Posted on 03/02/2003 11:43:19 AM PST by Indy Pendance
A PIONEERING scientist's claim that gene therapy could be used to "cure stupidity" has been dismissed by Australian experts as ludicrous.
James Watson, an American biologist who won a Nobel Prize for his role in unlocking the structure of DNA, has advocated the use of gene therapy to increase intelligence.
In a new documentary series, Mr Watson also claims beauty could be engineered using DNA technology.
But Australian experts have dismissed the idea, saying science had not yet given humans the ability to tamper with intelligence.
Australian Medical Association's ethics committee chairman Dr Trevor Mudge said it was not yet known if intelligence was determined by genetic or environmental factors.
He said it was therefore "ludicrous" to suggest intelligence could be altered using gene therapy.
But he said gene technology was progressing rapidly and society was going to have to deal with some very difficult ethical issues in the future.
Monash IVF medical director Professor Gab Kovacs doubted society would accept the use of gene therapy to alter looks or intelligence.
"I can't see it ever getting up in front of an ethics committee," he said.
Melbourne University senior genetics lecturer Dr Sylvia Metcalfe said it was unlikely gene therapy would ever be used to alter intelligence.
Dr Metcalfe, who also heads the genetics education unit at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, said Mr Watson's comments were likely to be taken with a "pinch of salt".
The documentary series, which celebrates 50 years of research into DNA technology, will be shown in Britain next month.
Negotiations to bring the series to Australia are believed to be in progress.
----------------------------------------
Either gene therapy or selective breeding would work. The problem is that university scientists would be in charge of it and would dedicate the process to producing politically correct morons like themselves.
"The two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity."--variously attributed to Einstein, Frank Zappa, Wil Rogers, etc.
--Boris
1. Watson made a statement, for which we have not heard his reasoning. But to accept it, we have to accept the "appeal to authority."
2. "Australian experts" deride the statement as "ludicrous." Again an "appeal to authority."
3. Then the issue is clouded by some damned ethicist, whatever that is, who says it's unethical.
If I have to accept one "appeal to authority" over another, I'll accept Watson's. And the argument about ethics is a straw man--Watson made no statement one way or another on it.
BTW, is your "TANSTAAFL" quoting Friedman or Heinlein? Whoever, we'll agree those are BOTH authorities we can usually agree with!
You are quite correct about this article. Analysis determines its semantic and logical value to be zero.
I "know" Ellison; he is a stuffed ego. Little man, little talent, big opinion of himself.
I used to be embarrassed to share the same zip code with the man.
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.