From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 02:40:17 MST
Avatar Polymorph wrote:
> Proteomics:
>
> Brett Paatsch wrote nting that proteomics has had an Australian
involvement:
>
> "I'm not exactly a patriot (in 2002 such things do seem a little
> "scoundrelly") but this last statement seems a bit harsh.
> Proteome Systems Limited was founded by Australian Keith Williams.
> http://www.proteomesystems.com/company/default.asp. I think they
> had to go to the US to achieve scale and market access (not unusual for
> Australian Biotech's), but I recall reading Keith Williams' claims that
one
> of his Australian associates actually coined the term proteomics. Maybe he
> did. Maybe he didn't. But what the average aussie talks about at the footy
> (Australian Rules Football) or what gets written up in the
> popular press is not the same as what Australian scientists are doing out
of
> the media spotlight.
>
> Brett"
>
> Fair enough. In fact, there has been some mention of lots of things,
> including by Damien Broderick who indeed has launched many books here with
> such amusing titles as "The Last Mortal Generation."
A good book with a great title. Though I see it more as challenging than
amusing.
>
> I guess the problem is perhaps the generic one. Once anyone recognizes
that
> they can alter adult dna and adult cell structures by command, they have
to
> address immortalist issues now, or at least life extension and youthful
> appearance issues (I speak as a person with two sets of dna in my body,
> laser-altered corneas and artificial lenses in my eyes).
Not sure I follow you here. Two sets of chromosomes sure. But laser surgery
per se wouldn't alter dna so much as reshape the lens. In fact the corneas
as I understand are one of the few parts of the body where cells are not
replaced during life. Perhaps you had a corneal transplant?
> You can see already
> that conservatives shrink intellectually from anything beyond fixing
> diseases up. That's because they think it's unnatural (whatever that
means,
> maybe un-Christian?) and renders humans obsolete (1920s machine fear).
I'm not sure about this. At various points in my life I've fluctuated
between almost evangelical atheism and philosophical tolerance of other
peoples "brain fog" just as on occassions I've no doubt been fortunate that
others have tolerated mine. I've been following the stem cell debate almost
obsessively here (in Australia) and have seen how what could be considered
religious, especially Christian, conservativism has played out in the
political arena federally. I've recently been wondering if the real problem
in getting progressive legislation up, or more to the point regressive
legislation from not being enacted is that "we" have been too tolerant and
have failed to take out enough of the theological trash.
Yet ultimately I don't know that it is the religious conservatives that can
ultimately be blamed. If they are in the wrong and those opposing them are
in the right (not in who they are but in the premises they reason from) then
shouldn't those opposing them be able to carry the argument by attacking
their premises? Seems to me that conservatives "win" when they do, all to
often because they are not genuinely engaged, or if they are then they are
on the wrong level.
In relation to the stem cell debate in Australia, right from the outset the
Prime Minister's personal beliefs have set the standard on what was and was
not deemed politically possible to achieve (by biotechnologists and industry
leaders keen to follow up on what was percieved to be parity with the most
advanced work being done in Embryonic Stem cells in the world). The PM is on
record as holding that life begins at conception and therefore that
therapeutic cloning (aka. the Dolly Procedure or Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer (SCNT)) should not be permitted - because it creates an embryo
(albeit a cloned one) specifically for the purposes of destroying it when
the inner cell mass is removed to obtain stem cells that are
histo-compatible with the donor - whereas he did not have a problem with
using excess IVF embryos otherwise scheduled for destruction under State
laws to be used. The PM's personal moral position, because of his political
influence, was determined (by the pro-therapy, pro-development lobby) to set
the high water mark for what could realistically be achieved in Australia at
this time.
As a consequence, out of percieved political expedience, the case for
therapeutic cloning was never even argued in Australia and anti-cloning laws
will soon go into effect for at least three years. This was an expected
outcome and had been deemed to be an exceptable loss in order to expedite
the passage of other legislation that would permit the extraction of ES cell
lines from excess IVF embryos. Unfortunately in failing to argue the merits
of therapeutic cloning at all, the cloning prohibition legislation passed
unanimously (despite many who would have supported therapeutic cloning had
they been given the opportunity to understand it). This then became a
political fact usable by the "religious conservatives" in making an argument
to ethical consistency.
Senators Harradine, Collins and others were able to argue that as the
overwhelming majority of Australian MP's were obviously against cloning (in
all its forms) and had indicated as much with the laws on banning it.
Therefore it would surely be morally inconsistent for Australia to on one
hand ban "therapeutic cloning" here, and on the other, to contribute to the
demand for it elsewhere (such as in the UK or Singapore) by not also banning
the importation of ES cell lines derived from such "clones" into this
country. The upshot of this line of argument was that those who did hold
primarily religious views, but held them persistently and doggedly were able
to prevent (or so it currently appears anyway) not only SCNT/"therapeutic
cloning" but also the importing of ES lines derived from clones with known
pathologies.
Those who are involved closely with the commercial side of Embryonic Stem
cell research are aware, whilst the general public are not, that the most
substantial early developments and breakthroughs from ES research is likely
to come from cultivating particular cell lines from patients who are known
to have genotypes coding for diabetes or parkinsons etc and to use those
derived pathogenic cell lines (directed into the appropriate tissue types)
to test drugs against (rather than actual people or animals). Thus the big,
early promise of ES cells, both medically and commercially, is in
facilitating faster and better drug discovery. The sexy stuff, like organ
transplants etc is unlikely to come until quite a bit latter.
By closing down the ability of Australian stem cell co's to import ES lines
from their overseas operations, the Australian Parliament may have
effectively neutered any chance of Australia becoming a world leader in cell
based therapies. Eventually, of course, it will be politically impossible
for Australian parliaments to continue to ban the importing of medicines and
therapies developed from cloned ES lines, because then they will be arguing
against proven medications not hypothetical possibilities. Unfortunately by
the time the political process changes the law, Australia will probably have
lost its position amongst the leaders and Australians will pay for products
Australian industry missed the chance to develop.
But are the religious conservatives to blame or does the blame lie with
those who determined that the battle should be fought on the wrong ground,
that SCNT should be ceded as too hard? Perhaps all that is necessary for the
wrong world views to be propagated is that the right (healthier) world views
are not argued at all. Perhaps it is not the conservatism of the religious
but the conservatism of those who have something better to say and don't.
Perhaps we dare too little.
In the case of the stem cell debate it has seemed to me that those who have
argued against the therapeutic cloning on the basis that an embryo is a form
of human life and that all forms of human life are of equal moral worth,
have argued passionately and genuinely, and often with considerably
imagination and ingenuinty. But they have been arguing from premises that
were mistaken, and perhaps could have been shown to have been mistaken. The
challenge of addressing base premises was never taken up lest the
pro-therapy, pro-development lobby be perceived as anti-religious.
Historically terms like human life, human rights, human being, human dignity
have all been relatively clear and these labels have been used as slogans
and weapons in meme wars where the combatants were actual persons. Perhaps
the persons where "nobles" vs peasants, one race vs another, men vs women.
In all these cases to refer to human rights is to espouse the rights of
persons.
Yet modern biology tells us that human life takes place on multiple levels.
A hair cell is alive (at least in the follicle). So is a skin cell (at least
the deeper ones). Sperm are alive. Embryos are alive. Cancer cells are very
much alive. It is patently absurd to argue, as many do, without realising
it, that all forms of human life are equal. It creates a circumstance where
the cancer cell in a cancer patient is on equal terms with the patient. When
religious people try and use the language of tradition in new contexts they
are not being conservative they are extending it, distorting it and
perverting it. When societies afford rights on any other basis than that
which its citizens have accepted reciprocal responsibilities for (and this
includes capacity to assume effective responsibility, not just a desire to
assume it) they introduce a form of counterfiet into the social contract. In
relation to embryonic stems cell research there is a trade off between a
duty of care to the sick and any moral duty owed to human embryos.
There are no religious positions on the moral status of the embryo that
pre-date the scientific discovery of the embryo. New times throw up new
moral challenges and their is no ancient code that can prepare people for
all the moral challenges they may face in the future and ultimately no
religion that can be so pervasive as to remove the individuals
responsibility to make interpretations of their own.
>
> The next issues for me are those such as: guarantees for equality of
> opportunity for all, whether human, artificial, augmented or even (though
I
> don't believe in it conceptually myself) "uploaded" - and in appropriate
> cases, where a sentient being originates in another species such as a
> chimpanzee.
It seems that you look forward to guarantees that have never yet existed. Do
you think it is possible to guarantee equality of opportunity for all even
in principle? Who or what acts as guarantor of the guarantee? And most
importantly it seems to me how do we get from here (equality is certainly
not currently guaranteed to all) to there? (Treat as rhetorical if you like.
Sorry about the rant above. Got distracted from something else I should be
doing :-)
> Guarantees that no resource predomination should be allocated to
> any one sector (say virtuality-generating shared Matrioshka brains) unless
a
> coherent argument was put forward (saying it's most efficient isn't
enough).
> Equally this may entail restricting maximum overt distinctive births a
> little, say to one every few million or tens of millions of years rather
> than every year (on current possibility). In the meantime, extropians
> hopefully (at least me anyhow) will search for unlimited overt growth, in
> the multiverse (ethical virtualities and otherwise) and in spacetime
> manipulation (from ethical quantum duplication to ethical teleportation).
No disrespect intended but the search for unlimited overt growth in the
multiverse seems a tad religious in itself. It has a certain vagueness about
it. I wonder if we can meaningfully seek anything that is so non concrete. I
can understand how one might seek to overcome particular limits on ones
growth and even to go beyond what has previously been done by others in ones
species but I'm not sure that unlimited overt growth is even meaningful if
one holds, as you seem to, that resources are an issue. Though I sort of get
what you mean. Good luck, I guess :-)
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:11 MST