Biotechnology+Rules

 =**BioTechnology //Rules//!**=


 * A Table of Contents ||
 * Definition ||
 * A Wee Introduction ||
 * What's New? ||
 * Yada Yada Yada ||
 * Links ||



The Redoubtable Oxford English Dictionary defines "Biotechnology" as:
1. The branch of technology concerned with the development and exploitation of machines in relation to the various needs of human beings.

and

2. The branch of technology concerned with modern forms of industrial production utilizing living organisms, esp. micro-organisms, and their biological processes.

The Redoubtable Oxford English Dictionary defines "rules" as:
I. 1. a. Principles, regulations, or maxims governing individual conduct. b. Const. of some quality or principle.

2. The codes of discipline or bodies of regulations observed by a religious order or congregation; hence occas., the order or congregation itself.

3. a. Principles regulating practice or procedure; a fixed and dominating custom or habit. b. A regulation determining the methods or course of a game or the like. rules of the game transf., conventions in political or social relations or the like.

back to top 

So What Rules Are There? Does There Need to Be a Standardized, Agreed-Upon Set of International Rules?
The rules vary from place to place. Nations like [|Singapore] with lax regulation or liberal policies have already become "R&D havens" by virtue of the restrictiveness or conservativism of other places; wealth and intellect pour into the former from the latter. In other words, parts of the world suffer from "[|brain drain]" while other parts play host to disproportionately large concentrations of scientists and firms. In addition to unfairly denuding countries of their intellectual wealth today, this state of affairs could have ugly consequences in the future.

Consider: at present, there are no international bodies and few international conventions governing biotechnology as a field. So long as this is the case, it is entirely possible for the scientific equivalent of a rogue state to overturn an otherwise worldwide consensus. Right now, for example, there is no binding international law forbidding human cloning - the closest thing we've got is a non-binding UN resolution. But as it grows more practical, the international community might well decide to declare a moratorium on further experiments until its constituent parts can be brought to agree on which practices are kosher and which practices are not. If there were not already some sort of convention granting such an action authority or some body capable of implementing it, any single country could permit or even sponsor further research and experiments in spite of the hypothetical moratorium - imagine trying to halt nuclear proliferation if the UN paid it no mind and the IAEA did not exist. No rules now may mean no chance of regulation later, and that could be a Bad Thing.

And of course, the problem of "unregulation" has another, converse aspect: just as there are at present no brakes to apply, neither is there a gas pedal. Until we have a way to slow research in the "R&D Havens," it seems unlikely that we'll have the tools needed to prod their conservative counterparts into fully exploring the field of biotechnology. And make no mistake: prodding is needful. So long as the US massively restricts stem cell research, for example, American scientists will continue to do their best work in Singapore.

back to top

What should these rules, like, SAY?
Actually, insert subject matter here.

Just a thought: [|Turkey] currently has no guidelines for stem cell embryonic research... 

Whassssssup? (Relatively) New Developments in the Wonderful World of Biotechnology
[|Item the First] - __"The Stem Cells Are Coming!"__ According to Dear Old Auntie Beeb (who happens to be every bit as redoubtable as the OED, ladies and gentlemen), the man who gave us [|Dolly the sheep] has stated that a new technique for creating [|induced pluripotent stem cells] (IPSCs) from the skin cells of human adults has "much more potential" than the older process of extracting stem cells from human embryos. This, of course, is excellent news: [|religious objections] to the use or abuse of human embryos have long been the greatest obstacle to expanded stem cell research, and if it were no longer necessary to use them, all sorts of doors could be thrown open - federal funding for stem cell research would suddenly cease to be a bone of contention, for example. The downside? IPSCs may not be quite as versatile as embryonic stem cells in terms of what they can become. And the as yet unconsidered possible //future// downside? If research on human embryonic stem cells does eventually cease, and if the general public is led or even allowed to believe that this happened because of religious objectors' protestations... people could begin to think that scientific advancement cannot or should not come in the face or religious objections - in other words, in a worst case scenario scientists could actually be subjected to a de facto "religiously hunky dory" litmus test if it begins to look like they're in any way influenced by religion already. And obviously, religiously-derived ethics cannot be allowed to govern science. [|Eppur si muove], amigos.

[|Item the Second] - __From the Farm to the Fork__ Apparently the 400,000 plant species and who knows how many variations of fruits and vegetables are not enough anymore. We now have to cross, enhance, and change crops to get what we want. These Genetically Modified Organisms are a topic of much discussion these days and perhaps deserve more attention than they are currently getting. Some facts: - the government's Genetic Modification Regulations define genetic modification as "the altering of the genetic material in that organism in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination or both" - GloFish, seen below, were the first genetically modified animals to be sold as pets! - simplified, how it works: they take DNA from 2 sources, combine them //in vitro// into one molecule thus creating a new gene, then transfer that new gene into an organism

Why is genetically modifying plants/food something worth considering? -plants can be modified to delay their ripening so they will be ripe closer to when they are actually on the shelf, versus soon after being harvested -plants can be modified to enable them to stay ripe longer to prolong their shelf life and the time they are desirable to eat -can add color to foods -can reduce the need for fertilizers -can help plants/foods be resistant to fungi/bacteria/other harmful things -attempt to improve nutritional value of one food

...more on GMOs coming soon... promise!

back to top 

Discussion, or Talk, or Whatever Socially Functional People Do
After watching Gattaca and discussing the possibilities of "Build-a-Baby," some thoughts... What if the world comes to the point that natural conception and birth become a thing of the past, an ancient way of leaving life up to fate, or *gasp* nature? Instead of the "Honey, let's have kids" conversation and hoping for 10 fingers, 10 toes, and 2 ears, folks could make an appointment with their local Baby Builder and go get the list of available traits, complete with mail-in rebates for blue eyes and discount-this-month-only offers for uber-IQs. And God forbid that anyone decide to escape the new system and leave things up to nature. So which boxes would you check? We could probably all agree to order a disease-free baby, with a perfectly functioning heart and a textbook brain. But where does the programming stop? How about hair color... eye color... height and weight... Sean Connery-ness... Kiera Knightly-esque features... athletic or musical talent...? What would you order?

back to top 

Linkys! (Linkies? Linquies? Je Ne Sais Pas...)
Wikipedia Articles: back to top
 * __External Links:__**
 * 1) [|Biotechnology] - the whole shebang
 * 2) [|Genetically Modified Foods] - the Frankenfoods that so frighten Europeans
 * 3) [|Gene Therapy] - medical miracle or new cause of death on coroners' reports