|
Bio All the Way?
By CHRISTINA WON
Biotechnology is the
fastest growing field of science. New advances and crucial discoveries are made every
second. The benefits of genetic research seem boundless, but gene technology could have
some serious consequences for individuals and groups around the world.
The Human Genome
Project, a trillion dollar global program to map and sequence all human genes, is
continuing to be hailed as the spark of the new age in medicine. Scientists say there are
now only 1,000 unmapped genes, which could contain gene codes for generally rare diseases,
such as Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, with
so-called genetic markers that can identify people who are at risk of contracting them.
They are working on tests that will show predisposition to more common ailments, such as
some cancers and heart diseases, diabetes, asthma, Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia.
Advance knowledge of predisposition to a disease may enable people to adopt lifestyles
that could reduce the risk of, or delay the onset of, a disorder. However, finding a gene
associated with a disorder is a long way from fully understanding the underlying pathology
and even further from knowing how to control the disorder. Is biotechnology all it’s
cracked up to be?
Life insurance
companies could refuse to cover someone diagnosed as likely to contract a debilitating
disease, no matter when it may strike. A crippling disease like Huntington’s may not
strike for many years, or at all. Employers could demand job applicants undergo gene
testing to try to cut down sick leave and early retirement costs. Ethnic and religious
groups with a propensity to particular gene disorders could feel stigmatized or just
become research fodder for medical gains to be enjoyed elsewhere. Life insurance poses
early problems. The question is whether the industry should gain access to gene tests to
ensure people predisposed to fatal illnesses do not abuse the system. But there could be a
major advantage for insurers: gene tests may not necessarily cut disease levels, but could
identify which people will suffer what. However, because of these factors, genetic
discrimination may increasingly become a serious problem.
Summer is coming and the days are not only getting longer but
hotter-much hotter. Going into the city, the compactness of everything and the lack of
trees and wind creates a city-sized sauna in which everyone lives. While some may believe
that this is natural, the statistics show that the average temperature per year has risen
significantly in the last half a century. The use of fossil fuel of the industries and the
cars is the main cause of this greenhouse effect. Somehow, in order to prevent further
heat wave deaths, each person should start carpooling or using mass transit.
I too know that taking the bus, the subway, or the train is a hassle
most of the time. Fighting hundreds of people, squishing onto a train to find that there's
only a space big enough for half of your body, standing in the middle of the car for half
an hour waiting for the train before your train starts moving-all this, I know. Yet
imagine if every single person that took mass transit drove gas cars, then the amount of
carbon dioxide being produced each day would more than double. That means more smog, and
hotter days.
Furthermore, traffic is horrific right now. In order to get from one borough to another,
it takes on the average of two hours-you should be able to leave the states in that amount
of time.
I propose that carpooling incentives or cheaper fares should be created
to get people off their individual cars and start conserving energy. If the government
would provide rewards to people who carpool or provide more accessible and faster mass
transit, the car just might become obsolete. Also, other resources should be used. For
example, electric cars are becoming more and more popular, if only big name oil companies
as Amoco or Exxon, allow for the electric companies to produce their electric stops. As
long as there are other means to get from place to place, cars that run on gas will become
obsolete. With that, the world could possibly become much cooler.
AI—should we have or should we have not?
Richard Kwong
The recent development of artificial intelligence has sparked worldwide controversy. At
first, reaction to the invention of rationalizing machines was positive; the world
celebrated human ingenuity in creating a sentient being. However, as time progressed,
there has been increasing opposition mainly from the same groups that protested against
cloning two decades ago. They argue that the human race has no right to play God. In this
writer’s opinion, the human race is not playing God, but rather exercising its
God-given intellect.
It has been obvious since the first chimp stood upright that the human race would
achieve remarkable things using its superior intellect. Over the centuries, tremendous
progress has been made in every area of human interest while morals and ethics have been
upheld consistently. One of these was the development of artificial intelligence. Whether
AI is rational or not, humans will not take advantage of them and play God. The same
situation took place twenty years ago, when the cloning program was started. The same
people that are protesting now were protesting back then; but did the human race take
advantage of their clones? No. Instead, they were treated as equals and share the same
wins and losses as the people that they were created from.
If anything, AI will find its niche in our world just like clones have. If we take a
pessimistic point of view on developments, then we might as well put everyone in a coma.
For if we cannot explore our interests and test our theories, then there can be no hope
for a better life.
CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF THE NEW MILLENIUM
By
CHRISTINA WON
As new technologies make it easier to find disease-related genes in human DNA, tests to
determine who carries those genes are becoming increasingly common. Knowledge about a
genetic tendency toward a disease can help a person take steps to prevent it altogether or
lessen its severity when the disease does strike. However, people who might benefit from
knowing their inherited risk for certain diseases may shun genetic tests or other family
history information because they fear their employers will use them to deny job
opportunities or health insurance.
Genetic discrimination, a non-issue just a hundred years ago, has become a controversial
topic in the realm of hiring practices as advances in genetic testing have shown some
people to be predisposed to such illnesses as breast cancer or Huntington’s disease.
Genetic discrimination is already occurring in insurance and employment settings and is
reaching into the areas of adoption and military service. The storage of genetic
information has already produced important problems. Because of our sustained investments
in science, we are now traveling down the revolutionary road of genetic research which is
marked by great promise and by great ethical dilemmas.
Congress must enact legislation to stop genetic discrimination. No American should be
afraid to walk through the doors of their doctor’s office for fear that their genetic
secrets will be used to close the door to affordable health insurance. No life saving cure
or treatment should be lost because families, fearing discrimination, refuse to
participate in genetic research. As genetic research continues to unlock the mysteries of
human disease, the privacy rights of every American must be respected and protected.
|
