The human God complex

Should we be allowed to control DNA?

If you imagine, that you are terminally ill, you will need a new liver or you have achieved an age in which it’s required to get a transplant, wouldn’t it be a relief when you know that you have a contingency reserve? But what price do we have to pay for that and what are the limits on this matter?

The controversial method I’m talking about is the in-vitro fertilization in combination with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In this artificial insemination, the actual fertilization doesn’t take place in the uterus of the woman, rather in the test tube. Moreover, the decision is made by the PGD, which embryo is inserted into the mother. In consequence of this, hereditary diseases such as Trisonomie 21 (Down syndrome) or cystic fibrosis can be identified and sorted out by chromosome analysis in advance. Therefore it is possible to generate a baby with certain characteristics targeted.

In Germany this method is permitted only when a couple has completed at least one year of unprotected regular intercourse and still hope for a positive pregnancy. However, that does not include the PGD, because the selection of an embryo with certain properties is still banned, as well as in England. Nevertheless, in 2003, Jamie, the first “rescue-baby” of the UK, was born. The genetic studies were performed in the United States, because they are illegal in England as well as in Germany. Jamie was born to allow his older brother, who suffers from a life-threatening blood disease, a chance for cure. Similarly, it already happened in Spain and France, where children were born to permit older siblings a healing.

But anyone who thinks he found the answer to all the deadly diseases hasn’t really looked outside of the box. Because here revealed much more potential yet.

The U.S. company “23andMe” registered the patent with the unassuming name of "gamete donor selection based on genetic calculations" (patent number: 8543339) in September this year, which allows to determine the genetic characteristics of a child (e.g., eye color, or susceptibility to disease) on the basis of the parental genome. Critics call this method as a precursor for the so-called “designer babies”, when it comes to the idea that an embryo with certain attributes and properties, such as athletic, intelligent or even eye color can be created.

In my opinion it’s very difficult to decide about anothers person’s life! I think it is ok to have a second child, to help the older sibling by donations, as long as the new born child won’t be harmed or disadvantaged. But I don’t like the use of the PGD, because I think humans shouldn’t be allowed to play “god”. Therefore I absolutely don’t like the idea of designer babies. Eliminating natural selection and creating a greed for power! And if we have learned anything from the Nazis: there shouldn’t be any way to control somebody or something because of special circumstances!

What's about you? Do you think it is questionable and ethical to create a child and "exploit" it to save other children? If so, where are the boundaries in terms of donations and is it ok to decide about the life of other people (who can’t decide for themselves)?

And what about designer babies: should we leave it to genetics or should a person be allowed to choose their child 's sex or characteristics for the parents' pleasure?

L.M

Twitter – Advocate for Freedom of Speech or a social networking tool craving content regulation?

Can we really control social media? 

Demogr3thics recently held a facilitated discussion with class mates on the topic of unsocial media and Twitter Trolls. This discussion produced many interesting views and ethical issues relating to social media and the problems it faces. 

Twitter is now the biggest social media platform with users reaching the 500 million mark in 2012 and 340 million tweets are being sent per day. It is clear it is an effective channel, which can reach many people at one time.

Does that come at a price though? Has Twitter become a platform where people take ‘Freedom of speech’ too directly and post offensive comments as they think they are protected in the comfort of their own home?

In many cases, these streams of tweets can play key roles in the events of today. Take 2011 for example, Social media networks played a huge role in the London Riots, with mass messages being sent around sites such as Twitter, Facebook and instant messaging BMM, encouraging other members to get involved. For many, these interactions caused contribution from the easily lead members of the public who didn’t even know what they were participating in. This was seen from the news, where interviewers asked rioters why they were partaking and were answered with blank stares and completely misguided reasons.

Although Twitter may not have been the primary reason that these riots continued and gained pace, do you perhaps believe they wouldn’t have been as bad without the encouragement of social media? Should social networks have been more regulated to avoid this in the first place?

Similarly to this, taking the case of the recent murder of Solider Lee Rigby, there was a huge uprising in racist incidents after the attack due to the influence spread on social media.

Tweets of racial intent on Muslims led to racially aggravated assaults and numbers rose to more than half of racist assaults in a year. 11 people were also arrested after making racist or anti-religious comments on Twitter. However, social media was filled with a stream of comments, so questions remain, how did only 11 people get sentenced for their comments?

Or should these tweets have even been allowed to be posted in the first place?

Lastly, I want to take a case where social media has been regulated to the point of irrationality.

Here, I want to bring up the case of an 18 year old gamer, who was jailed over his terrorist threat online. However, it was apparent that the young boy had actually just posted an immature and clearly sarcastic response to someone calling him 'crazy'. The conversation was regarding an online game, which is known to gain toxic comments. 

I'm sure you're wondering what kind of comment could be posted to get an 18 year old boy marched off to prison without even any form of questioning? 

Well according to court evidence the comment stated: "I'm f---ed in the head alright. I think I'ma (sic) shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them." He then followed the claim with "LOL" and "J/K" -- indicating that the comment wasn't of serious intent. 

The teen is now suffering psychological damage whilst also being on suicide watch in prison. Is this a case where Facebook has been over regulated to the point of being ridiculous? What happens to everyone who jokingly argues over the internet? Is our freedom of speech needing to be censored to save a prison arrest or should there be a block on this sort of language being posted? 

What do you think about the social media debate? Does more need to be done to censor our content or do we have a right to post whatever we want on the internet? 

Let me know what you think.

L.C

Are drunk Students the Irresponsible Ones? Who's to blame in the lengthy ethical alcohol debate?

A pint for a Pound? Wonderful! However how many will you have then? Would you come back the following day? What about the day after?

Currently the UK is facing serious problems with alcohol consumption among students due to the numerous special offers, happy hours and other similar money saving promotions. Of course, it would be perfectly normal to enjoy a night out with your friends every once in a while without having to spend a lot of money. However, what happens if this becomes a daily routine?

UK medical records show that there has been an increase of 33% in A & E caused by excessive use of alcohol among young people since 2005. Furthermore, figures suggest that about 10 million people in England are damaging their health by drinking more than the recommended amount of alcohol per day (2-3 units per day for women and 3-4 units per day for men).

Every year, the highly popular student drinking event ‘Carnage’, which consists of a glamourized bar crawl, gains mass coverage for students’ uncontrollable and disrespectful drunken behaviour. Pupils get so intoxicated they have to get taken home in an ambulance and there has been a specific well-known case of a student urinating on a remembrance statue.

Bulgaria is another country facing problems with students’ usage of alcohol. The capital’s main student area for all nearby universities, called Students’ City, encounters numerous crimes done by drunk students, from inappropriate behavior and fights to some cases even resulting in murder. Students’ City has 6 nightclubs open until 5 or 6 am every day. Contrary to Britain’s situation, here students are not offered cheap drinks. They do pay the normal prices in each club (e.g.1 beer – 4.20 BGN), however they benefit from having free entry and staying until dawn in any of the clubs. Nevertheless, the problem with the lack of control when it comes to alcohol does not come from the club. Like in the UK, students tend to buy excessive amounts of cheap alcohol in the local supermarket to consume before they go out but then continue to drink in the nightclub. The result is they reach a state where they can be easily vulnerable, ill, or develop aggressive behaviour. Yet, for many this has become a habit.

Commissar Petrova, head of the police, blames the security of the student halls, as guards tend to let any students into the establishment. Currently the suggested control measures are; better security regulations, installing cameras and having a restrictive hour where students have to be home by. However, she also blames students for their lack of responsibility, and truth to be told it is not like anybody is forcing them to drink until loss of consciousness.

The problem is also not unknown to Germany. Just like in UK and Bulgaria, students pre-drinking in their residencies are frequent practice. Although the consumption of alcohol in Germany is regressing since the middle of the 70’s, 16l of pure alcohol down to 11l, students are drinking twice as much as the average German. The newest German study proves that every second student partakes in “binge-drinking” at least once a month. Every sixth student use to practice “binge-drinking” more than five times a month and is called a “heavy-user”. But the second hypothesis, which was recognised from the study was; the group of the binge-drinkers are less susceptible for depressions and phobias and that they are the least to complain about problems. The indication is, that binge-drinkers are living in consolidated social environments and are even more content then other students.

There is a German campaign: “Federal Centre for Health Education“ which boils it down to an essence: “Know your limit!” which also shares the same message as the English campaign.

The British Medical Association blames all alcohol retailers for their promotional activities as it tempts the students to buy more and consequently, consume more than they should. The BMA is voting for a ban of “irresponsible promotions” of alcohol as well as for increase of the tax on alcohol. However, whether these recommendations are fair to the businesses and to other young people without “an alcohol problem” is an entirely different question.

So, is it ethical to offer students cheap alcohol? And is it the retailer’s responsibility that students don’t know any limits when it comes to alcohol consumption? Or is every student, responsible for his or her own actions? 

N, S, L.C and L.V.M