Australian Bioscience News & Views

Biosciences related musings from an Aussie jill of all trades.

Sydney

  • Stone Owl figurine from Tarsus
    Pictures taken while wandering around.

Snakey

  • Shedding

Orchids

  • Orchid and vine grow together

Sandon Point holiday

  • Sunset view of the beach

Community

  • Artists
  • Friends

Interests

  • Biology, biomedical, scientific
  • Books
  • Cellular Automata
  • Food
  • Funnies
  • Gardening
  • Info
  • Media
  • Music
  • Reptilia

About

Categories

  • Books
  • Cloning
  • Current Affairs
  • Ethics
  • evolutionary biology
  • Film
  • Games
  • Genetics
  • Herpetology
  • International news
  • Lockhart Review 2005
  • Medicine
  • Native fauna
  • Native Plants
  • Religion
  • Science
  • Scientific method
  • Sydney birdlife
  • Television
  • Travel
  • Web/Tech

Church and State

I'm usually exceptionally positive about Sydney University, being a place where opportunity abounds, for those lucky enough to gain a place as a student or employee. It as a community that does huge amounts of charitable and voluntary work on the side, and through its professional endeavours adds much to our country's abilities in ethics, finance, science of life and matter, medicine, history, the social and anthroplogical sciences, psychology, and many worthy fields. Today though, I am saddened to report that my alma mater has fallen onto the wrong side of the divide on separation of Church and State.

In order to secure an empty piece of land curently owned by St John's College, for the purposes of creating a wonderful new facility for medical research, the leaders of the university have agreed to accept the land with the condition that no research about euthanasia, stem cells, or the use of foetal tissue be conducted in that facility. Of course, such research will still be conducted elsewhere within the university, for the benefit of all, Catholic or other, but the acceptance of such a condition is a problem none the less. Our tax dollars, and the profits of private companies are devoted to universities and their much needed basic research. This research is too expensive to do elsewhere at present, as the masses of keen scientists, administrators, technicians, and ethicists are hard to gather in other place, without huge economic impost. Yet, it is possible for a single religion to rule on what is an acceptable field of enquiry, thus side stepping the many questions our community has about the ethics of research.

I am even more demoralised by the news, because our federal government will not defend this co-mingling of Church beliefs and State decisions on our research spending. Our current leaders do not believe in this essential separation of Church and State, not seeing the value it provides a civil society. Though I suspect I'm preaching only to the converted, I will say it now, this separation is vital to our survival as a society respectful of individual difference. Among our number are of course many Catholics, Anglicans, and other Christians, but there are also great numbers of Buddhists, Secular Humanists, Hindus, Athiests, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Agnositcs, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, and other beliefs too numerous to name. Our diversity makes us strong, with the ability to see the world in many different ways, to approach the same dilemma in a thousand different ways, and accept our fellow beings as whole, and worthy members of a community ready to address the world's problems. Any reduction of this essential diversity, by allowing any one group to determine how our research money is spent, is a reduction of our excellent ability to live as a respectful community full of diversity and strength.

Shame on Sydney University for giving in, and shame on our government for encouraging it!

12 February 2007 in Cloning, Current Affairs, Medicine, Religion, Science | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

When pigs fly ...

When something is mighty unlikely to happen, I've been heard to exclaim 'when pigs fly' ... but it seems I'd better come up with something new soon. After all, a team in Taiwan have developed fluorescent green pigs recently ...

They are transgenic, expressing 'enhanced green fluorescent protein' which originally comes from the Aequorea victoria jellyfish, and is now commonly used as a marker of gene expression. That means, when a scientist is trying to insert new genes into an organism, their gene of interest is packed up with this gene that makes things fluoresce green under blue light. Then, if the insertion was successful the cell (or whole organism eventually) glows under blue light when the genes are being expressed. Neat trick!

15 January 2006 in Cloning, International news | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Cloning fraud uncovered

It seems that a number of the big 2004 & 5 cloning breakthroughs weren't :-(

11 January 2006 in Cloning, Current Affairs, International news | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Cloning, stem cells, and Australia – a snapshot, part 1

Early in 2005, the government commissioned a review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The committee consisted of; John Lockhart (AO QC), Associate Professor Ian Kerridge, Associate Professor Pamela McCombe, Professor Barry Marshall, Professor Peter Schofield and Professor Loane Skene.

The committee made some 55 recommendations in all, and I'd like to think about each one before saying I understand the report. So this is going to be a many part series, I hope you're willing to indulge me ;-) I’m going to be honest here and admit that I have not read all of the background material in the Lockhart review yet … but I plan to before completing the comments on the final set of recommendations.

I’ve read enough to date to know it will be informative but unsurprising from my perspective, having already been on the pointy end of many ‘controversial’ research topics ;-)

The recommendations, sometimes paraphrased, sometimes not
… and my thoughts.

1 National legislation is desired almost unanimously
I find it interesting that even those Australians very positive about the benefits of cloning & reproductive technologies are keen for it to be done in a legislated environment. On the other hand, there are some real benefits to have the legal boundaries clearly marked and uniform between the states & territories. It’s nice to know that a person who makes an honest effort to do their job within the law won’t be prosecuted & imprisoned for daily work I guess.

2 Human reproductive cloning should remain banned
The high likelihood of some negative health impact on cloned offspring is a really sound reason behind this recommendation. Dolly the sheep and others illustrate some of the potential problems.

I also appreciate the potential psychological and social concerns for a child born knowing they ‘were created’, in some way, albeit as an exact genetic copy of another person. As I happen to have met one or two pairs of identical twins, and lots of young people born through IVF and other reproductive assistance technologies, I know that it is not this fact alone which concerns people. It is really that as potential parents of a genetic clone we do not trust ourselves to act ethically, anticipating that we might be tempted to clone ourselves for a ‘walking organ bank’ instead of a child to help guide to independent adulthood.

The remaining reason cited in the report for making this recommendation is one that I have to admit I simply don’t get. Apparently there are also many who simply believe it is immoral to create a human clone. As in, I gather from the report that many people would object to human cloning even if the technology was safe and there were laws to prevent The Island type scenarios. I’m living in hope that Australians have become so delighted by the evolutionary, cultural, and other benefits of genetic diversity that they want to make it maximal in the population … laughs … but really, I’d love to find out more about the background to this one.

I personally believe there are ethical ways to clone humans, but honest, compassionate, well informed enquiry is the key.

05 January 2006 in Cloning, Film, Lockhart Review 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

What makes you you?

There is much to be said for how much genetics contribute to essential characteristics. To see what a genetically diverse bunch we are, check out the Genographic Project. Height, eye and hair colour, sometimes weight, maybe temperament can be down to genetics. Susceptibility for everything from cancer to high blood pressure, with depression in some cases, can be attributed to genes. (recent articles)

Sex and maybe gender are determined by genes. If you don’t follow why I treat sex & gender as separate things, my thanks go to BC Holmes for providing a succinct synopsis of a small part of the complexities of human sex and gender variation.

It’s a tangled web though, as environment plays a big role. How much probably depends … I’ll think about exactly what it depends on and get back to you. Susceptibility to some types of cancers may be genetic, but environmental factors are just as often the culprits. Diet certainly impacts on weight, temperament, and at the extremes, even intelligence. Childhood environment influences adult height too. Many of us would count at least a couple of those factors in when describing ourselves J (recent articles)

Behaviour is a sticky subject. Religion and politics all have much to say on behaviour, and in my opinion often unwisely even more to say on the sciences of human behaviour. Still, controversy aside, a good approach to ethics can save a lot of bad science getting useless column inches.

Presence or absence of a soul – I’d better leave that to someone I find a great solace in times of office pain, in a very enlightened post on cloning J

Most of us recognise our friends’ faces, and consider that an essential aspect of who they are. While some of us can't put a name to a face to save our lives.

All in all, in my view it boils down to the fact that there are a multitude of factors that make up the essence of a person, and saying that any specific idea, behaviour or invention will bring on ‘the end of the world as we know it’ is just not sane!

07 December 2005 in Cloning, Current Affairs, International news, Religion, Science | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Recent Posts

  • Travel ain't what it was
  • The colour blue
  • More on Bufo beater
  • Church and State
  • Life is parasitic
  • Sugars from different angles
  • European giant
  • Not the death of science
  • Lizard hunting
  • Power to quality controllers

June 2007

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Archives

  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Add me to your TypePad People list
Blog powered by TypePad

My Wish List

Visit this Wish List at Amazon.com