In this weeks article IPS Cell: Mapping the Policy Issues it mentioned that donors want to retain the right to their donated biological samples. What part of donated don't they understand? I could see if the research was going to go as far as cloning a human being and bringing it maturity. I can see a problem with that! But, if the research that is being done with the donors biological sample is to cure some disease or simply just to be studied and further the field of genetic or genomic research then by all means use the sample to the fullest. If they're any benefits gained by the research and it could possibly help the donor or his family than that should provided to the donor or his family to help in any medical way possible. But, I firmly believe that donors rights to say what the sample is to be done with has to stop at time of donation. This will alleviate any bottle necking of the progress of research and to keep an eye on what is being done with the sample their needs to be an ethic committee that looks or polices the scientist that are doing the research. I am probably sure that their is one that is specifically designed to oversee these matters and to make sure no ethical lines are being crossed. The main issue is to see that we don't hinder progress in the process. Now, lets make the Fortun turn and to back up my statement that I said in class is that I am not surprised that the folk lore of Iceland came into play with the people's reasoning for why it is so great that deCode is trying to unlock the secretes of genetic coding with such an unmuddied gene pool like Iceland's. But, I am surprised at the twist with the Mormons and how an Utah based company is working specifically with the Mormons because of their great genealogy research that each member does on their own family line. I can see why they would helpful to genetic research but I am wondering if they are crossing any religious boundaries by doing so and if the company that is doing the research is owned or operated by members of the Mormon church? And, if the Mormon church has any financial interest in the company that is doing the research? These questions I am curious to know and I am going to see if I cannot find the answers to them. I will post them later when or if I find something out from doing a little digging.

WASTE! That word in itself is a waste of perfectly good letters that could be other wised used to spell another word that would or could be used to describe something of value or of positive means. But, I guess their has to be word to describe the mis-appropriations of something of value or of positive means. It is my personal believe that all things that would benefit mankind should not and ought not be wasted. They should be used ti their fullest potential to benefit mankind instead of being discarded or even frozen. To be discarded! Who on earth likes to be discarded or even likes to discard anything? Not me! I believe that everything should be used to their fullest potential and then if their is waste left over throw it in the trash bin. But, now someone has to deal with it plus it just cost money to dispose of it. Now, lets talk about being frozen, push backed, out of sight out of mind. Isn't that a waste to? Yes, I believe it is because of the fact that we are not taking advantage of our natural resource that we, as a human species, have at our disposal! Yes, I know that if the embryos are frozen they can be used at a later time. What? When we are done arguing about if it is wrong or right. Like, if that is ever going to happen! However, in the mean time we are wasting resources in that we have to pay to keep them frozen I mean somebody is not doing it for free. We are wasting time in that our scientist could be using them to find cures and further extend human life. Give a couple a child that other wise could not have one. And we are wasting life because people shouldn't have to die because we cannot make up our minds as human being to say that something is right or wrong. Which one is the greater sin or greater evil? If you were not able to guess what my standpoint is I don't know what to tell you. Now, lets make the Fortun turn! The whole publicXprivate that is where I believe good science goes bad! Why do some people believe or feel the necessity to become so filthy rich that it is a waste of money to just have it sitting their doing nothing. I guess it does give the person the satisfaction of just knowing its their that they will not suffer the dis-satisfaction of not be able to buy something. But, what if their came a time when money has no value and person must survive on what skills he posses as a hunter gatherer. God forbid that that day should ever arrive! Also, the whole promiseXdisclosure thing how can Kari ask the people to do something as a country and not at least ask them as a people or even fill them in on every detail of how he is going to go about collecting this data base. To me this looks like someone sold their people without asking them first. Wow! What does that sound like?

In reading this weeks articles their were a few things that stuck out to me, but the one thing that I saw that both articles had in common was the ethics of stem cell research and how its treatment or mistreatment of embryos are still the very center of the debate. I know that this kind of sounds rhetorical, but threw this constant bickering of what is right and what is wrong the advancement of this technology is being hindered. The first hindrance came from our very own President Bush by vetoing federal funding that would of greatly enhanced the furthering of this new technology. Because with out money things just don't seem to move very fast or even move at all. Then we jump to the Vatican where they are greatly opposed to this new technology because they believe that man is trying to play God or be God in procreation. Now I don't really know why Bush vetoed the bill I can only read what the article says was his reason, but it seems to me that why can't we have both. Why can't we have both the snowflake babies and have embryos to do stem cell research? If their are still humans on this earth it seems to me that we will always be in ample supply of the raw materials to do both. Here we have the opportunity to help those that are less fortunate and do not have the ability to procreate to be able to procreate and have a child of their own through the advancement of new technology. And here we have the opportunity or promise that through this new technology we may be able to cure diseases that have no cure at this present time, but only through the advancement of this technology we will be able to find these cures. Now here lies the problem, as I see it, some people believe that we are experimenting with creation or the potentiality of creation, but isn't God the one who says what or who shall have life and that life have a soul. Isn't he the one that has the final say in the circle of life. Man is his creation and if God doesn't agree with what man is doing then he shouldn't have made man with the ability to evolve. I like how Green puts everything into perspective when he says that when the first diabetic child walks out of a stem cell clinic cured we will have nothing left to debate on the ethics of stem cell research. I agree and disagree with him because yes it will be what is needed to put this argument to bed, but man will always find something to debate whether its right or wrong. I like how Fortun puts it at the end of chapter X where he states that "genomic fissureXlandscape is not something that is going to be controlled by some exact science, a more representative politics, or a more humanistic ethics. The genomic fisssureXlandscape is where we live and like Iceland it is a harshXbeautiful world." To me Fortun is telling us that genomics is something that cannot be controlled it is something that one just has to sit and admire as it evolves into something of beauty.

I do agree with Professor Flower in his article Coming into Being: The Prenatal Development of Humans that in the first stages of life when the zygote has just become a product of two cells. Life has not begun, but is just merely in the first stages of becoming a life. Thus it is referred to as the pre-embryo stage it has not taken life form yet, but it is about to take on all the characteristics of life. I do believe this is the point that the professor is talking about when it is safe or better yet the point of at which scientist can harvest the pre-embryo before it does go through the next process in which it does fully become an embryo. Then any harvesting after this point would be in violations of certain ethics for certain individuals. However, I will still stick to my personal belief that it is not a violations of ethics if each individual agrees to the process that is being done. I am still sticking to the romanticism that we will be able to heal the terminally ill and do all sorts of good with this kind of technology. Who knows we may even find the secrete to immortality which I believe is at the very center of this technology. Maybe I am wrong that is just my personal opinion. In Fortuns book I believe that the Icelanders were very exciting in Kari returning home with the intentions of bringing the new jobs and money that would help out the Icelandic economy just like Keiko did when he first showed up on the scene in Iceland. I also believe that the Icelandic people believe that they were going to benefit in some sort of health care kickback and this is were I believe Fortun is making chiasma in chapter nine. He is doing this with his title in that the people trusted that certain things were going to happen to benefit them which made also gullible at the same time. The saying that I like the best in chapter nine was " no state no genomics" I believe that this little phrase is a catch 22 phrase were if you say yes to one you say yes to the other or vice versa. You cannot have one without the other and this opens the door to dirty politics.

In the brief article by Callahan he's proposing that their be a new category added to the discipline of ethical theory which would be ideological theory and I totally agree with him. I agree because simply whenever new technology is invented it will always stir up some kind of response whether it be a positive response or a negative one. Of course, with the negative response, people being people, will always raise the ethical question whether or not it ( the new technology) is immoral or not which raises a whole new set of questions. Ideology theory will give these new questions a field of their own to be studied and debated over much like what we are doing now. Then we have Brown's article where he states in his opening paragraph that when an issue has become political it is just another way of saying it has already fallen from grace now the issue is being tarnished by the involvement of politics. The issue at hand in this article is bioethics and and how biopolitics cannot help but be intertwined with bioethics. Thus, politicizing bioethics and then separating them into three politicization categories the first being liberal politicization in which bioethics must strive for both " a substantial degree of objectivity" and "freedom from political influence". The second one being communitarian politicization which begins with the critique of the liberal individual and with an autonomous subject who makes rational choices that are free from social constraints. The third being republican politicization which insist that order can only established through politics itself. Yes, this one way of generalizing the involvement of politics in bioethics, but I firmly believe that we should let bio medicine have a broad lei way in whatever direction it must take in order further life expectancy and eliminate any negativity from life in a medical sense. Now onto Fortuns book and I must say that I had an extreme tough time of picking it up after reading the first chapter, but now I must say that when I started to read in it the second time this term . I could not put the book down until I was done with the reading assignment. The part that caught my attention was the part where Kari Stefansson was mentioned in the same sentence with Mengele and Goring. I mean one could take this to one extreme and be horrified about the grouping of men that he is being categorized with or one can look at it from a scientific approach in which these men were trying to push the boundaries of medical science. Just that the Nazi's really violated and crossed all ethical boundaries in their pursuit of obtaining medical knowledge and I agree that they did. But, if they(the Nazi's) had won the war would these guys be considered monsters or pioneers in medical science that pushed the limits of our knowledge. Its sounds kind of ere.

Whenever new technology is invented or technology is pushed to increase the boundary's of our limitations people are always going to question it. Why are they going to question it? Because they don't understand it and people are afraid of what they don't know or understand. Just like most uneducated people tend to do instead of seeking a better understanding of what this new technology entails. They will place ethical questions on it saying that it is wrong to use embryo's because life begins at this stage or whatever stage they say it does. Also, where did they get the raw materials to do this kind of research? Does it really matter as long as no crimes are being committed? I say no! It really does not as long as nobody is getting hurt in the process. If we as a people can exceed our limitation by using what resources we have at our disposal. Isn't that the right thing to do? If we can use all our technology that we have and what we will have to eliminate the negative and harmful things that life throws at us. Wouldn't that be the wisest thing to do? That is what this weeks readings seem to be addressing and that is what is the moral implication that this type of research entails. Is it wrong to try and make life perfect so we won't suffer any kind of diseases or sickness? Is it wrong with wanting to live a long healthy life and for our children to also to so? Hell no! It is normal for people to want to live and live free of any negativity. I believe that this is the bigger picture that we are after with the advancement of genomic research. Were not after the power to say what can live and what can not. We are after the power to eliminate any defects in the human race has as a species. Also, what comes along with new technology? Power! Power can be a good thing if it is not allowed to become corrupt. How does power become corrupt? It becomes corrupt when people use it to further their own cause instead of the greater cause and that would be the cause of the people. I believe the cause of the people would be to prolong life as long as they possibly can. In order to do this we need this type of research. But, this is were politics comes into play its dirty hand. Politics sees this type of research as a power play in order to push their own agendas and this is where ( as I have mentioned above) it becomes corrupt. When it use used for other purposes than the purpose it was intended for. This is when scientific progress and technological innovation draws the line between good and evil and how it is used to promote whichever. People tend to forget the law of nature and that is that their will always be a balance for life can not exist without it. It is just not possible!

In reading last weeks article "Understanding the Human Genome Project: a biographical approach" the thing that struck me the most ( in a good way) is the moral dilemma that Sulston is having with the fact he and very few others are on the cutting edge of new technology and information that will explain the human genome and he wants to keep all the information public. So, that all will have access to it instead of all this information going private and only a select few having access to it. This allows the door to a monopoly to be opened and we know what happens next. A few good men get filthy rich and whats wrong with that its the American dream. The problem that I personally see and I do believe Sulston thought the same way and that is knowledge is meant to be shared with everyone and one alike. I just believe Sulston thought less of those who did profit monetarily from the knowledge that they were blessed in discovering. I believe in the case with Collins he had to hurry up and take credit for something that was not complete because he had the Clinton Administration bearing down on them to do so. So the American people would have something to take their eyes off the scandals the Clinton Presidency was wrought with. I think that Collins knew it was a bit premature but he had no choice because he probably received some type of financing of federal money that was tied to the Clinton's Administration and they used this to their advantage to take the public eyes and heat of the Presidency. I could be wrong about this but here we go with politics and the advancement of the technology of biology. It can get real shady real fast! I guess the thing that struck me the most about these two scientist is they both specifically acknowledge the existence of God as they're brink of discovering the sequence of the human gene. I like this because I am a Christian and I do believe in a higher Being that has created us and these brilliant men are on the very edge of discovery and they also have a believe in God. Unlike, Venter who just goes on a sailing trip for his way of discovery!