This picture tells the story of Jamie Whitaker, born to save his four-year-old brother, Charlie’s life. Charlie, who was suffering from anaemia, had only one cure: a transplant of perfectly matched stem cells. When James Whitaker was born, Charlie was given the possibility of living past the age of 30, his expected year of death (BBC News).

For this to be possible, genetic engineers would’ve used a technique called in vitro fertilization (IVF) to fertilize egg cells outside the womb. Then, they would use Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), whereby scientists test an embryo three days old for possible genetic diseases. Any embryo that’s confirmed to be disease-free is then implanted into the mother’s womb (Wall Street Journal). However, in certain cases such as in the Whitakers’ case, scientists would not only try to select embryos that are disease-free, they would also try to select those with other preferable traits, such as an embryo that is of a perfect tissue-match for Charlie Whitaker.

Recently, scientists have been doing the latter…but for a different purpose: to make sure embryos will have certain physical characteristics, such as in the following picture:

So, considering everything, is this technology ethical?

My answer to this question…is no. Even if it’s for a good purpose, creating embryos unnaturally, choosing only preferred embryos, and letting the other embryos die shouldn’t be a possibility – think about the hundreds of lives lost! Consider also the “designer” baby’s future. The child is already given the expectation of being a certain way by his or her parents before they’re even born, especially because they spent thousands on this technology. The cost of making a genetically-modified baby is also an issue that needs to be addressed. It costs around $3,500-$64,800 in Canada to perform IVF alone (IVF Canada). This therefore means that if this trend of bioengineered babies were to continue, there would be an even wider gap between the rich and the poor – with the rich having the “perfect” kids, while the poor will have the not-so-“perfect” kids.

We then question the ethical implications these scientists had in creating this technology. Is this one of those creations that claim to have many positive effects, but really, is bad for you? The following video shows “genetically-engineered pets”, created to show the negative effects of bioengineering, and how many scientists develop this technology in order to earn a profit. (More info here):


Moreover, “designer babies”, even if using it to make disease-free babies, would limit the biodiversity of the human race, and in the long run would make us more susceptible to the diseases that we’re so willing to get rid of. We also can’t forget that tampering with genetics and embryos could result in making even bigger mistakes, such as a mutation. With all the negative effects, it seems as though the idea of “designer babies” is really not beneficial, and maybe, this is just one of those things where we should just let nature run its course, and not let technology interfere.

Word Count: 500
Comments:
Robert Ramassar, RE: Please Make me a Perfect Baby
Mary Laxamana, RE: Designing Babies!?
Sources:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4965-five-designer-babies-created-for-stem-cells.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3854-banned-designer-baby-is-born-in-uk.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3002610.stm
http://www.ivfcanada.com/services/fees/general_fee_schedule.cfm
posted by Rowena @ 1:05 PM  1 Comments

Five days ago, I saw a squirrel lying in the middle of the street, which had, I assumed, died as soon as it was struck by a car. My first thought was, "Whatever. I've seen this before."

What kind of society do we live in where dead squirrels are common occurrences?

That said, it’s obvious that humans have produced negative effects on the environment. Possibly the worst thing we've done is destroying the habitats of animals for our benefit. For example, the Boreal Forest, being the home to 20 plant species, 300 bird species, 85 species of mammals, and more, is one of the most biologically diverse habitats in the country. However, it's being threatened to such an extent by logging and pulp companies that only 63% of the Boreal Forest are intact. The following is an example of a vast area that was cleared in the Boreal Forest:




The Canadian Wetlands is also one of the most threatened habitats. Over 80% of the Wetlands near cities have been converted to urban expansion or agricultural use, which is unfortunate, not only for the thousands of animals that live there, but also for the health of Canada's environment, as the Wetlands acts a carbon sink to help reverse global warming:

Since the arrival of the first European settlers, more than 30 wildlife species have become extinct in Canada, with over 500 plant and animal species now at risk. If habitat destruction continues at this rate, millions of plant and animal species will soon be endangered!

This is where the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) comes in.


NCC was founded by a group of Canadian citizens outraged by the fact that precious habitats were not being protected. Through purchases, donations, conservation agreements, and other mechanisms, NCC recognizes habitats filled with biological diversity, and works to not only preserve these habitats, but also to educate citizens about their biodiversity. Since 1962, this organization has protected more than 2 million acres of land across Canada!

Recently, NCC initiated the “Ten Gifts to Canadians” project, in which they protected 10 Canadian natural habitats to celebrate Canada's 143rd birthday. The gifts ranged from a rare haven for songbirds in Newfoundland, to rising cliffs over Cowichan Bay in Vancouver Island. Altogether, the gifts covered more than 12.5 square kilometers!

Since it first opened, NCC has been working to save wildlife and plant species by preserving their habitats...and they’ve made a tremendous amount of difference! Look at the following picture, for example:




This property, known as the Darkwoods in B.C., is now being protected by NCC, therefore saving the 45 members of South Selkirk mountain caribou herd that resided there in the process. With only 1,900 of these caribou left in B.C. (down from 5,000 about 20 years ago), it was a very important land agreement.

It's because of projects like these that there’s still biodiversity left in Canada. Without them, we'd be the only species left in this country. Now, who'd want that?

Definitely not the squirrels.

Word Count: 500
Comments:
Abigail Lopez, RE: Greenpeace
Wayne Yeung, RE: Save the Giant Pandas!!!
Sources:
http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=354
http://www.eosnap.com/image-of-the-day/destruction-of-boreal-forest-near-athabasca-oil-sands-canada-september-8th-2010/
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/theme_modules/wetlands/index.html
http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=232
http://www.natureconservancy.ca/site/PageServer?pagename=ncc_about_mission
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/07/24/bc-caribou-land-deal.html
posted by Rowena @ 8:02 PM  5 Comments

bolditalicsstrikethroughunderline

posted by Rowena @ 3:16 AM  0 Comments