Difference between revisions of "Team:HebrewU/Ethics"
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
The use of one good crop with specific genetic attributes can be devastating when it is found to be sensitive to a certain disease or specific pests [GMOs could hurt biodiversity in food crops]. Also, being expensive to properly develop, it can foster the rise of giant monopolies in the food industry, which I oppose. <br> </br> | The use of one good crop with specific genetic attributes can be devastating when it is found to be sensitive to a certain disease or specific pests [GMOs could hurt biodiversity in food crops]. Also, being expensive to properly develop, it can foster the rise of giant monopolies in the food industry, which I oppose. <br> </br> | ||
| − | <b> Do you support the use of genetic engineering for the production of food and medicine and for solving environmental issues? <br> </br> | + | <b> Do you support the use of genetic engineering for the production of food and medicine and for solving environmental issues? </b> <br> </br> |
| − | + | Yes. However, In each of the fields that you mentioned, there are different safety guidelines that should lead us through the development of new applications for the technology. For example, in agriculture, we should pay attention to the fact that some solution could give rise to ecological issues, such as the [unintended] dispersal of genetically engineered plants. We should test these kinds of solutions with great scrutiny, and take into account the unexpected consequences of these proposed solutions before rolling them out. <br> </br> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | In each of the fields that you mentioned, there are different safety guidelines that should | + | |
| − | As for medicine, there are | + | As for medicine, there are well-documented regulations concerning approval of treatments. It becomes more complex when considering the idea of trans-humanism. Hypothetically speaking [beyond medicine], genetic improvements of human capabilities of specific [economic] classes could lead to significant social stratification. <br> </br> |
<b> How do you think our society should regulate the use of this technology? </b> <br> </br> | <b> How do you think our society should regulate the use of this technology? </b> <br> </br> | ||
| − | It's important to teach | + | It's important to teach those who are engaged in synthetic biology topics like ethics and ecology in order to create a diverse cohort of experts. These experts can then offer informed opinions when we deal with the issue as a society. To further good regulation, we must also have biologists that can shed light on public misconceptions. When creating regulations, we should seek a balance between effectiveness [of regulation] and development [of the technology] so we don't hinder the progress in the field. A too-strict regulation would cause the development to be done elsewhere, while a too-lax or inefficient regulation will be ineffective in preventing harm. <br> </br> |
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 13:50, 8 September 2018
Ethics
Israel is full of religions. Just on our team, you can find 4 different beliefs. This year, we decided to explore how different religions and none religious perspectives sees the use of genetic engineering. In order to do that, we interviewed representatives from each perspective.
Genetic engineering and Judahism.
Lean more.
Atheism and Genetic Engineering - An interview with Dr. Yair Rezek
About Yair: Dr. Yair Rezek holds a PhD in physics, and is an active member in the Israeli atheist association "Hofesh". He is also a representative of an Israeli political party named "Or" which advocates for principles of humanism, freedom, and equality.
How does atheist movement see Genetic Engineering in general?
The majority of Atheists see themselves as part of the Enlightenment movement and the scientific revolution. The movement is in favor of any type of technological development (and genetic engineering in particular) that will benefit humanity. That being said, like many other technologies genetic engineering has the potential to give rise to harmful results and should be developed carefully.
Don't you think that advocating for any type of technological advancement can, in potential, lead humanity to catastrophe?
It is tempting to see my approach in that way, but I think it is too pessimistic. For example, in relation to the use of atomic bombs, humanity managed to stop the development in that direction. In modern times, humanity even represses technology too much, like in the context of nuclear energy. I think genetic engineering technology could potentially cause damage, both inherently and due to its high costs [which e.g. promote the formation of monopolies]. Still, I think the benefits that we can attain with this type of technology are plentiful. I further think that if we decide to stop developing this technology, someone else will do it in a way that would be less careful. That's why our society should still engage with this technology in a careful way.
What potential downsides do you see as a byproduct of the development of genetic engineering?
The use of one good crop with specific genetic attributes can be devastating when it is found to be sensitive to a certain disease or specific pests [GMOs could hurt biodiversity in food crops]. Also, being expensive to properly develop, it can foster the rise of giant monopolies in the food industry, which I oppose.
Do you support the use of genetic engineering for the production of food and medicine and for solving environmental issues?
Yes. However, In each of the fields that you mentioned, there are different safety guidelines that should lead us through the development of new applications for the technology. For example, in agriculture, we should pay attention to the fact that some solution could give rise to ecological issues, such as the [unintended] dispersal of genetically engineered plants. We should test these kinds of solutions with great scrutiny, and take into account the unexpected consequences of these proposed solutions before rolling them out.
As for medicine, there are well-documented regulations concerning approval of treatments. It becomes more complex when considering the idea of trans-humanism. Hypothetically speaking [beyond medicine], genetic improvements of human capabilities of specific [economic] classes could lead to significant social stratification.
How do you think our society should regulate the use of this technology?
It's important to teach those who are engaged in synthetic biology topics like ethics and ecology in order to create a diverse cohort of experts. These experts can then offer informed opinions when we deal with the issue as a society. To further good regulation, we must also have biologists that can shed light on public misconceptions. When creating regulations, we should seek a balance between effectiveness [of regulation] and development [of the technology] so we don't hinder the progress in the field. A too-strict regulation would cause the development to be done elsewhere, while a too-lax or inefficient regulation will be ineffective in preventing harm.
The majority of Atheists see themselves as part of the Enlightenment movement and the scientific revolution. The movement is in favor of any type of technological development (and genetic engineering in particular) that will benefit humanity. That being said, like many other technologies genetic engineering has the potential to give rise to harmful results and should be developed carefully.
Don't you think that advocating for any type of technological advancement can, in potential, lead humanity to catastrophe?
It is tempting to see my approach in that way, but I think it is too pessimistic. For example, in relation to the use of atomic bombs, humanity managed to stop the development in that direction. In modern times, humanity even represses technology too much, like in the context of nuclear energy. I think genetic engineering technology could potentially cause damage, both inherently and due to its high costs [which e.g. promote the formation of monopolies]. Still, I think the benefits that we can attain with this type of technology are plentiful. I further think that if we decide to stop developing this technology, someone else will do it in a way that would be less careful. That's why our society should still engage with this technology in a careful way.
What potential downsides do you see as a byproduct of the development of genetic engineering?
The use of one good crop with specific genetic attributes can be devastating when it is found to be sensitive to a certain disease or specific pests [GMOs could hurt biodiversity in food crops]. Also, being expensive to properly develop, it can foster the rise of giant monopolies in the food industry, which I oppose.
Do you support the use of genetic engineering for the production of food and medicine and for solving environmental issues?
Yes. However, In each of the fields that you mentioned, there are different safety guidelines that should lead us through the development of new applications for the technology. For example, in agriculture, we should pay attention to the fact that some solution could give rise to ecological issues, such as the [unintended] dispersal of genetically engineered plants. We should test these kinds of solutions with great scrutiny, and take into account the unexpected consequences of these proposed solutions before rolling them out.
As for medicine, there are well-documented regulations concerning approval of treatments. It becomes more complex when considering the idea of trans-humanism. Hypothetically speaking [beyond medicine], genetic improvements of human capabilities of specific [economic] classes could lead to significant social stratification.
How do you think our society should regulate the use of this technology?
It's important to teach those who are engaged in synthetic biology topics like ethics and ecology in order to create a diverse cohort of experts. These experts can then offer informed opinions when we deal with the issue as a society. To further good regulation, we must also have biologists that can shed light on public misconceptions. When creating regulations, we should seek a balance between effectiveness [of regulation] and development [of the technology] so we don't hinder the progress in the field. A too-strict regulation would cause the development to be done elsewhere, while a too-lax or inefficient regulation will be ineffective in preventing harm.