View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #211
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    For those that don't understand that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns that make genetic engineering a risk to us all that only serves the few, here is some recent news, but first lets review the fact that we don't really have any idea yet of what we are really doing when we start re-sequencing or redesigning DNA, the debate ending quote of destiny:





    Hitler's entire dream was based on genetic superiority.
    What would Hitler have done with the genetic engineering capabilities of today's technology?
    Now imagine all the corporate mechanisms of control that exist in America and how such has been used over the years to bring even more centralized control.
    Now imagine what those same corps and their puppet govs will do with genetic engineering technology?
    IBM and Bayer and DuPont etc are the same corps that were in business with Hitler and were in full support of his dream of a master race.
    Now IBM et al wants us all to help them 'build a smarter planet'...if anyone can add 2 + 2 then they should be able to add up whats going on with genetic engineering.
    Some folks here it seems can only see a Pollyanna version or piece of the picture that suits them such as how such technology could help us all, but unless put into the context of who's developing the technology and for what, such a view is like seeing the toe of a beast yet remaining blind to the rest of the body, especially the hungry mouth.
    Its one thing to wish for good, but in this case its more like wishing for a less painful way to be eaten.


    20 January 2013


    'Quadruple helix' DNA seen in human cells
    Jonathan Amos By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News
    A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) and fluorescent markers reveal its presence inside cells (R) A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) with fluorescent markers revealing its presence inside cells (R)
    Continue reading the main story
    Related Stories

    DNA: A landmark in science
    'Big Data' and a new era of medicine
    Tiny machine apes production line

    Cambridge University scientists say they have seen four-stranded DNA at work in human cells for the first time.

    The famous "molecule of life", which carries our genetic code, is more familiar to us as a double helix.

    But researchers tell the journal Nature Chemistry that the "quadruple helix" is also present in our cells, and in ways that might possibly relate to cancer.

    They suggest that control of the structures could provide novel ways to fight the disease.

    "The existence of these structures may be loaded when the cell has a certain genotype or a certain dysfunctional state," said Prof Shankar Balasubramanian from Cambridge's department of chemistry.

    "We need to prove that; but if that is the case, targeting them with synthetic molecules could be an interesting way of selectively targeting those cells that have this dysfunction," he told BBC News.
    Tag and track

    It will be exactly 60 years ago in February that James Watson and Francis Crick famously burst into the pub next to their Cambridge laboratory to announce the discovery of the "secret of life".

    What they had actually done was describe the way in which two long chemical chains wound up around each other to encode the information cells need to build and maintain our bodies.

    Today, the pair's modern counterparts in the university city continue to work on DNA's complexities.

    Balasubramanian's group has been pursuing a four-stranded version of the molecule that scientists have produced in the test tube now for a number of years.

    It is called the G-quadruplex. The "G" refers to guanine, one of the four chemical groups, or "bases", that hold DNA together and which encode our genetic information (the others being adenine, cytosine, and thymine).

    The G-quadruplex seems to form in DNA where guanine exists in substantial quantities.

    And although ciliates, relatively simple microscopic organisms, have displayed evidence for the incidence of such DNA, the new research is said to be the first to firmly pinpoint the quadruple helix in human cells.
    'Funny target'

    The team, led by Giulia Biffi, a researcher in Balasubramaninan's lab, produced antibody proteins that were designed specifically to track down and bind to regions of human DNA that were rich in the quadruplex structure. The antibodies were tagged with a fluorescence marker so that the time and place of the structures' emergence in the cell cycle could be noted and imaged.

    This revealed the four-stranded DNA arose most frequently during the so-called "s-phase" when a cell copies its DNA just prior to dividing.

    Prof Balasubramaninan said that was of key interest in the study of cancers, which were usually driven by genes, or oncogenes, that had mutated to increase DNA replication.

    If the G-quadruplex could be implicated in the development of some cancers, it might be possible, he said, to make synthetic molecules that contained the structure and blocked the runaway cell proliferation at the root of tumours.

    "We've come a long way in 10 years, from simple ideas to really seeing some substance in the existence and tractability of targeting these funny structures," he told the BBC.

    "I'm hoping now that the pharmaceutical companies will bring this on to their radar and we can perhaps take a more serious look at whether quadruplexes are indeed therapeutically viable targets."
    Prof Shankar Balasubramanian Prof Shankar Balasubramanian in front of a painting by artist Annie Newman that represents quadruplex DNA

  2. #212
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    More to consider:
    Nanotechnology offers disturbing parallels to GMOs

    Nanotechnology offers disturbing parallels to GMOs

    A new technology is introduced that proponents claim will provide more nutritious food. Industry races ahead bringing applications to market with little or no government oversight. Scientists grope to understand impacts on human health and the environment. Consumers are left in the dark eating and using products with unknown risks. Sound familiar? The new technology is not genetic engineering, but nanotechnology.

    This article is based on presentations given by Kantha Shelke, Ph.D., Corvus Blue and Ian Illuminato, health and environmental campaigner, Friends of the Earth.

    This is the first of a two-part series.

    Nanotechnology is the creation and manipulation of tiny objects at the level of molecules and atoms. According to Kantha Shelke, Ph.D., nanotechnology is “the art and science of building stuff that does stuff at the nanometer scale.”

    A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter or one-hundred thousandth the diameter of a human hair. Imagine comparing the size of a marble to the size of the earth.

    The theory behind nanotechnology is that by manipulating and assembling molecules and atoms—the so-called building blocks of matter—in certain configurations scientists can create almost anything.

    At the nano-scale, the laws of chemistry and physics work differently, and materials develop unique properties, not seen at normal size. Opaque materials, such as copper and zinc, become transparent; stable materials, such as aluminum, become explosive; and solids, such as gold, turn into liquids.

    Many applications
    Scientists are applying nanotechnology to a wide range of industries, including food, food packaging, kitchenware, personal care, medicine, electronics, clothing, sports equipment, fertilizers, and pesticides. There are more than 800 consumer products on the market made using nanotechnology. A tableware set contains a nano silver coating that kills bacteria, aiming to prevent food-borne diseases. A toothpaste contains nanoparticles that help remove plaque and provide minerals to protect against tooth decay. A golf club shaft is made from “nano composite technology” to be stronger and lighter weight.

    Disturbingly, nanotechnology could also be used to make chemical and biological weapons. A report by NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly Committee stated, “The potential for nanotechnology innovations in chemical and biological weapons is particularly disquieting, as nanotechnology can considerably enhance the delivery mechanisms of agents or toxic substances.”

    Nano foods and packaging
    In foods, proponents say nanotechnology can boost and target nutrition, extend food shelf life, improve taste and texture, and detect bacterial contamination.

    There are 150-600 nano food and 400-500 nano food packaging applications on store shelves. Toddler Health is a nutritional supplement containing nano iron particles that claims to offer toddlers increased bioavailability. Canola Active cooking oil contains NutraLease, a nutraceutical technology that uses nano-capsules to enhance the delivery of nutrients. A preservative known as AquaNova contains nano capsules of water insoluble substances to increase absorption in the body. McDonald’s burger packages contain nano-spheres that require less water and less time and energy to dry. Miller Beer bottles are made from Imperm, a plastic imbued with clay nanoparticles that are as hard as glass but stronger and provide longer shelf life.

    Major food companies, such as General Mills, Kraft, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Cadbury-Schweppes, and Unilever, are researching and developing nano food and food packaging applications building what is expected to be a $6 billion market by 2010.

    There are nano agricultural applications. Syngenta has developed a plant growth treatment, PrimoMaxx nano emulsion. Cornell scientists developed a cloth with saturated nano fibers that slowly release pesticides and herbicides when it is planted with seeds.

    Other agricultural giants conducting nanotechnology research include Dupont, BASF, and Cargill, but, surprisingly, not Monsanto.

    Health risks
    Like genetically modified foods, products of nanotechnology pose risks to human health and the environment. Nanopaticles are more chemically reactive than larger particles. Because they are so small, they have greater access to the human body than larger particles. They can be inhaled, penetrate skin, gain access to tissues and cells, and cross the blood-brain barrier.

    Assessing the risks of nanotechnology is lagging far behind. “There is virtually no data on chronic, long-term effects on people, other organisms or the wider environment,” wrote British scientist John Lawton, author of a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

    Initial studies raise red flags. A recent study published in Nature showed that carbon nanotubes may exhibit the same cancer-causing potential as asbestos. In tests on rats, nanosilver has also been shown to be toxic to liver, brain, and stem cells and may harm beneficial bacteria.

    Problems with sunscreens
    Sunscreens are the most widely used consumer product containing nanoparticles. Researchers in the United States found that in tests on mice, sunscreen nanoparticles over stimulated brain cells, which could lead to brain damage.

    Studies by researchers at the University of Toledo and Utah State University and the University of Utah found that nanoparticles, including nano-titanium dioxide, found in sunscreens killed beneficial bacteria and soil microbes.

    Antibacterial nano food packaging and nano-sensor technologies may also harm beneficial bacteria in our bodies and the environment, and lead to the development of more harmful bacteria. Nano agrochemicals are likely to be more potent and toxic even in very small quantities.

    Another techno-fix
    As a result of the dangers, the National Research Council has called for more research on the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology. The Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration and Friends of the Earth are calling for a moratorium on products containing nanoparticles until safety laws are established and the public is involved in decision making.

    Like genetic engineering, nanotechnology is viewed as a techo-fix to solve the worlds’ food challenges. However, it is likely to further entrench fossil fuel and chemical intensive industrial agriculture and encourage continued reliance on large monoculture farms, resulting in the loss of small farms and biodiversity.

    Regulations struggling to catch up
    Government regulators are also lagging far behind the rapid development of nanotechnology. The European Union has taken the lead regulating nanotechnology as it did with GM foods. The EU will require nanoparticles in cosmetics to be labeled on the ingredients list and require increased safety testing for cosmetics containing nanoparticles. It will also prevent nanomaterials from being placed on the food market until being subject to nano-specific, standardized, safety assessments.

    The problem with the new regulation is that it will take nearly 44 months to come into effect, despite the fact that nanocosmetics are already on store shelves.

    Earlier this year, Canada became the first government in the world to require companies to provide information about their use of nanomaterials in products.

    In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration’s current policy is similar to its policy of substantial equivalence with GM foods, treating nanoparticle food ingredients no differently than bulk material ingredients or products.

    J. Clarence Davies, a former official with the US Environmental Protection Agency, has called for the creation of a new Department of Environmental and Consumer Protection to oversee nano product development and risk assessment.

    As with GM foods, the US government and industry both argue that labeling products containing nanoparticles would scare consumers with inaccurate or incomplete information.

    Consumers in the dark
    As American consumers eat GM foods without their knowledge, so they are unaware of using and consuming nano-based products. There is very little public awareness of nanotechnology. One survey found that 49% of Americans haven’t heard anything about nanotechnology, 26% heard just a little, 17% heard some, and only 7% heard a lot.
    © Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report September 2009

    Additional sources:
    The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Nanotechnology - Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
    Associated Press. “Scientists concerned about nanotech products.” November 13, 2008.
    Food and Water Watch. “The Risks of Nanotechnology.” September 2008
    Ball, Philip, “Nanoparticles in Sun Creams Can Stress Brain Cells.” Nature. June 21, 2006.
    KABC-TV. “Studies Show Nanoparticles Used in Sunscreens and Makeup can Harm the Environment.” March 26, 2009
    “Down on the Farm: The Impact of Nano-scale Technologies on Food and Agriculture.” ETC Group. November 2004.

  3. #213
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
    Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
    The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
    This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.

    "THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"

    This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
    DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
    and is as set forth herein as follows;

    section 1. FINDINGS,
    The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:

    1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
    GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
    and,
    1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
    and,
    1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
    and,
    1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
    and,
    1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
    and,
    1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
    1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.

    section 2. DEFINITIONS:

    2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.

    2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).

    2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

    section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:

    3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

    3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.

    3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.

    3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
    A lot of complicated legalese above my pay grade but I think placing patents on any DNA is detrimental. Some of these DNA patents are invasive species that bird droppings can introduce to unwilling farmers' land and they bring anti-piracy charges against them unless they pay royalties. At worse, invasive species can be created (actually corrupted since only God can create life) in the lab that kills off other natural life (plant or animal) then could potentially hold a monopoly on whether or not people can eat. I'm for genetically modified food if it can be used to make food more healthy (such as reducing cholesterol in meat as an example) and bring about greater yield to feed more people on less land. I am totally against GMF used as a power play to control the world's food supply and thereby holding people hostage for banks full of money or other forms of population control. If any industry needs to be highly regulated at levels I'd place on par with nuclear proliferation, its playing Almighty God with food and life. One thing I've learned in my short time on this earth is there are people who have absolutely no conscious when it comes to money and power and most people will do some pretty unthinkable things if they know they can get away with it.
    Last edited by Smeagol; 01-30-13 at 01:58 PM.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  4. #214
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    The Zebrafish uses stemcells to fix damaged/blind eyes, and this technique may also be used for human stemcell therapy one day so as to bring light to the blind eye:

    Fraser, B., DuVal, M. G., Wang, H., & Allisonm, W. T. (2013). Regeneration of Cone Photoreceptors when Cell Ablation Is Primarily Restricted to a Particular Cone Subtype. PLoS ONE, 8, (1), e55410 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055410

    Zebrafish may hold the answer to repairing damaged retinas and returning eyesight to people
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  5. #215
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    The Zebrafish uses stemcells to fix damaged/blind eyes, and this technique may also be used for human stemcell therapy one day so as to bring light to the blind eye:

    Fraser, B., DuVal, M. G., Wang, H., & Allisonm, W. T. (2013). Regeneration of Cone Photoreceptors when Cell Ablation Is Primarily Restricted to a Particular Cone Subtype. PLoS ONE, 8, (1), e55410 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055410

    Zebrafish may hold the answer to repairing damaged retinas and returning eyesight to people
    Thanks DDD, not sure how you feel about the topic and the proposal, but just to be sure folks are aware that in no way would this proposal stop such research (see sec3(c)), but if such research involved gene splicing/altered sequencing etc it would be then strictly regulated.

  6. #216
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    A lot of complicated legalese above my pay grade but I think placing patents on any DNA is detrimental. Some of these DNA patents are invasive species that bird droppings can introduce to unwilling farmers' land and they bring anti-piracy charges against them unless they pay royalties. At worse, invasive species can be created (actually corrupted since only God can create life) in the lab that kills off other natural life (plant or animal) then could potentially hold a monopoly on whether or not people can eat. I'm for genetically modified food if it can be used to make food more healthy (such as reducing cholesterol in meat as an example) and bring about greater yield to feed more people on less land. I am totally against GMF used as a power play to control the world's food supply and thereby holding people hostage for banks full of money or other forms of population control. If any industry needs to be highly regulated at levels I'd place on par with nuclear proliferation, its playing Almighty God with food and life. One thing I've learned in my short time on this earth is there are people who have absolutely no conscious when it comes to money and power and most people will do some pretty unthinkable things if they know they can get away with it.
    Smeagol thanks for the thoughtful post, thought you might be interested in some links:

    Monsanto et al's continuing effort to et al...
    New farm bill gives Monsanto carte blanche - Massive public outcry necessary to stop the legislation from passing into law

    Meet Monsanto's number one lobbyist: Barack Obama
    http://www.naturalnews.com/037310_ba...#ixzz2JUIvNX62

    Toxin from GM crops found in human blood: Study : North, News - India Today


  7. #217
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Thanks DDD, not sure how you feel about the topic and the proposal, but just to be sure folks are aware that in no way would this proposal stop such research (see sec3(c)), but if such research involved gene splicing/altered sequencing etc it would be then strictly regulated.
    You are welcome. But what do you mean "strictly regulated?" More regulation should not burden otherwise creative and marvelous work of scientists.

    Look here for instance genetic scientists have found the gene that releases protein SIRT3 that boosts blood cell regeneration, effectively reversing the aging process. They could alter the gene to provide longevity in the Brown et al (2013) study. Though it is at the experimental phase (i.e., mice of course were used) it may one day be offered to us as well. I think scientists should focus on improving humanity and be less burdened with regulation. It is burdensome as it is, do you know how many ethical steps a research proposal should undergo before it is allowed to be carried out?

    References:

    Brown, K., Xie, S., Qiu, X., Mohrin, M., Shin, J., ... Chen, D., (2013). SIRT3 reverses aging-associated degeneration. Cell Reports, DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.01.005
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  8. #218
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    You are welcome. But what do you mean "strictly regulated?" More regulation should not burden otherwise creative and marvelous work of scientists.

    Look here for instance genetic scientists have found the gene that releases protein SIRT3 that boosts blood cell regeneration, effectively reversing the aging process. They could alter the gene to provide longevity in the Brown et al (2013) study. Though it is at the experimental phase (i.e., mice of course were used) it may one day be offered to us as well. I think scientists should focus on improving humanity and be less burdened with regulation. It is burdensome as it is, do you know how many ethical steps a research proposal should undergo before it is allowed to be carried out?

    References:

    Brown, K., Xie, S., Qiu, X., Mohrin, M., Shin, J., ... Chen, D., (2013). SIRT3 reverses aging-associated degeneration. Cell Reports, DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.01.005
    DDD, thanks again.
    Strictly regulated means a broad acknowledgement of the risks of this technology/genetically modified organisms and applying every measure to minimize those risks.
    The nature of life itself is chain reactive and so this inherent function of life also applies to technologies that work to redesign the blueprints of life.
    Living life is a constant effort to balance risk against reward no matter what moment your in, this concept applies exponentially when in the context of applying biotech.
    I have heard endless tales of the rewards or benefits of said technologies from the folks who stand to gain the most from such, example's Monsanto et al, yet those same players seem to ignore or dismiss any possible risk factors, and that's just with known risk factors, the unknown risk factors they don't even acknowledge as a part of reality.
    I've seen many folks swayed by the promises without investigating or considering the risks.
    Charging ahead without knowing the terrain is very risky business indeed, just ask Sherman123 or General Custer.

  9. #219
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    DDD, thanks again.
    Strictly regulated means a broad acknowledgement of the risks of this technology/genetically modified organisms and applying every measure to minimize those risks.
    The nature of life itself is chain reactive and so this inherent function of life also applies to technologies that work to redesign the blueprints of life.
    Living life is a constant effort to balance risk against reward no matter what moment your in, this concept applies exponentially when in the context of applying biotech.
    I have heard endless tales of the rewards or benefits of said technologies from the folks who stand to gain the most from such, example's Monsanto et al, yet those same players seem to ignore or dismiss any possible risk factors, and that's just with known risk factors, the unknown risk factors they don't even acknowledge as a part of reality.
    I've seen many folks swayed by the promises without investigating or considering the risks.
    Charging ahead without knowing the terrain is very risky business indeed, just ask Sherman123 or General Custer.
    The Institutional Review Board is who allows a research to be undertaken. It measures risks and compares them with the benefits. Without such permission the research cannot legally take place.

    The IRB on the other hand strictly adheres to the Belmont principles that promote: Justice, Autonomy, and Respect of other people. Should research go against these principles it may not receive permission from the IRB.

    Not only does the IRB regulates research but the researchers themselves also have added science specific ethical concerns to undertake. These ethical concerns are different among sciences and nations/cultures.

    So these are foundations already established before any research take place. They measure the risks and benefits.

    So my point is: a) Are there added regulations in place, and b) are they necessary?


    The Belmont Report | HHS.gov
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  10. #220
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    [QUOTE=DDD;1061415955]The Institutional Review Board is who allows a research to be undertaken. It measures risks and compares them with the benefits. Without such permission the research cannot legally take place.

    The IRB on the other hand strictly adheres to the Belmont principles that promote: Justice, Autonomy, and Respect of other people. Should research go against these principles it may not receive permission from the IRB.

    Not only does the IRB regulates research but the researchers themselves also have added science specific e
    Last edited by DNAprotection; 02-01-13 at 11:47 AM.

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •