"Will gene-altered athletes kill sport?"

The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0823/p12s01-stgn.html

With a large amount of media coverage being covered on New York Yankee's Alex Rodriguez's use of genetic enhancements, there is a lot to think about considering athletes using gene modification.  With this gene enhancements athletes could be injected with an animal's DNA and receive benefits to their performance, allowing muscles to grow at a much faster speed and stronger.  Although the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has classified this procedure as illegal doping, it has the potential to be of great use in genetic therapies.  

As noted in the article as well, it's important to remember athletes are using tactics we do not know about, and that by legalizing it we could have a much stronger form of regulation.  With legalization we could keep track of who is taking what, the amounts they're being injected with and how often.  But, the question comes in, is it really fair for an athlete who is using genetic enhancements to play against an athlete who is not?  I would argue no.  While gene enhancement could create a large benefit to many athletes if they are injured, it should continue to not be allowed due to the fact that it would create an uneven playing field.  

"The U.N. on Cloning: Ban It"

Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/360mveat.asp

While the United Nations ban on cloning is not legally binding, a three to one ratio of most nations against all forms of cloning, it's of concern to think about what will happen if we go against the majority and pursue researching cloning?  With influential countries such as the Republic of China, Belgium, and Great Kingdom all condoning the United Nations ban, it's true that these countries would most likely be behind us if we chose to move forward with this research.  However, I believe it's of legitimate concern how we it would affect our relationships with other nations if we choose to clone.  

The article makes a good point in noting that even if we were to allow access to cloning to all of our citizens, it would require millions of eggs for reproductive cloning.  Although there is no doubt that the procedure to acquire these eggs can be dangerous and indeed invasive, I believe it is important to note that to ban it on this argument would go against our fourteenth amendment of right to privacy.  It is fair to be weary of the fact that we would have to have, what the article calls "egg farms," to hold all of these eggs, it would be the choice of the woman to go through with the procedure.  No woman would be mandated to give up an egg, forced to produce an egg for this cause, so how this be exploitation (as described in the article)?  

There is also much debate regarding the wording of the United Nations' definition of their ban on cloning of the word inasmuch, and what that means.  While I think it's cleaver to try and ascribe the word to mean "to the degree to," and argues the ban does not interfere with therapeutic cloning, it does seem to infer that the United Nations did mean "seeing that."  Due to the wide debate regarding the wording of the U.N.'s stance on cloning, it may be wise for them to have all the countries revote, to make it clearer as to whether they ban all forms of cloning (including therapeutic cloning), or just some.  This is too large of an issue to not have a clear stance on how the world feels about cloning.  as this could seriously affect our relationships and constitutional rights if we are to move forward with research in this area.

"Tinkering With Humans"

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/books/review/Saletan.html

In this book review of Michael Sandel's book based  on his "The Case Against Perfection," the article talks about Sandel's' take on genetic engineering as a "threat to our humanity."  Although I believe that genetic engineering has the potential to help many, Sandel offers a good point in that it's not just about the fact that it could not be offered equally to people, that it's not safe, it doesn't really work as a form of therapy, etc. but that it may "violate the norms embedded in human practices."  Genetic enhancement could completely change our view of what perfection is, and how to go about it.  Do we really want to go against nature, and everything we know?

"Stem cells could halt osteoporosis, promote bone growth"

Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=50577314&taxid=39

Research findings suggest there may be a new pathway that controls bone growth through in-vivo and in-vitro that could potentially shield a lot of light on how to effectively treat osteoporosis.  The procedure revolves around mesenchymal stem cells with intereron (IFN) gamma that has the the potential to help advance bone growth, which could be extremely valuable to those who suffer from osteoporosis.  IFN has been previously been used to keep away infections and to help the immune system fight off illnesses such as cancer.  

Although this procedure has the potential to offer help to many people, especially with 1 in 4 women suffering from osteoporosis, the use of stem cells concerning this procedure has been of concern.  Even though much more research needs to be done, it has great potential to help many people, and with the high costs of health care this procedure could save a lot of people money who have to spend money on surgeries and procedures due to accidents that happened due to osteoporosis (ex. broken hip, and having to surgery to fix it).  With our economy in the horrible recession it's in, this could potentially help a lot of people.  

"Researcher seeks to turn stem cells into blood vessels"

Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=49861563&taxid=39

There is a lot of controversy over stem cells, especially with the recent uplifting from the Obama administration ban on stem cell research.  With health care being very much an issue in this country due to inaccessibility, this new research could be especially promising to many.  Stress that is being created throughout the USA due to the economy, heart disease and many other illnesses could potentially grow, which could cause an even more growing need for this procedure to work.  Turning stem cells into blood vessels could potentially save many, many people, and with health disease being the leading cause in this country this could be a huge medical discovery.  

However, one must think about the ramifications that not only stem cell research causes by some who are against this kind of research, but also the ethical problems with whether by administering this procedure would be like playing God.  I argue though that by using this procedure would be not too much different than any other preventative method to ward away disease and infection (antibiotics, etc).  Although I'm not a huge promoter of stem cell research or necessarily agree with it fully, I do believe that it could offer an end to suffering for a lot of people who suffer due to illness &/0r injury.  Many it is unethical to use stem cell research, however, one could also argue on the other hand that it could be unethical to not help these people where we can offer help.  Genetic enhancement: friend or foe?

"Clip: Stem Cell Injection in China"

Link to Clip of doctor in China injecting stem cells:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQk-sfUvMZM&feature=related

While the United States is still the leader in genetic enhancement research, China has had some developments as well, which is why I found this clip to be interesting.  I was personally surprised to find that the stem cell procedure done in this clip isn't more invasive.  

If you find this clip interesting as well, attached is another link to further material on China's stem cell research taken on the view that until we are person's we are not human.  However, the author does not define what personhood means, leaving it much up to the reader to decide what they exactly mean by that.  

Further Link if you liked this clip:

http://www.iias.nl/nl/29/llAS_NL29_49.pdf

"Obama to Lift Ban on Stem Cell Research Soon: Aide"

Link to Washington Post Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR200921600901.html

President Obama's plan to lift Bush's eight-year ban on embryonic stem cell research provides much promise to the medical community and it's possible capacity to cure many diseases.  While it's no doubt that this future executive order by our new administration could save many lives, and has the possibility to restore function to an unimaginable amount of people, I think the issue comes up with whether this is a smart move for Obama right now politically.  Extracting cells from human embryos is such a controversial topic that it could be detrimental in not appealing to conservatives.  

However, there is also the issue of whether it's ethical to extract these cells at all from human embryos, and whether it constitutes the taking of life.  Many would argue that it deprives the future of life, but the question comes in of where does our obligation come in to the lives of those who suffer everyday from Parkinson's Disease or diabetes?  Don't they have a right to live too?  How do we decide whether to possibly save the lives of those already born, or to mass of cells?  

Obviously the ethical issue over using human embryos cannot be solved over night, but one thing is for sure, and that is a lot rides on the uplifting of this ban, and the possibilities are great.  

YouTube Video: "Company Taking Bids to Clone Dogs"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcvt-JPg7tO

"Tough Task: Advancing the Debate Over Cloning Embryos"

Link to The Christian Science Monitor's Article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0718/p18s02-stgn.html

Although this article was written in 2002, it is still quite relevant for today's issues over cloning embryos and regulation.  With an end to the Bush Administration, and a well expected uplifting of the ban on embryonic research as promised by Obama, regulation will be even more of importance to be discussed.