Critique the scientific theories: genetically modified food, stem cell research, genetic research and cloning?
88210
None of these are theories.  You are listing technologies, or areas of scientific inquiry in the case of stem cell research and genetic research.\n\nIf you mean to ask for a critique of each of these (e.g. how should the technologies be used, or how should these subjects be studied, if at all) I think it would be best to pose each question individually!  They are not really related in any way.
797629
Well I would have to say, the consumers, the growers, and ironically enough, the environmentalists.\n\nConsumers benefit from lower prices, bigger, healthier food, and less pesticides.\n\nThe growers benefit from greatly enhanced yields and a reduced need for toxic & costly pesticides.\n\nAnd finally, the enviros benefit in two ways.  The mature, intelligent ones benefit because greater yields means less farmland needed to grow the same amount of food, and also fewer pesticides used is better for the environment.  Meanwhile, the more ignorant and teeth-gnashing enviros benefit from biotech because they have another cause to protest and another means of whining about how totally evil capitalism is.\n\nEver read "Liberation Biology" by Ronald Bailey?  It's a fantastic book about biotech.  It looks at not just crop biotech but also medical biotech like gene therapy & stem cell research.  The book is all about both the technologies themselves (and let me tell ya, there's some pretty amazing stuff in the pipeline), and about the moral & ethical implications of it.  The book is written for the educated layman; it's not really technical, but has hundreds of footnotes & references included to back up what he says about biotech.
32052
What then is biotechnology? The term brings to mind many different things. Some think of developing new types of animals. Others dream of almost unlimited sources of human therapeutic drugs. Still others envision the possibility of growing crops that are more nutritious and naturally pest-resistant to feed a rapidly growing world population. This question elicits almost as many first-thought responses as there are people to whom the question can be posed. \n\nIn its purest form, the term "biotechnology" refers to the use of living organisms or their products to modify human health and the human environment. Prehistoric biotechnologists did this as they used yeast cells to raise bread dough and to ferment alcoholic beverages, and bacterial cells to make cheeses and yogurts and as they bred their strong, productive animals to make even stronger and more productive offspring.
601275
Here are some ideas for you:\n\n"Decline in genetic diversity. \nTaking nature into our own hands. \nReligious and moral reasons. \nPhysical problems, such as birth defects. \nPossibility of mental and emotional problems of the clone. "
233065
Wow where do you want to start.\nFor or against cloning, space exploration, space colonies,\nstem cell research, implanting people with computer chips,\nusing more people for lab studies, \nAny one of those could explode into 4or 5 diffent possible persuasive speeches.
900029
I don't know - nor will we ever truly know unless the research is done.\n\nEven if there is a remote chance that the possibilities suggested for stem cell research will come about, this research has to be carried out - the potential for saving human life and removing some horrible complaints is stunning.\n\nAnyone who understands the first thing about it must support the research. Only the ignorant oppose it.
53112
Back to the old debate... nature or nurture?\nI think both, and the issue is a very complex one.
70220
Ow!  My toes!  ;) (kidding)\n\nI think it's ludicrous that people are treating the theory as if there's any real debate among scientists on the matter.  Global Warming is far, far, far more contested than is evolution; yet in the popular press, you'd never know it.\n\nWhat I get sick of is all the crap about "missing links" or whatever.  Quite frankly, I don't give a rats @$$ about the fossil record.  Sure, it was important to Darwin when he formulated the theory, but one can't really expect that the fossil record should be any where near complete, and all the arguments against evolution focus on this field.  I studied molecular biology, and it is in molecular biology that you'll find way, way stronger support for the theory.\n\nWhen I list the sorts of evidence that come from molecular biology (Homologous proteins, the near universality of the genetic code (eg the relation between codons and amino acids), genetic drift in non-essential parts of homologous proetiens, DNA technology that can show relationship, developmental homology (ie ontogeny and it's relationship to phylogeny), etc) I get people acting like I presented no evidence because they couldn't even understand that the list I've given actually is evidence.  It takes a long time to understand the manner in which DNA becomes a protein, and the way that proteins fold, the way they work, and the way their related.  Until you understand that, the "Big Picture" is not clear.  But to those that *do* understand the Big Picture, it becoems obvious.\n\nI can't explain to a starving thrid world farmer why it's in his interests to become literate, along with the rest of his village, so they can better understand how to, say, help prevent epidemics in the short term (by being able to understand routes of transmission better) or bring about democracy in the long term.  But living in the industrialized west, the benefits of literacy are manifest.  The person who doesn't understand science seems to me in many ways to be like that starving farmer.\n\nPeople who understand science will dictate the fate of much in the world, and they will have the power to do much good.  By not making an effort to learn science, you set yourself back greatly.  But by actively attacking science--like the starving farming burning a public library, or like the Haitian who steals the copper wires set up to build an electrical infrastructure that would bring long-term prosperity in exchange for a short-term benefit in selling scrap metal--the skeptic zealots do themselves and the entire Christian faith a great disservice.\n\nIn response to your additional questions:\n1-4 are NOT--repeat, they are NOT--aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection.  This is exactly what I'm talking about--people are criticizing a theory they don't even begin to understand.\n\n1) refers to the Big Bang theory, not evolution by natural selection.  2) is a theory of planetary formation, not a theory of speciation.  3) and 4) are aspects of a theory of abiogenesis, which is different from evolution.  Only 5) actually regards evolution.\n\nEvolution by natural selection dictates that small variations between members of a species accumulate over the long term to become major changes, resulting in speciation.  And yes, I believe that that happened.\n\nI have issues with the big bang, but those are not relevant here--they are for reasons of physics that go beyond what I can explain right here.\n\nPlanetary formation, while not a part of evolution, is largely unavoidable.  All matter has mass, and this results in gravitational attraction.  If dust is in space, it will collapse in on itself.  Physics-wise, this is about as mind-blowing as the fact that water + dirt = mud.  It would be a greater stretch of the imagination to imagine such formation not occuring, because the laws that dictate such a formation are at work all around us all the time.\n\n
968705
I belive that Stem Cell research is basically the modification of deoxyribosnucleic acid.  By modifiying this gene sequence, you can cure disease, build strength, enhance brain power, or just about anything.  Then I'm assuming that stem cell surgery is where the gene is actually modified, I don't believe that this has happened yet as Congress is adamently against it.
536434
I believe in the power of science. It can only help us through so much in so little time. But now that the microchip (that is inserted below the skin of a human being) has been invented, which can help us with our daily activities such as flipping through television channels, remembering passwords of different electronic devices or websites, or just pass by the counter with your groceries, the chip inside you will be scanned and the money that you're supposed to pay will already be charged through your bank account (soon). \n\nThere are so many things science can do to help us make our lives easier so yes, I do believe in clones. Although they're not a good alternatives of the biological/original us, we could always await whatever's going to happen in the near future.
846477
I predict we will do stem cell research and cloning; and while these things will help us to some extent, I think cloning especially will prove to be more problem than solution.\n\nI predict we will be forced to be involved in recycling for the well-being of our planet.\n\ni predict the antichrist will show himself.
498533
~ genetic engineering of food, especially for third world countries, and replacing lost vitamins, minerals, etc.\n~ DNA fingerprinting, DNA polymerase, for crime scene investigations\n~ Scientists are now able to clone virtually anything to improve the desired characteristics. For example, genetically engineered animals like pigs are now being tried out to include omega 3 fatty acids for all those meat lovers. (Pigs have more omega 6 fatty acids originally.)\n~ There are so many more values of genetic engineering. You need to do some research on this. Try looking on the web, or in your school textbook (i.e. Biotechnology Unit). It is a hotly debated topic, so its scope is extremely wide. \nGood luck!!! :)\n\n*ANON*
1163027
It depends on the purpose the cloning is fulfilling. If we clone racehorses, we could have a bunch of Secretariats running against other Secretariats and their may be the demise of a great industry.\n\nHowever, if cloning, genetic engineering and selective reproduction have a well defined intent and the end result can benefit humankind, then let's do it. Not being a moralist, I would like to see science continue researching the distinct benefits all forms of reproduction have upon all of the species on the planet.\n\nThe protests that are being offered against artificial or any other form of selective reproduction, must be taken into consideration on a scientific basis and not offer up the old adage, "if God intended man to fly, He would have given him wings" in regards to reproduction.\n\nIn a day and age when it would be very wise to keep our religion and morals to ourselves, we should allow science to progress within reason and justification. In a nation that prides itself in a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people', I say, lets all be a part of the decision making process regarding sin and science and...\n\nGod help us toward that decision.
128352
It is not wrong and it is neccessary for humnas to move ahead and be able to combat the more debilitating diseases.\n\nI think some limits need to be in place and any research should be vetted by a committee for ethics, scientific rationale and soundness, but if it meets that criteria, then stem cells should be used to find new treatments for disease.\n\nWhat is sad is that many groups would like you to think that a baby has to die to obtain stem cells. This is far from the truth. There are many fetal sources for stem cells, and none are from aborted fetuses. Many of these sources are just incerated as medical waste because of current legislation promoted by those ignorant of basic biology. \nScientists should be free to do life saving research that will benefit all of humankind.
1087529
Stem cell research is being thwarted by Christian fundamentalists who have too much say in politics right now. Contact your congressmen and support stem cell research!
1129489
this is why i love yahoo answers you always learn something new by answering people's questions..."Crops improved through biotechnology have undergone more safety and environmental testing than any crop varieties in history, and have been produced and consumed by humans and animals in millions of tons around the world for years. They have been proven as safe as the scientific method permits, by every valid method known to science and medicine. There is, to date, not a single solitary confirmed case of human or animal illness or disease associated with a biotech crop. Nor has a single negative environmental impact been credibly attributed to biotech-improved varieties."\n\nIs that so? The following cases show that there is reason to be concerned about the safety of GE foods.\n\nPusztai's Potatoes \n\nQuestions over the safety of GE foods were raised as far back as in 1998, when renowned scientist Arpad Pusztai, of Scotland's Rowett Research Institute, tested an experimental GE potato on laboratory rats. At the time of this experiment, there was very little in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the safety of GE foods (a full two years after their introduction into the market!); Pusztai's was the first independent study to that end. \n\nThe rats fed on the GE potatoes suffered substantial damage to their immune systems, plus abnormal weight loss in various organs, including the brain, testicles and liver. Some also had abnormal growth in their intestinal cells, which could indicate a prelude to cancer. Despite a long and concerted industry campaign to discredit Pusztai, part of the results of his GE potato study were duly peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature. However, despite the industry and scientific establishment dismissing his work, there has been little attempt made to independently repeat and confirm the study, as is usually the case in science. Pusztai has published other results of his experiments since, which raise serious question over the safety of GM foods.\n\nThe Independent Science Panel\n\nIn 2003, Pusztai joined over a dozen colleagues with expertise in agroecology, agronomy, botany, medical chemistry, ecology, microbial ecology, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, to form the Independent Science Panel. The group released a report on GE crops and foods that reviewed the literature and concluded that:\n\n* Contrary to the claims of proponents, these crops have not been proven safe. The regulatory framework was fatally flawed from the start. It was based on an anti-precautionary approach designed to expedite product approval at the expense of safety considerations.\n\n* By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering may be inherent in the process itself.\n\n* There have been very few credible studies on GE food safety. Nevertheless, the available findings already give cause for concern.\n\n* There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers.\n\n* Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and may jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer.\n\n* There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence in the promotion of agricultural biotechnology. Key experiments were not performed, or were performed badly and then misrepresented.\n\n* Sufficient evidence has emerged which raises serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GE crops should be firmly rejected now.\n\nThe Mon 863 Report \n\nOn May 22, 2005 the British daily The Independent reported the existence of a secret Monsanto report about its genetically engineered Mon 863 corn variety. According to the 1,139-page report, rats fed this corn for 13 weeks had abnormally high white blood cell counts, something that happens normally
177041
- TRansgenetic plants and crops.\n- Human identification processes\n- Clonning\n- Product tags (lke Barbera´s animation cells, signed with a special ink that contains Barbera´s DNA marks).