Scientists' hubris, greed and propaganda = Rx for human suffering

Probably the most common factor in biological, aerospace, civil engineering and other disasters is scientific hubris--a cocky overestimation of scientific understanding and one's own intellectual capacity and a fatal underestimation of the complexity of factors of our world--including our own bodies. 
A scientific journal recently proclaimed that "Researchers have demonstrated they can efficiently IMPROVE the DNA of human embryos." This kind of propaganda that emanates from the scientific community serves to advance their own financial and intellectual interests. 
Mix hubris, greed and propaganda and you have a prescription for human suffering and loss of life. A quick Google turns up instructive disaster examples in Aerospace (e.g., Columbia Shuttle, Concorde, TWA Flight 800), civil engineering (e.g., World Trade Center Collapse, Quebec Bridge) and other areas of science (e.g., Titanic, Nuclear Fuel Rod, Bhopal, Flixborough). 
But with this particular scientific disaster-in-the-making (the phrase "improving the DNA of human embryos" says it all), we're talking about a new and abominable kind of disaster that will potentially span generations.
These particular researchers have already shown that they are not concerned about the sanctity of human life, by destroying human embryos as if they were guinea pigs. 
It's time we stop thinking of scientists and researchers as somehow, unlike every other kind of person on earth, totally objective and trustworthy. We need to end the notion, pervasive among our modern culture that essentially worships science as an alternative religion, that somehow we need to let scientists do whatever they fancy because, well, they're so much smarter than all the rest of us combined. 
We cannot--must not--let a hubristic, well-funded but ethically bankrupt elite run our society. Wake up and speak up about this.

Debate over three-parent embryos and DNA manipulation reveals baseless "bioethics"

USA Today this morning highlights yet another weird ethical issue involving the destruction of living human embryos:

In two days of hearings ending Wednesday, a federal [FDA] committee proved quite skeptical about research that might help some patients birth healthy children — but might also open the door to human gene manipulation. The procedure being considered, called mitochondrial transfer, would mix the genes of two women in hopes of creating a healthy baby.

click image to view the video

Christian Medical Association CEO Dr. David Stevens appeared on the Fox and Friends national news program today to discuss this issue with cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck and "bioethicist" Dr. Arthur Caplan. Dr. Stevens noted the destruction of human embryos in the proposed procedure and non-destructive alternatives to pursuing the cure. He also highlighted the ethical issue of foisting genetic changes, with unknown consequences, on successive generations.

"Germline manipulation is something that has been prohibited in science all over the world up until the present time," Dr. Stevens noted.

Dr. Caplan replied, "I understand the concern about where we might go. I'm going to worry about that when I get there."

So there you have it--a "bioethicist" says we should ignore ethical concerns and race ahead with whatever. 

Once people abandon the objective, biblical principles (such as "Thou shalt not kill") that have guided civilizations for millennia, there's really nothing left but personal opinion. Whose opinion will prevail? Whoever has power. 

Welcome to the world of social Darwinism.

Don't let morally myopic geeks rule the world: FDA to consider baby-cloning technique

If you're not a geneticist and gloss over bioethics news reports that have too many words longer than six letters, join the club. But sometimes it takes liberal arts graduates to rein in mad scientists, because bespectacled geeks focused too long on their microscopes can easily fall prey to moral myopia.
That seems to be the case as some scientists push the ethical envelope in genetics and human cloning. The most recent scientific schemes entail creating test tube babies, by killing two human embryos or by cloning human babies from destroyed embryos. If only this were the stuff of science fiction...but the FDA is actually formally considering these weird and wrong techniques.
Usually only bioethically rogue countries--like China and England--allow such techniques. But now the US FDA Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee has announced it will hold a committee meeting to consider these issues ("oocyte modification in assisted reproduction for the prevention of transmission of mitochondrial disease or treatment of infertility").
If you're still reading after that mouthful, check out this article and also the formal comment below that I submitted to the FDA for the Christian Medical Association:

Food and Drug Administration

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
1401 Rockville Pike, HFM-71
Rockville, MD 20852
Transmitted via email to Gail.Dapolito@fda.hhs.gov

RE: Public comment submission to the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee, regarding its consideration of oocyte modification in assisted reproduction for the prevention of transmission of mitochondrial disease or treatment of infertility

The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) opposes germ line genetic engineering on prudential, ethical and humanitarian grounds:

1.      Mitochondrial transfer poses an unacceptable prudential risk, since our nascent knowledge of genetics remains grossly inadequate to predict unintended genetic consequences passed down to future generations.

2.      Germ line genetic engineering also transgresses the ethical principle of autonomy; no successive generation can provide informed consent for the consequences of the precursor generation's genetic experimentation.

3.      Techniques such as "pronuclear transfer"--a method of cloning from an IVF embryo--involve destroying living, genetically complete human embryos, further violating moral and ethical boundaries.

4.      Procedures involving germ line genetic engineering are not essential, since ethical options remain for women with an identified high risk. Providing a loving home for a child through adoption, for example, far surpasses any perceived value of retaining a measure of genetic relation attained at the risk of tragic genetic consequences.

5.      Opening the door to germ line genetic engineering also opens the door to the dehumanizing, utilitarian quest for perfect children--"designer babies." Rather than treating children as a commodity fulfilling parents' dreams, our humanitarian values and our Constitution require us to treat every human being as inherently valuable and worthy of love, respect and protection.

We urge the Committee to reject oocyte modification in assisted reproduction as unacceptably risky, unethical and inhumane.

Thank you for your consideration of these views.

Action:

Visit this web site for details on how to submit a written comment or make an oral presentation to the committee.

Your comment need not be long; the important thing is to make your life-affirming views known. Don't let morally myopic geeks rule the world.

"Are you my Mother?" - FDA to consider three-parent genetics manipulation and "designer babies"

Public comment sent today to FDA re: "designer babies" hearing on genetic manipulation, Oct. 22-23:

October 15, 2013

Christian Medical Association

PO Box 7500

Bristol, TN 37621

Food and Drug Administration

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

1401 Rockville Pike, HFM-71

Rockville, MD 20852

Transmitted via email to Gail.Dapolito@fda.hhs.gov

RE: Public comment submission to the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee, regarding its consideration of oocyte modification in assisted reproduction for the prevention of transmission of mitochondrial disease or treatment of infertility

The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) opposes germ line genetic engineering on prudential, ethical and humanitarian grounds:

1.     Mitochondrial transfer poses an unacceptable prudential risk, since our nascent knowledge of genetics remains grossly inadequate to predict unintended genetic consequences passed down to future generations.

2.     Germ line genetic engineering also transgresses the ethical principle of autonomy; no successive generation can provide informed consent for the consequences of the precursor generation's genetic experimentation.

3.     Techniques such as "pronuclear transfer"--a method of cloning from an IVF embryo--involve destroying living, genetically complete human embryos, further violating moral and ethical boundaries.

4.     Procedures involving germ line genetic engineering are not essential, since ethical options remain for women with an identified high risk. Providing a loving home for a child through adoption, for example, far surpasses any perceived value of retaining a measure of genetic relation attained at the risk of tragic genetic consequences.

5.     Opening the door to germ line genetic engineering also opens the door to the dehumanizing, utilitarian quest for perfect children--"designer babies." Rather than treating children as a commodity fulfilling parents' dreams, our humanitarian values and our Constitution require us to treat every human being as inherently valuable and worthy of love, respect and protection.

We urge the Committee to reject oocyte modification in assisted reproduction as unacceptably risky, unethical and inhumane.

Thank you for your consideration of these views.