AP+Group+2

//After having read/viewed your respective source material, you should conduct your team debate using the DISCUSSION tab above. Click on the NEW POST link, give your post a subject name, and then type your comment. You will be able to click into the various post headings and reply to each other's comments. Feel free to make as many post categories as you feel necessary, considering the scientific, philosophical, and theological elements of your various scientific controversies. Each group member should post and respond to member posts on a daily basis.//

//Once you have reached a team position (not necessarily a consensus), click the EDIT button on this page and type your team's position in the space below the line. After finalizing your group position statement, please complete the project evaluation survey by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.//

Type Team Position Here: Danielle Power- Gerentology, Erin Engstrom- Synthetic Life, Sophie Zwick- Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

Danielle Power Sophie Zwick Erin Engstrom AP Lit & Comp Bell 2 10-7-14  Who is the Real Monster?

==== Science comes from the Latin word, “scio” which means “the search for knowledge”. With this in mind, science does not have the possibility to go too far. That being said, as long as the research being conducted is working to improve the quality of life and not change the course of humanity there will not be a loss in who we are as a species. While GMOs, immortality, and synthetic life have the ability to cross these very fine lines of right and wrong, thus far, the development of these areas of science has not completely affected what it means to be human. Humanity means “the state or quality of being human.” Humanity is lost when nonhuman inventions are being made and passed off as human. Synthetic life and immortality are scientific advancements that extend past the realm of humanity and could result in the loss of the human identity. Science is on the fringe of going too far and compromising humanity. ==== ==== Science has not yet gone too far, however, recent developments in synthetic life, make it seem as though science could reach a point of no return and cross lines that should probably not be crossed. The first article’s topic was on planting human neural cells into primates. It states, “ putting human neural cells into the brains of other primates, we could find that it changes the way they're able to interact or the kind of social needs they may have in a way that makes them completely unable to get sort of social interactions from each other or even from ourselves”(Greene). Completely separating these primates would put them into a spot where they couldn’t interact with their own kind, but also couldn’t interact with humans. They would be stuck in, “this horrible in between land”(Greene). This is terrible for the monkeys or apes scientists would be testing on. The second paragraph talks about taking a DNA strip from one organism, copying it, and putting it into another organism. Though scientists are still very far away from completely synthesizing life, this is a major step forward in that endeavor. The same can be said for cloned meats. While the first meats that were tested have been successfully cloned, there is still room for speculation. The FDA believes the cloned foods are safe to eat but in the third article Dr. Hansen argues this idea by saying, "I would also point out that Health Canada has actually had scientific concerns on this as well, and has told the Food and Drug Administration that they would consider this to be novel foods that would require rigorous safety testing and that the data are not there yet to show that they're safe" (Hansen). However, the studying of these cloned meats has essentially just begun and still has a large opportunity to improve as research continues. Also as far as the concern involving the labeling of these meats goes, there is technology being created to actually track the cloned meats to ensure that safety and proper labeling is taken account for. As long as these meats are proven to be safe and are properly labeled and tracked, then the ends do justify the means because humanity will not be lost in perfecting and duplicating these meats. Another recent scientific development comes in the form of trying to create immortality or extend life. While there are certain benefits that could come from extended life, curing diseases and a longer lifespan, for example, they are also a lot of negative results. If the technology to increase the average lifespan was invented, it is likely that the rich would control it and those in poor countries who could benefit from increased lifespan would not receive anything. In this case, science would not be benefiting humankind. I think science would be going too far if they attempted to make people truly immortal. In the second gerontology article, it is said that “we would have lifespans of a thousand, or more — even a million — years” if scientists were able to create the technology for immortality (Weiner). This would extend beyond the realm of what science should do to benefit humanity and into the realm of nonhuman. ==== ==== As far as the concept of humanity goes in improving the human condition, the placement of human cells into monkeys and other organisms would deteriorate it. Whatever is made would be synthetic, not real, and not human. By synthesizing life, one is creating something that is not hazardous nor harmful. With this life, we may better understand diseases and conditions that we can then cure. The ends, therefore, would justify the means. The same can be said for GMOs. In the article discussing Biotech Alfalfa, Kimbrell, who is with the Center for Food Safety, says, "Alfalfa is open pollinated, so bees transport the pollen, among other things. And bees don't read signs" (Kimbrell). This runs the risk of creating crops resistant to herbicides which can cause these types of crops to overrun the fields and make it harder to label each group as a GMO crop or a natural crop. That being said, if and when science can be used to engineer a way to keep the crops from cross breeding, the GMO crops can help people in other countries that cannot normally produce these crops of certain type. The same viewpoint can be discussed in the debate regarding cloned meats. If our world had a shortage of a certain type of meat, science would have the means to duplicate the meats that are left or are not diseased to provide food to people across the world to prevent famine. In this sense, humanity is not being lost but enhanced. Immortality is a non human concept. In stories and mythology, immortality is almost always obtained by nonhuman species, gods or vampires for example. The concept of living forever is innately nonhuman and creating everlasting life would breach the sphere of humanity. In the second gerontology article, the author quotes his mother saying “aging, when you think about it, it's so unnatural” (Critser). I disagree. Aging is natural; immortality is not. If people could live forever, it would lead to overpopulation which is bad for human life because there would not be enough room for all the people on Earth. On the other hand, extended lifespan is beneficial to humanity. The elimination of disease and delay of death could provide opportunities for human advancement that could not be reached in the average lifetime. Everything is good in moderation, and as long as we aren’t plugging human brains into primates or overrunning the world with herbicide resistant crops or cloned meats or creating human “vampires”, synthesizing life, furthering the development of GMOs, and extending the lifespan would be an overall beneficial thing for humanity. ==== ==== In short, science teeters on the edge of going too far. While GMOs are a developing field, synthetic life and immortality are still developing fields. As long as GMOs do not pose risk to humans, they are beneficial to humanity. If synthetic life and immortality became a reality, science would overstep its boundaries by playing with the natural life and death cycle and compromising humanity as we know it. ====

 Works Cited:

 [|Chadwick, Alex. "Science vs. Ethics in Creating Intelligent Primates." NPR. NPR, 15 July 2005. Web. 6 Oct. 2014.]__.__

 Hansen, Michael. "The Cloned Food Debate Continues."NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. __.__

 Morris, Frank. "Supreme Court Lifts Ban On Biotech Alfalfa." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. __.__

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'arial black',gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">Raz, Guy, and Greg Critser. "A Look At Anti-Aging Tactics In 'Eternity Soup'." NPR. NPR, 14 Mar. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. < [|__http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124674640__] <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">>.

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'arial black',gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">Weiner, Jonathan. "Immortality Explored In 'Long For This World'." NPR. NPR, 28 June 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. < [|__http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128168264__] <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">>.

Project Evaluation Survey