Dr. Edith Breburda
see also:
FIAMC, Bioethics
Genetically manipulation claimed to bring the dead back to life. But the
technique, which circumvented the laws of nature, seems to be vice
versa.
We all know about the complexities of
biotechnologies. Most of the time we might be unaware about the
consequences of genetic manipulations and the patenting of life forms,
that bears on mankind, in terms of unintended side effects in the
environment, animals or humans. In 1990 Saint Pope John Paul II said, “A
basic condition for each economic, industrial and scientific progress
is seen in the respect for life, in particular of the dignity of a human
person.” Already the Second Vatican Council pointed out: “Without the
Creator the creature will disappear.”
In a society, that often shuns God, we
only focus at the accomplishments of modern technologies. The authors
Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler are convinced that modern technologies
will enable us to have the ability to meet and exceed the basic needs
for every person on the planet.
“New biotechnologies” and their creators
claim to do a better job in <<creating>> plants, animals,
men, animal-human mammals, and other entities than did the “Big Bang”
eons of years ago. There is no need, in their minds, to appeal to any
“god” or more than human source of meaning and value to explain reality,
writes William E. May in the Foreword of the book: “Promises of New
Biotechnologies”.
In Isaiah, Chapter 65, verse 18 we can
read about God’s creation: “Instead, shout for joy and be glad forever
in what I am creating. Indeed, I am creating Jerusalem to be a joy and
its people to be a delight.”
Humankind has the privilege in his
ability to use nature for the benefit of the humanity. Basic science and
modern technology is par excellence employed to exercise our dominion
over nature. Science is also accountable and has to justify the use of
nature for human purposes. Even though it is not required, research can
solve many questions pertaining to humankind. In connection with power,
we have to apply intelligence and responsibility over the worldly
resources.
The past millennium brought
unprecedented improvements in human health nutrition and lives
expectancy. For the new millennium the opportunity exists to build on
these advances in order to be beneficial to support a larger earthly
population. Coincidentally many are concerned that liberty, science and
technology are more a threat to the environment than a blessing to
humanity and nature. The unspoken concern is that humans are
interpreting the control of nature as empowerment to improve the human
condition. But they might also do great harm to each other, to the earth
and to other creatures. Thus, the moral necessity of ecological
stewardship has become increasingly clear.
Humans cannot create, they can only manipulate what God is continually creating and maintaining.
Biogenetic engineering appears to have
endless possibilities in manipulating plants, animals and humans.
Despite the enormous possibilities, its technology can also be applied
unethically and recklessly and thus might have the capacity of even
destroying us. Even more, the genetic modifications and manipulation are
irreversible. They alter the organism’s genotype and the one of their
offspring.
On August 13, 2008, Prince Charles
warned in the Daily Telegraph of the largest environmental disaster of
all times caused by genetically altered food. “A gigantic experiment
with nature was initiated by the cultivation of genetically manipulated
plants. Already today the water balance is endangered in countries like
north India and west Australia.” Who are the victims of modern
biotechnologies?
Christian Holmes, the global water
coordinator for the United States Agency for international development
is warning that genetically-modified crops play a significant role in
our water crises. “We are running out of water” he said in November
2013. GM crops have a significant impact on the environment. Throughout
the world GM seeds crops need more water, fertilizer and pesticides.
They deplete the soil by monocultures. Nitrogen and phosphorous
compounds from fertilizer leaked into the Mississippi River and later
into the Gulf of Mexico. The agricultural runoff came from the huge corn
planting area used to produce corn-powered ethanol. Nutrients and
nitrogen stimulate algae growth. The tiny plants will eventually settle
to the bottom waters. Its decomposition by bacteria consumes oxygen. Low
oxygen water cannot support marine life. Scientists from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration speak about a “dead zone” in the
Gulf of Mexico. In 2008, the hypoxic zone covered an area roughly the
size of New Jersey. In 2010 the British Petroleum oil spill overlapped
some parts of the “dead zone”. The oxygen depletion forced many types of
fish, shrimp and crab to leave the area or to suffocate. Animals
adapted to low oxygen, who live in the sediments, can definitely not
survive if the oxygen level falls toward zero. The area of hypoxia
extended far into Texas waters in 2010.
Skeptical people always fear that
genetic changes put the natural world and the food supply at risk.
According to the French scientists Gill Eric Séralini, genetically
modified food poses a risk to human or animal health. We disregard the
risks of pesticides who are much more toxic as we have assumed.
Local populations depend on the success
of their harvest. Instead of the traditional crops adapted to their
land, farmers are forced to purchase the expensive GM seeds, which can
only be used for one year. The promise of Genetically modified cotton,
which would need less chemicals, less water and would bring bigger
profits is false. GM corn is not draught resistant, like the
conventional native species of crop have been.
A study of Green Peace in 2014 showed
that we are not depending on GM crops and we have the knowledge and
technology to produce save, healthy food. Genetically modified crops are
not providing greater yields. NaturalHealth365 acknowledges that our
earth can provide a decent living for our farmers.
Greenpeace protesters speak about “Death
Seeds”, when referring to genetic manipulated crops. GM seeds planted
in India have doubled in the last years. Cities like Mumbai and Delhi
boomed. They received International Monetary Fund loans from
biotech-giants, when they allow them to sell their new seed creations.
The economic revolution did not reach the farmers sliding back into the
dark ages. They had fallen into debts after being convinced to buy GM
seeds.
Thousands of Indian farmers have
committed suicide after using genetically modified crops. They where
told their harvests and income will immense rise, if they switch from
planting traditional seeds to GM seeds. The seeds, manipulated by
scientists circumvented the laws of nature, failed in countries with
cycles of drought. Many farmers borrowed money in anticipation of future
riches. But when the harvest failed, debts and no income forced farmers
to take their own life.
They hoped their children would have a
better life under India’s boom. Landless and homeless they have to work
now as slave labor. Their fathers have swallowed chemical insecticides. A
substance they where promised they would not need for the “magic
seeds”. Instead of being free from parasites and insects, GM pest proof
“Breeds’ of cotton was destroyed by the voracious bollworms parasite.
Farmers have not been allowed to save traditional seeds to replant them
the following year. GM seeds contain so-called “terminator Technology”
and do not produce viable seeds on their own. Prince Charles speaks
about GM Genocide in India. For him the issue of GM had become a “global
moral question”.
Originally, genetically manipulation
claimed to bring the dead to life and not vice versa. We still speak
about De-Extinction and promise the resurrection of dead species.
When the South Korean cloning Scientist
Dr. Hwang was disgraced, he still alleged to be able to clone a BSE
resistant cow, a Siberian Tiger and animals that are on the list of
endangered species.
Animal Cloning raises concerns on
numerous levels and poses already serious threats to animal welfare.
Engineering these animals for more intensive production is associated
with great animal cruelty and suffering. To create cloned animals is
resulting in a loss of the biodiversity. It will have significant
implications for the environment and the ability of cloned herds to
withstand diseases will be almost gone. Cloning seems to be an
incredibly inefficient technology. Hundreds of animals suffer as their
eggs are harvested, or as they are often repeatedly surgically implanted
with embryos in an attempt to produce just one clone. Severe health
problems plague cloned animals and claim the lives of most neonates. A
commonly observed problem with these animals is the Large Offspring
Syndrome. Animals are twice the normal birth weight. Surrogate mother
animals have to undergo an extremely painful and stressful labor and
delivery. Often surgical intervention is required to deliver the baby
animal. The Large Offspring Syndrome is very often accompanied by
visible abnormalities of organ growth, which causes sudden perinatal
death. Cloning is pursued to intensify livestock production. The gain is
to have animals that grow faster so they can be slaughtered sooner.
Also animals should be raised on a smaller space. The rise of
“factory-farming” is already accompanied with serious animal health
problems. The practice of raising livestock in confinement at high
population density lets animals grow so big and quickly that the bones
break. They are cornered to spaces so small they cannot even turn
around. In some ways cloning is an extension of assisted reproductive
technologies. It can be seen as a radical departure from how animals
have traditionally been bred.
Nevertheless, veterinary reproductive
technologies of in vitro fertilization and cloning of animals led to the
efforts that genetic engineering and cloning of humans are going to
dominate the medical environment. The commercialization of in vitro
fertilization already resulted in dehumanizing of women, valued now only
because they produce oocytes. Children, thus manufactured suffering
under various maladies. Children conceived through assisted reproductive
technologies are more likely to have rare congenital conditions. More
and more scientific studies describe the risk of birth defects under
such circumstances. Scientist feel financially pressured to identify
embryos that are chromosomally normal. Despite that, a genetic
predisposition may only contribute to the likelihood of developing a
disorder. Environmental triggers, lifestyle and epigenes are what
actually make the individual sick. The new field of epigenetics explains
how environment and choices can influence the genetic off offspring.
Scientists of the University of Zürich, Switzerland found that a
potential Sperm-RNA-based mechanism exist, by which trauma may be
epigenetically inherited. Offspring of mice that suffered early-life
stress show signs of the disturbance their parent experienced.
Behavioral changes across generations
through sperm RNA have not been of interest for “Single Mothers by
Choice”. Instead they have been concerned that several of them used the
same sperm donor and therefore their children were half-siblings, they
started to set up a voluntary donor register. Unfortunately, some donors
are very popular. To take them out of the catalogue will increase the
interest of others and mothers advertise to buy any unused vials of
sperm from. A study conducted by the Institute for American Values,
called “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” showed that adults aged eighteen to
forty-five conceived through sperm donation are hurt, confused,
depressed and feel less trust in their parents. They are more disturbed
when money was involved in their conception. Children, who will never
have the chance to be raised by their biological parents, commonly use
the phrase: “My sperm donor is half of who I am.” An important topic is
to confirm a child’s right even to have knowledge of the biological
parent. It is needless to mention that many fear being attracted to or
having relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related.
Juanita H. Williams, wrote in her book: <<Psychology of Women>>:
“The identification of women with nature and the description of women
in terms of nature suggests an affinity between the two… her very body
share with the moon its periodicity.”
However, due to modern biotechnologies
women experience a chemical liberation. Today women often decide to
defer pregnancy. Egg freezing is becoming more relevant. It is seen as a
way to free women from some of the biological constraints of fertility.
In this way motherhood can be pursued when the personal circumstances
are optimal for a child.
The American Civil Liberties Union has
defined reproductive freedom as: “Everyone’s right to form intimate
relationships and to decide whether and when to carry a pregnancy to
term.” The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights and
freedoms to include that individuals should decide freely and
responsibly the timing of their children. From this perspective in-vitro
fertilization opened the door to all the other reproductive
technologies.
However, abortion, contraceptives and
in-vitro-fertilization…. are techniques that destroy human life at its
very beginning. The question remains, should we be allowed to employ
modern biotechnologies just because we have the means and financial
resources? Modern societies seem to disregard ethics and morality but
have no problem upsetting nature itself. Can Science imitate nature by
disobeying the laws of nature?
and:
