Posted by dj on July 9, 2000, at 23:12:26
In reply to Re: A thoughtuful meds ethicist on genetic(s) hype... » dj, posted by SLS on July 8, 2000, at 18:23:47
> I agree with the concerns of Prof. Baird. This may be an exaggeration, but splitting the chromosome might be both as dangerous and as productive as splitting the atom. It will probably require as much responsible regulation and overseeing as does nuclear energy. It will probably even need international agreements and proliferation treaties. Big business the smallest of my concerns.
>Scott,
My impression is that you've read and thought a fair bit about all of this. Much more so than me, certainly. I just pay attention to a few stories that catch my eyes and ears, here and there... I'm particularly interested in ethical issues so those ones are more likely to catch my attention.
When I can I listen to CBC-Radio as the quality of their in-depth reviews on different issues is usually very thoughtful, balanced and well explained. Recently, and previously (on their CBC-Morning and/or evening Ideas program) I've heard discussions of unethical practices that some university researchers from a univ. in Texas had used when obtaining genetic samples from some folks in a small town in rural Newfoundland, an island off Canada's east coast where the genetic stock has been pretty stable for a few centuries because there is more out than in-migration, etc.
Issues like that are the ones that concern me - the actual and potential mis-use of personal genetic information by unscrupulous individuals and organizations for purposes that serve them and not the folks affected by their actions. How predominant or widespread such practices are I have no idea.
However that sort of thing is what I think we need to be vigilant about and though I agree that people and people within organizations are educatable I also am aware that a lot of folks opt for entertainment over education, more often than not. As American social critic, writer and gadfly H.L. Mencken wrote back in the 20's or 30's: "No one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Unfortunately there's a strong grain of truth in that statement. The fact that the National Enquirer is the top selling newspaper in North America (or so it once was, according to a brilliant former Mass Communicatins professor of mine) is a cause for concern, I believe, as it shows just how gulliable so many people are as does so much of the pap, sap and crap that dominates all of our media.
As someone who was trained and worked in public relations and politics I can tell you how pervasive the influence of corporate PR (disguised marketing and advocacy) on the press is, by just looking at the so-called news any day.
Estimates over 15 years ago were that 70-80% of so-called news orginated with PR sources. And if anything those numbers have gone up as news staff have become leaner and more corporate in their ownership.And then there are the fraud artists, many who are disguised as supposedly legitimate folks on the stock market but todays news and history tells us that there are many crooks there and much gulliability amongst the general public when it comes to stocks. Just looke at the internet hype and effects... Take that same model and apply it to hyped genetics stocks and also apply quarterly corporate performance demands to scientists who are supposed to be focused on the long term...
I see systemically many causes for concern and pressures and systems in our society leading toward more, rather than less fraud, stress, distortions and pressures for bottom-line performances, which are more focused on quantity (of sales, money, etc) than quality (of life -except for a select few, who are often sociopaths).
I hope that my concerns are ill-based and that people and organizations 'better angels' will win the day. However as J.F.K. once noted when referring to dealing with the Russians in the sixties: "Civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is subject to the burden of proof." So here's to both!!
Sante!
dj
> I think a great many of the concerns and arguments of Prof. Baird and the author rest upon the presumed persisting ignorance of the public, the government, and even health-care professionals. All are educable - at least to the point of not needing to slow the pace of discovery to accommodate them. One not need know the physics and logistics of building and operating nuclear reactors and distributing their energy to be able to turn on a light and not get electrocuted.
>
>
> - Scott
poster:dj
thread:39430
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000708/msgs/39942.html