible science has become, but he hits hard on the dangers of bioengineering. Dangers such as cloning have come into play and it poses a threat as it gives humans a near unlimited power. These dangers show the lack of ethics in science today. However, this unethical behavior in scientific does not stop at cloning. Abortion is also an unethical process that, like cloning, has come to be acceptable to members of society. Some may argue right sided, pro life believers are so called “science deniers.” This term so often gets thrown around by people who disagree, but in actuality the only science being denied is by those who feel as though a baby in the womb is not a living being. Abortion clinics frequently refer to an early stage fetus as “clumps of cells,” when this is not the case. Abortion comes in two forms, direct/voluntary and indirect/involuntary. Direct/voluntary abortion is an “intended termination of a pregnancy” while an indirect/involuntary abortion is “when an operation, treatment, or medication—that has as its direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman and that cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable—results in the death of the unborn child. It may be licit to undergo such a procedure so long as the principle of double effect is respected.” Despite how humane pro-choice supporters may make abortion appear, there is nothing humane about it. Without the principal of double effect, an abortion is wholly and completely wrong. Unfortunately, many people have justified the harming and modification of living beings of any kind, in any way. Bioengineering has been both a gift and a curse, and America must find a balance.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts are well organized on the video and you did a great job explaining why abortion is harmful. I really liked how you explain that pro life people don't deny science the way people deny that a child in the womb is not human.
DeleteThe latter part of your blog, the one about your NCBC topic concerning abortion, was really well-written. You utilized several definitions to explain to us your topic; it proves to me that this topic matters to you. That concluding sentence, “America must find a balance,” was quite compelling; the whole scientific community needs to find a better solution.
DeleteInteresting comment, Liv. I totally agree of the importance of him using real world examples and pictures for his argument. I also really liked the ethical topic you chose because abortion is probably the most prominent bioethical issue our world faces today, yet people all over the world look the other way because it allows them do whatever they want sexually.
DeleteMy two main parts to his argument were the same, I completely relate to what you’re saying about how he can speak to both sides of the argument, the interesting part of bio-engineering, and the dangers. Also, I agree this cloning can give too much power to humans. It’s something that would most certainly be abused.
Delete“It’s time to question bio-engineering” is a ted talk that uses detailed experiment examples and scientific facts to explore the possible consequences of genetic engineering. The talk starts out explaining the evolution of humans and how people started to control their environment to help them survive. After years of learning and discovering, people are now able to control more than the environment. The video shows pictures of various genetic engineering tests on animals and explains how it is possible. Scientists are able to change how an animals appears and control their thoughts and actions. This point is one of the main topics of the video. The speaker goes into great detail about recent tests on various animals and insects that use their brain and the signals they send to the rest of the body for scientific experiments. This raises a major question about if this if ethical. People are taking the creatures control of their own body away without thinking about what it might lead to. Just like the process of changing an animal, transitioning genders has become a very frequent event for many lives. People are taking the decision upon themselves to change the hormones and the way they look because scientific discoveries have made it not very challenging. It is a relatively simple process to visit a doctor to receive drugs that will change a person’s body for the rest of their life. If people do not have a problem easily changing what gender they are, then there might be any barriers holding them back in the field of genetic engineering.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your transition from the video to the NCBC topic of transgender issues you used! It really flowed smoothly. I actually disagree with you on what the main point of the video is. I think when Paul Root Wolpe, the guy delivering the TED Talk, was talking about how scientists can alter an animal’s appearance and control their thoughts and behaviors, it was more of a factual statement than a point he was trying to make. I think he’s using it as an example, but his main objective is to make his audience question whether or not that is really ethical.
DeleteYour NCBC topic connects very well to the TED Talk. Also, your analysis of the talk is very concise and to the point. You did a good job highlighting the main points of the video and of the NCBC article.
DeleteSoph, this was a really great read. I love the topic you chose, I feel like so many people overlook the inner workings of this topic. Very hot button, indeed. But not many are knowledgeable about both sides of the issue. I think you also tackled it in such a graceful yet to the point manner. Good work!
DeleteThe ted talk “It’s time to question bio-engineering” discusses the topic of topic or genetic engineering. The speaker uses scientific ideas along with logic to discuss the topic. The speaker begins the talk by first talking about evolution, and the stages of it. He then shows examples of animals that have been genetically engineered or selectively bred to serve a specific purpose, such as salmon. He questions the ethics behind these scientific, and backs them up with facts, closing his talk by asking if people should have the right to be able manipulate life. This can be tied into the topic of prenatal testing, which is testing a baby inside the womb for certain diseases. Studies show that once a couple knows that their baby has a genetic disorder, they will be more likely to abort their child. The temptation to misuse such testing is what makes many people questions the ethics behind prenatal testing, according to an article written by Fr. Tad Pacholczk.
ReplyDeleteYour post was really interesting to me because I had never really thought of prenatal testing as an ethical issue, but in our current world where society considers abortion acceptable, something like this can be a real problem. Without bioethical issues like abortion, prenatal testing might not be such a problem, but instead it poses a real threat to human life.
DeleteGreat post! Prenatal testing is also definitely scary because it could sway the parents into considering abortion. This is a very concerning issue and, although it is important to keep up to date with the baby’s health, it may also cost the baby his or her life.
DeleteYour analysis is brief, but to the point. You hit the important parts of the argument, and gave an interesting perspective on prenatal testing. I never thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense. Good work!
DeleteIn the TED talk, “It’s time to question bio-engineering”, the speaker does a fantastic job of presenting his argument. Initially he keeps everything very simple. It keeps the audience feeling like the content is easy to understand yet interesting at the same time. He then moves in to the next phase of the argument, which consisted of several specific examples of biogenetic innovation in modern science. The advancements are truly incredible, and personally made me understand the other side of the argument, as made me feel the innovations could be helpful and rewarding in many senses. By the end of this segment, he was talking about monkeys controlling objects with their brain, which is absolutely mind blowing, and also where his tone starts to shift. He turns the wonder in to questioning and a sort of horror at the way humans are exploiting this power that should be specifically divine. This dramatic shift, including the extensive build up was the most important part of his argument. All of these things can be tied into more modern day ethics issues. One that stood out to me on the NCBC website is use of birth control and contraception. These things go against God’s plan for the way we should live, so I don’t think they are good options. Natural family planning is a much better choice. With the obvious advancements in science, however, methods of birth control and contraception may become more advanced, easy to access, and maybe even integrated into our genetics. It is a difficult time in our world to remain moral, and with the combination of science and ethical issues we face currently it is a time that requires great vigilance. Our will to remain in good standing with God has to be so strong, because it is becoming far too easy to get swept away in the corruption of our society today.
ReplyDeleteI think that the increasing intensity of the TED Talk is one of the more effective arguments that it contains, and you did a great job of highlighting that. Additionally, not only does birth control go against God's plan, but it has alarming potential to cause harm to our bodies that we should be treating as temples of the Holy Spirit. Use of birth control is unethical, but the lack of information about its effects is unethical as well.
DeleteI liked how you mentioned the argument became more complex as he went on, which definitely made it easier to follow and agree with. I also agree with the mention of natural family planning. NFP shows that we can work out issues in a moral way instead of taking the easy way out with birth control.
Delete"It's Time to Question Bio-Engineering" is a TED Talk discussing biological engineering and its implications on today's society. The speaker, Paul Wolpe, begins by explaining the differences in the stages of evolution. By defining evolution and how humans are able to manipulate it, he sets the stage for his main point, which is to make people question the ethics of bioengineering. To take his talk a step further and ensure that he will make the audience question their beliefs, Wolpe provides countless examples of genetic engineering, what genetic engineering makes possible, and how close the effects of the engineering are getting to the human race. He provides some well known examples such as Dolly the cloned sheep, and continues with increasingly shocking cases that have unspoken but unsettling possibilities, such as computer-controlled bugs and rats. While Wolpe never shares his opinions in his talk, he provides more than enough information to spark curiosity and questions about bio-engineering and the ethics behind it. One specific issue with bio-ethics is the use of animals for growth of human structures. It is not uncommon for cattle or pigs to be used for the repairing of human organ systems, such as the heart or the kidney. While this itself is not unethical, the process and possibilities that it creates are. Many scientists opt to use human embryotic stem cells in this process, which is a direct disrespect to human life. Additionally, it is likely that when forming human organs is mastered, other human qualities will be worked on. Scientists have hypothesized that human nerve cells could be placed into the brains and nervous systems of pigs. The results are unknown, but could create human intelligence or consciousness in the pig, which is, as many would put it, "playing God." The gray area surrounding creating chimera organs is what makes the ethics questionable.
ReplyDeleteNice job in pointing out his use of definition, which made his argument easier to understand. I enjoyed reading your discussion on using animals for human organ structures, as I haven’t heard of doing that before. I definitely see how that could be an ethical issue once researchers learn more about the effects.
DeleteGreat analysis of the Ted Talk, and explaining the affect of how Wolpe described his points. Also very interesting discussion about stem cell and embryonic research, as it is definitely still a form of reproduction that is very controversial and risky.
DeleteYou did a fantastic job describing his tone and techniques throughout the talk. He was a very talented speaker, and I think the way you wrote this does him justice. I also think you brought up some good points about embryonic cell use, definitely some food for thought. Good job, Viv!
DeleteIn his Ted Talk “It’s Time to Question Bioengineering,” Paul Root Wolpe makes an argument about the science’s disregard for ethics, specifically in the field of bioengineering and genetic modification. He says that as science is advancing, we need to slow down and question whether or not these “achievements” are morally okay or not. He uses many tactics to do this but one that really stood out to me was the way he used specifics to make it feel real, right here and right now. He didn’t say, “One lab made pigs glow.” Rather, he told the audience the names of the people behind it, what lab did it, where the lab was, when it was done, and he even showed pictures of each and every animal, even using the names given to these genetically modified animals. This made it feel much more real, and it really appealed to emotion. Another strategy I noticed was that he ordered his examples from those that were more acceptable to those that were outright unethical. He started out by talking about the beeffalo, which seems like a great idea that could help a lot of people. However, he slowly moved further and further away and eventually started talking about putting remote controllers on rats. The way he orders his argument against bioengineering perfectly illustrates the problem with bioengineering because it leaves the audience asking, “So where’s the line?” Another semi-controversial topic is the topic of organ donation. Without a doubt, I think that organ donation is a great advancement in science, and it has saved thousands, if not millions of lives over the years. However, I must also admit that I’ve often questioned whether it is ethical or not. It does so much good, but it’s also so similar to other topics which I do not think are ethical. Regardless, I continue to support organ donation; however, I’m actually not an organ donor myself. Unfortunately, emergency services have been known to not do everything in their power to save someone once they are aware that that person is an organ donor. Of course, I wish that were not the case, but for that reason, no one in my family is an organ donor.
ReplyDeleteThis was super interesting Joe! It’s something I also often question. You had a very in-depth summary of the TED talk which I enjoyed. It shows how you really grasped the concept of the speech. Also, I liked how you analyzed the pros and cons of organ donation. I am an organ donor, but so is the rest of my family. Your reasoning as to why you aren’t an organ donor, as well as the ethics behind it. Really good job!
DeleteIn the TED talk, “It's time to question bio-engineering” Paul Wolpe uses facts along with extreme specifications of biological experimentation in his argument. Wolpe wants to bring into question the ethical dilemma of bio-engineering; should this be something that society should have access to use as it pleases. He does a stellar job to open his argument by showing many examples of the biological engineered animals being performed on. What really was appealing was the way he formed his argument. He kept the audience engaged by showing the people these animals in which were crossed between different species. He showed them, but did not give them too much information to handle at once. While he showed the variety of pictures, he gave extremely specific details about each production. He said who created the creature, where it was created, and what exactly the creature was designed to do. For example, he told of how a pig was bio-engineered to extract its blood for the use of certain industrial drugs and medications. The more he proceeded into his presentation, the more “real” the examples became. Yes, many people in the audience probably felt good about new ways to receive industrial drugs for the good of others, but the he gave the example of how some security agencies are beginning to install data chips in bugs, that can fly around with a small camera on its back and for surveillance. Once these tougher examples were brought into play, it can be assumed many people probably weren’t thrilled that little bugs could be watching them. One article that stood out to me was the doctor who used the new CRISPR to produce two babies that were genetically engineered so they would be immune to HIV virus. These “designer babies” seem to relieving that we can alter genes so we can be immune to disease, the question that comes to mind is will we really control this almost omnipotent power? I’m not a huge fan myself of bio-engineering, because I believe, like what Paul Wolpe said, it destroys our evolutionary process.
ReplyDeleteWhen a person is informed on both sides of genetic modification and biological engineering, they notice two important effects of these artificial processes: the benefit to humanity and also the damage to non-human organisms. Paul Root Wolpe, an American sociologist and bioethicist, speaks in a TED Talk—“It’s time to question bio-engineering”—, bringing up intriguing subjects. He uses examples from the scientific community, such as the results of cloning, using cows and sheep as surrogate mothers to incubate embryos of endangered ungulates to preserve threatened species, and even the controversial process of implanting chips on animals to control their behaviors and thoughts. The whole point of the presentation is to get the audience to question things and to show both sides-the honey and the hatchet- and wonder whether or not biological engineering is exploiting animals to make progress. One strategy Wolpe uses is neutrality. He presents all the facts, shows the research and facts how they are, and doesn’t lean one way or another. By the end of the video, it is up to the audience to decide for themselves which way they lean. He also gradually falls into his argument through presenting the facts and then showing the concerns stirred up by the topic.
ReplyDeleteWolpe’s presentation also brings up the cross-breeding of similar species, i.e., llama mixed with a camel and a cow mixed with a buffalo. Wolpe brought up the crossing of a male lion and a female tiger, which produces the largest cat on Earth (the liger), and it is interesting to touch on the implications of such breeding. Hybridization results in the liger lacking complete DNA, causing a plethora of health problems. The abnormal size of a liger cub leads to frequent miscarriages or small litters. The neonatal mortality rate is eighty percent, which means it is rare for the cub to last for more than a few days should it survive birth. These animals, white tigers, and other ‘Franken-Cats” will face issues like arthritis, organ failure, cancer, and a diminished life expectancy even if they somehow mature into adults.
An article known as “Human Organs from Pigs-Is It Kosher?” is dismissive towards the suffering of animals in favor of the greater good for people. “Kosher” is a Jewish word meaning “something that satisfies Jewish law, but the question of whether or not it is ethical to grow organs in an already sentient animal for the purpose of organ transplantation with humans. Pigs are considered the FIFTH most intelligent animal: they are more than a piece of bacon or an animal to use. This article disregards the animal, which is a dangerous thing to the subject of morality.
Mr. Paul Root Wolpe delivers a fascinating TedTalk entitled, “It’s Time to Question Bio-Engineering.” Wolpe starts his discussion by speaking about evolution. He then moves into a plethora of examples regarding the many forms of genetic manipulation that has been performed on animals. These genetic changes range from increasing body mass, bioluminescence, and cloning the entire animal. He also spoke about insects and some small animals that could be electronically programmed and controlled in labs. It is very shocking to understand how much power man has over other beings in the environment. These types of genetic changes are prevalent and being studied all over the world. The advancements are astounding, for example, Sandro Mussa-Ivaldi, at Northwestern, was able to make a fully living eel brain control a light-sensitive robot. The issue comes in with how far should scientists go with completely manipulating and, essentially, re-wiring the entire being and function of an animal. NCBC pens an article that addresses the issue of the Catholic approach to pronouncing death, or when a person is considered dead. A controversial death was that of Jahi McMath, who died while she bled out after a surgery. Physicians pronounced death due to having neurological criteria that determined death, yet her heart was still beating. This caused problems because she was on a ventilator so it was really only the machine that was keeping her “alive”. Still her mother pleaded for her to remain on the ventilator because she believed that was keeping her alive. Simply put, the Catholic Church believes the death pronouncing process, primarily in hospitals, should be a neater process. If the cessation of all the brain’s electrical activity occurs and the body completely stops responding, they are considered legally dead. They should not be considered dead when life saving equipment is still being used on them. The Catholic Church also argues that once the person has died, to not begin the use of life saving equipment if unnecessary.
ReplyDelete