Traditionalist

Though usually a person who favors progressive ideas (gay marriage, green energy, fusion food), when it comes to matters of science I sometimes identify as a traditionalist. Not that I believe in creationism (god forbid) but rather I question the ethics and moral decisions some scientists, and their supporters, are making.

I sorely lack exposure to the world of science and much of what the field is undertaking. I realize there are continuous advances and mind-blowing theories being tested which are saving people and creating paths for healthier living. However, even in my admittedly limited awareness, one branch of science irks me and that is biotechnology.

For one, the prefix and root word don't mesh in mind. Though some techno-gadgets, such as pace-makers, were based on anatomical observation and at this point the population can't seem to survive without it's various contraptions, "life" and "machine" don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. For the majority of this world's history, the latter didn't exist and the former never even considered it's current partner.

What has bothered me about biotechnology for some time is the question of gene manipulation.
Scientists pulling DNA from one source and injecting into another to alter eons of foundational makeup? This argument is all too obvious, and I never would have imagined myself in a camp with religious conservatives, but here it goes... ISN'T this type of practice a little bit like playing god? (Wow, I've used the "g" word twice in this posting.)

The again, I suppose one could argue that any sort of doctoring is playing at g** but if I continue down that track this post could lean more into the Christian Scientist territory than I'm comfortable with.

Maybe my problem is I'm simply irritated with what seems to me like a big time-waster: Recently some MIT students added DNA to their E-Coli lab samples so that instead of smelling like feces, the petri dishes emitted banana and wintergreen aromas. Really? If they were bored while the bacteria grew couldn't' they have studied pink-eye, black mold, or malaria? Maybe it's just a way for these students to get their kicks; a way to get their creative juices flowing. Maybe they think writing poems is a big waste of time and not advantageous to society's unity.

But on the ethics/moral bent, what I find appalling is that Darwinism could be at it's end. What if "natural" natural selection is thrown out the window and people start selecting good genes from beakers to create babies instead of selecting mates who are primitively genetically appealing in order to propagate the human race. It's all too sci-fi for me; it's too artificial and not enough "organic."

Yes, invitro fertilization creates a blurry line, as well as egg donation, which plays into race and class issues. I don't think I have enough space here or energy to fully investigate at this juncture the moral and ethical spectrum of biotechnology, I just wanted to put these thoughts on the subject out there.

Maybe I just need to get over it: maybe gene manipulation is a much, much more sophisticated form of fruit tree grafting.