Resource Notes: Human-Animal Chimeras are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms

Resource Note: Human-Animal Organ Research

(Animal Research by Compassionate Action for Animals. Shared Under CC BY-SA 2.0. Web Source:https://www.flickr.com/photos/compassionateaction/41704834002)

For this resource post, I read Human-Animal Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms by Antonio Regalado. This article caught my attention through its opening line: "U.S. research cetners are moving ahead with attempts to grow human tissue inside pigs and sheep with the goal of creating hearts, livers, or organs needed for transplants" (Regaldo, 2016). I was astonished by this statement and I believe it would be a scientific break through if it could be achieved. However, if the feat could be accomplished, I would question its reliability as most diseases and illnesses are transferred from animals to humans. Since the organs would be coming from animals and placed in humans, I believe this swapping increases the chance that a serious disease could be spread at unpredictable rate. 

Away from this, I was surprised that the NIH agency believed that animals cognitive states may be altered if human brain cells are implanted in the animal. I do not know that much about animals, but I take that statement with much optimism. This is due to the fact that human cells interlink to make one human unique. However, if they do not align perfectly, then they do not work, cause deficiencies, or shut down. Due to this, I believe human cells will not produce as great of an effect in animals.

In closing, this article was fascinating and I hope that they are able to pull of the feat to have animals produce human organs. However, with much optimism I am questioning its reliability to work long-term in humans.

Reference:

Human-Animal Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms by Antonio Regalado. Posted January 6, 2016.

Resource Notes: The Ethics of Human Enhancement

The Ethics of Human Enhancement

(DNA by Andy Leppard. Shared Under CC BY 2.0. Web Source: Flickr)

All semester, I have been looking forward to this weeks topic on biotechnology. My interest embarks upon the ethical and implications surrounding the changes to one's biological DNA. In order to be well versed on this topic, I chose to read The Ethics of Human Enhancement by Andy Miah. The article begins by saying that "technology could allow people to make themselves 'better than well' by using enhancements such as brain modifications" (Miah, 2016). This statement prompted me to question the ethics of technology. I believe that allowing individuals to alter and modify their brain power is unethical and provides a disadvantage for individuals and families that do not have the money or ability to do this. Furthermore, I believe things should be left alone and treated for how they are created. This is because humans are produced with many questions.. how they will be when they are born, if they will be smart, healthy, athletic, etc. Altering this affect doesn't provide benefits for the child but instead provides benefit for how the parents want their children to be. I believe this would also be a tough talk parents would have to have with their child if they chose to alter one's DNA. This is because they would have to tell them that you weren't going to be 'perfect' so we needed to alter your DNA for us to 'accept' you. This can be paraphrased through Miah (2016) in which DNA alterations provides a technological shortcut in order for one to achieve a goal. Lastly, I liked how Miah (2016) brought up the affordability of DNA altercations, but I am still skeptical that it would be affordable. I believe this because every thing nowadays is thought to be expensive. I would be mind-blown if they could create a process this advanced to be sold or treated at a relatively inexpensive cost.

Reference:

Miah, A. (2016). The Ethics of Human Enhancement. Web Link: Biotechnology

Resource Notes: Are You There, Democracy?

Resource Note: Week 12

(Democracy and the Government by Justin Schuck. Shared Under CC BY-ND 2.0. Web Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/justinschuck/8710849033)

Earlier this semester we discussed terms and conditions, as well as privacy laws related to the use of the internet. This week we switch to talking about the internet and its role in spreading ideologies on political democracy. This topic is case sensitive based on a governmental employee releasing private and confidential information a few years ago. The government employee I am referring to is Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden made headline with his decision to go against governmental policy for the justice of the public so they have a sense of understanding of what the government keeps behind the walls. "Are You There, Democracy?" hits on the discussion of technology and democracy based on the author's interest in mass surveillance and its privacy. This article shares insight and stories based on if technology is good for democracy. I personally believe that technology provides everyone with better capabilities to stay in contact with each other. However, with saying this, I realize that the government has the ability to track us with out us knowing. This is scary to think about but I don't think we need to be scared by it. The government has been able to stop terror threats and other incidents that would not have been preventable if it wasn't for the government. In addition, technology has allowed for the general public to share information that reaches thousands of individuals to begin a rally for certain ideas. This would not have happened if it wasn't for technology. I am not saying that we shouldn't be worried about the power technology can have but to say that we need to limit its advancement is crazy because I believe the benefits out weigh its costs.

Are You There, Democracy? It's me the Internet. By: Jenna Bitar. Web Source:link