Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Cad_sl said:

Nobody said it's ready for prime time.Thats what testing is for. Thats what they're doing.

And yes, they need to refine their methods to get better results.

But if they can get 1 in 100 to actually change just the gene they want, and they throw away 99 fucked up 1-cell embryos to get the one change, I'm ok with that. These are embryos, not people.

Click to expand...

Cad_sl said:

Oh ok good, these weren't implanted so they won't. I guess we are totally clear!

Maybe we should raise a ruckus when they take the next step?

Ok, but since this isn't even human testing, just using human cells for testing, I think you're putting the cart about 15 miles before the horse.

Do you find your arguments are more or less persuasive when you have to explain how persuasive they are right in the argument? It's clear that, it's that simple, etc. Just wondering.

Click to expand...

Sure looks to me like you're saying its okay to skip animal trials and go right to using human embryos, regardless how many need be destroyed to do the testing, because well, you're not worried about the ethical considerations of it.

And on that point, you're free to feel that way, but when it comes to medical ethics, you're definitionally incorrect, because animal testing isrequiredbefore we progress to human tissue trials, which occur before we move on to human trials directly.

Feel free to offer any cogent rebuttal besides "Nuh uh!" and trying to insult me because you're upset that I would dare to point out that scientists have a process, which we follow because of ethical considerations, that requires certain phases of trials to be completed at rates of success far beyond what has been accomplished in this arena to date, before we move on to testing on humans and human embryos and the like.

Sure, but the thing is that even adult tissues still must follow certain ethical guidelines, which is why I mentioned Henrietta Lacks as one of the reasons why this issue is one of ethical concerns.

First, we can be pretty well certain that the Chinese researchers probably didn't get permission from the people whom these tissue samples were taken from in the first place, or at least, I would be pretty surprised if they had, which is also a violation of the rules of ethics. Then there's also the issue that the point of these trials is to try and move into modifying actual embryonic tissues meant for fertilization, but as long as we're getting a handful of lucky successes out of a large body of samples, moving forward isn't an option. And it does suck because its a rock and a hard place. You could potentially cure major illnesses and prevent the needless suffering of many thousands to millions of people, but doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still doing the wrong thing.

For the record, I understand your logic, and don't even completely disagree with it. But when it comes to these types of tissue samples, scientists must proceed with caution. You cannot separate science from politics, that's a simple reality as well.

Dot the I's and cross the T's and no one can complain when the process moves to human embryos, viable or nonviable. Ignore that, and you can potentially set research back decades. The embryonic stem cell fiasco of the last decade is a good example of how when scientists press to move too quickly in these sorts of arenas, the backlash can actually result in slowing down the progress to an even greater degree.

I think at this point we've probably reached some sort of reasonable compromise, where you're coming half way to meeting me, and I'm moving halfway to meet you, and we both understand each other's positions more clearly, so I'll leave it at that for now.

That's pretty funny, since in the Gamergate thread you guys have been fighting for the idea that ethics matters in journalism, and in this thread, I'm arguing that ethics matters in medical research and the sciences.

Ethics in the sciences, especially the medical sciences, is far more important than ethics in journalism, but both issues are pretty goddamn important.

So if anything, its the people who are arguing ethics doesn't matter in medical research who are misting and tanoombaing.

Cad_sl said:

There's a difference between saying "ethics doesn't matter" and "I don't agree with the overprotective standard of ethics in this situation."

Click to expand...

Its not overprotective.

Also, there's a difference between wild-eyed shitposting and "fighting for the idea that ethics matters in medical research."

Click to expand...

Except there was nothing wild eyed about any of my posts. In fact, from my point of view, all the "Wild eyed" posts are from the people repeating bad arguments that were already addressed, like bringing up the Tuskegee experiments and Japanese atrocities in World War 2, as some sort of justification for just anything goes research paradigms. My position is the position of Harvard educated and employed biomedical researchers, bioethicists, and the broad scientific community. Accusing me of being "wild eyed" in my defense of that position is the same sort of insane doublethink doublespeak horseshit republicans throw out over issues like climate change, or abortion, etc. Like when people like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum made ridiculous and ass backwards claims about "The government seeking to persecute Christians by establishing a secular religious government" and the like.

At some point some of you are going to have to realize that just because a position makes you angry, doesn't mean the person promoting it is upset, wild eyed, etc. I've beenentirely reasonablewith you in this discussion. I've rebutted your points, and felt like overall it was a pretty decent conversation. Then afterI make a post essentially offering a gesture of friendship and compromiseI get attacked for what you've actually been doing the whole time, and then your response is to lash out.

Have I insulted you at all in this debate? Who has been getting mad and doing the insulting? Me? No.

Cad_sl said:

So, we're just having the "hodj will restate his position over and over and ignore the questions posed to him to move the conversation forward" conversation?

As per usual I guess.

Click to expand...

Cad_sl said:

I'm sure if you type 17 rambling fucking paragraphs in each post rather than succinctly stating a point you can find a sentence or two to agree with yourself somewhere.

Also, you misstated my position in any case.

Click to expand...

Also, there's a difference between wild-eyed shitposting and "fighting for the idea that ethics matters in medical research."

Click to expand...

These are all you. Go ahead, cite me making remotely the same types of shitty attack posts at any time minus the response to Palum that I made because his charge is fucking baseless.

And speaking of, then there's Palum trying to claim I'm "misting" and "Tanoomba-ing" for...having what I felt was acompletely reasonable discussion about a disagreement on medical ethics in which I was trying to help you understand why scientists find this research unethical at this time, which is then conflated into these sort ofbaseless and completely unnecessary personal attackswhich, I mean dude. I literally had just made a post to you where I extended my hand and offered up that we had reached a compromise and the issue was settled.

I'd say grow the fuck up, but its a waste of time.

I think you're misunderstanding what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. First of all, appealing to authority when attempting to formulate a syllogistic argument is always fallacious, this is true. Such as saying A is B and B is C because D authority says so, is of course a fallacy. Appealing to a false authority or a non authority, someone who is an authority in one field, but not in the field under discussion, is another form of appeal to authority fallacy.

But when we're discussing something like the sciences, actual authorities on the subject are valid to appeal to. To say it's fallacious, for example, to appeal to Einstein when discussing the theory of relativity, as just a broad example, isn't a fallacy of logic. There is actual authority in this discussion on medical ethics, and it actually does matter.

And no, I didn't need a compromise. You seemed to have come to the table of reason at this post

Cad_sl said:

I would say I don't really even consider this human testing because nonviable embryos can't be humans.

If these were blood cells, nobody would care. Because they are embryos, everyone pitches a fit. But they are nonviable embryos that will not be implanted or developed. They are just cells, not humans. Ergo no human testing. No skipping animal phase. No ethics concern.

Click to expand...

And in response, I felt it was proper to meet you halfway. That's why I said

I think at this point we've probably reached some sort of reasonable compromise, where you're coming half way to meeting me, and I'm moving halfway to meet you, and we both understand each other's positions more clearly, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Click to expand...

And I would have left it at that, except then I get baselessly attacked immediately afterwards, and that sorta irked me, especially considering I felt we had come to a reasonable end point in the discussion.

For the record, I like you Cad. Always have. Find you to be an intelligent person, and a good person to have debates with. I wish we could have more without everyone getting all angsty. And yes I get angsty some times too, I'm certainly no innocent in the broad context of posting on this forum. It is, to some extent, the nature of things. But this was, in my view, overall a pretty good discussion on a subject that I think is important and I feel like others probably feel it is important as well.

Palum_sl said:

You were arguing semantics with Cad when all he was basically saying was "Chinamen gonna China" and that ethics aren't universal. So you start bringing up professional standards for doctors as if they have some sort of mystical power and claiming that he's 'wrong' about a subjective topic that has clearly shifted over the years anyway.

Click to expand...

No, I was arguing facts, while Cad was arguing his opinion.

And ethics in the sciences are universal. Are you all not aware that there are international regulatory boards in charge of oversight of all this shit?

China shocks world by genetically engineering human embryos - Telegraph

Prof Shirley Hodgson, Professor of Cancer Genetics, St George's University of London, said: "I think that this is a significant departure from currently accepted research practice. Can we be certain that the embryos that the researchers were working on were indeed non-viable?

"Any proposal to do germline genetic manipulation should be very carefully considered by international regulatory bodies before it should be considered as a serious research prospect."

Dr Philippa Brice, of the health policy think-tank the PHG Foundation, added: "This story underlines the urgent necessity for international dialogue over the ethics of germline gene editing in human embryos, well in advance of any progression towards theoretical clinical application.

"Recent calls for a moratorium on any such research to allow time for expert and public consideration of what is and is not ethically, socially and indeed legally acceptable with respect to human germline genetic modification should definitely be heeded."
British biologist Edward Lanphier, told Nature "we need to pause this research and make sure we have a broad based discussion about which direction we are going here."

George Daley, a stem-cell biologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston added: "The study is a landmark, as well as a cautionary tale.

"Their study should be a stern warning to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes."

Huang said he had abandoned the current project to go back to working out how to minimise the unexpected mutations in adults cells and animals.

Click to expand...

The issue here is your ignorance is leading you all to make uninformed arguments.PERIOD

Global Summit on Regulatory Science

2014 - Global Summit on Regulatory Science

Title:
Theme:
Location:
Date:Global Summit on Regulatory Science (GSRS14)
Regulatory Genomics and Beyond
Montreal, Canada
August 21 - 22, 2014

Presentation Topics

Welcome and Introduction
Session1: Genomics and Product Safety
Genomics in Food Safety
Pharmacogenomics and Regulatory Science in Japan
Progress and Challenges of Implementing PHARMACO-Genomics in Europe
Session 2: Lessons Learned from Applying Genomics to Food Programs
A Vision of Modernized Food Safety with Genomics
Pathogen Genomics at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
Advanced Sequencing Technologies in the Applications for Bacterial Pathogens
Use of Whole Genome and Whole Community Sequencing for Diagnostics and Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance
Session 3: Challenges in Regulatory Genomics
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for Outbreak Surveillance and Response
Bioinformatics Challenges in Next-Generation Sequencing
Genomics Can Meet the Challenges of Informed Regulatory Science
Session 4: Genomics and Beyond
Basic Science, Regulatory Science, and Publication Incentives
Bioinformatics Challenges in Food Borne Pathogen Detection, Identification and Characterization
Genomic Application in In Vitro Diagnostic Devices
Next-Generation Sequencing and Incidental Findings - What Should be Informed?
Session 5: Regulatory Science Presentation and Roundtable Discussion
Meeting Venue

Palais des Congr?s de Montreal
Venue's Main Entrance:
1001 Place Jean-Paul-Riopelle
Montr?al (Qu?bec) H2Z 1H2, CANADA

Click to expand...

Government and Regulatory Bodies

International

International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)
United Nations Health Care Organization (UNHCO)
World Health Organization (WHO)
World Trade Organization (WTO)

Click to expand...

etc. etc. etc.

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

You obviously aren't googling well enough.

Also you've fallen back on the "Its ethical so long as their government says so" argument that is demonstrably nonsense. It wasn't ethical when the Germans were dissecting live humans without anesthesia just because Adolf said so. It wasn't ethical when the Japanese were gassing civilians in China and recording their suffering and dying, just because the Japanese government said so. It wasn't ethical when American researchers were conducting the Tuskegee experiments on blacks without their full knowledge of the process and viable alternatives. Its not ethical when the Chinese government forces poor women with more than 1 child to undergo abortions, just because the government allows it. And its not ethical when Chinese researchers do this just because their government said so.

No one is going to "enforce" anything on China in some sort of militaristic fashion, that entire line of reasoning is a non sequitor. But medical researchersare ethically boundby international agreements, by the Nuremburg Codes, by the Hippocratic oaths, etc.