Category Archives: Other @ Rose

The delicate balance of science and ethics

Posted on by

This week, I attended the Table Talk on genetic engineering. We covered a lot of relevant topics like CRISPR, in-vitro fertilisation, and designer babies. A lot of the discussion was fuelled by our thoughts on the ethical considerations revolving around gene editing. For example, all of us agreed that if there were a way to ensure that a baby would never have any neurological diseases, we would approve of such a technique. But if that same gene change induced a change in intelligence for the baby, then we would start to see some of the negative effects of genes editing. For instance, society may start to discriminate against those who aren’t genetically modified, leading to class division and more inequality. This example really illustrated that the ethics of science is never simple because progress on one end could lead to a regression in another.

One of the things that really struck me about this talk was how these technological advances aren’t just something to be wary of in the distant future – it’s already occurring now. For in-vitro fertilisation, the couple can choose which embryo to forward with, effectively selecting for gender. I didn’t know about this previously because I thought there would be stricter regulations against this sort of choosing, but I was wrong. It really highlights the importance of having these discussions about ethics and morality in respect to technology, especially because the technology exists already and will only continue to grow more popular in the future. At the same time, if the US government restricts research and application of genetic engineering, there’s no guarantee other countries will do the same and now the US will begin to fall behind in the competition. It’s an interesting dilemma with no obvious solution but one that will have to be resolved soon.

CRISPR

Posted on by

The table talk on genetic engineering was really interesting. We talked about the benefits of genetic engineering to everything from research to medical treatments. I really liked to hear about precursors to the revolutionary CRISPR method of genetic engineering and why they were less efficient and cost effective. Since I have just been getting into and learning about these kinds of techniques in the past year, it was interesting to hear firsthand about how CRISPR has really transformed the field in a way that wasn’t obvious to me. It was also great to hear about some of the possible ethical hazards of this kind of work. While right now, the high fatality rate of organisms developed using CRISPR has been to prohibitive to use extensively on humans, it’s interesting to think how it might be applied in the future, and the huge ethical problems of being able to effectively buy your way out of having a genetic problem or disease. Overall, it’s great to take stock of how amazing CRISPR and other forms of genetic engineering are and how crazy it is to live in a time when such things are possible.

Judge Miller’s Discussion

Posted on by

When I attended Judge Miller’s discussion last week, I was very impressed by his ability to narrate a story and share the cases he worked on. Although I do not plan on pursuing a career in law, it was interesting to hear the challenges of a criminal defense lawyer and how he dealt with the toughest of cases.  Most notably, I remember the rape case and how the defender’s story of events seemed completely unrealistic and yet, in the end, it was the honest truth.

Additionally, I really enjoyed Judge Miller’s ability to narrate a story.  When I asked the question about how his role has changed from attorney to judge, his account of the grumpy judge when he was a young lawyer brought a crisp image to my mind.  I genuinely enjoyed his ability to make us laugh and see the light in dark situations.  From the way he sat in the chair to the words he chose to use, I could tell that Judge Miller was passionate about his career and realized the incredible impact he had on lives.  I too hope to develop that passion in the career I choose to pursue.

I hope that Judge Miller comes back later this semester and shares even more cases with us!

 

Genetic Engineering Revolution

Posted on by

During our table talk discussion about genetic engineering, I realized how far we as a society have gone in developing new technologies. I am not an engineering or a science student, so it was difficult for me to understand some of the engineering techniques, but what stood out to me was how new research methods on genetic engineering have changed the world. We discussed new “Crispr” technology and its role in helping genetic engineering. But even 20 years ago, this technology wasn’t available, let alone used relatively inexpensively around the country.

What comes with genetic engineering are questions of ethics. During our discussion, we brought up some of the ethical problems that can occur when genetic engineering is used particularly with fertility. In one example mentioned, a baby was given an immunization gene so that they can never develop any diseases, while also making them smarter. The ethical question that arises in this situation is that, is it right to administer these genes to a baby while other babies may not have the same access to such technology? I still struggle with this question, and the question of whether genetic engineering, particularly in humans, is ethical.

Overall, however, I thought the talk was insightful, as it opened my eyes to the new technologies we have available today in modifying our genetics. The one thing I am uncertain about is how far this technology will grow given the ethical questions in this field.

The Afghanistan Problem

Posted on by

16 years after the US invasion of Afghanistan, the war rages on in the deserts and cities of that distant country. 16 years and approximately $2 trillion (according to a report by CNN), and we still find ourselves asking “Why are we there? And how do we get out? Can we?” At last week’s Table Talk, a small group of us delved into some of these dilemmas.

First, the name: the “War on Terror.” Catchy, yes. It’s hard to argue with the fact that terror is bad and that we ought to combat it. But who are we fighting and what are we trying to accomplish? Do we meet Terror on the open battlefield? Once we’ve beat Terror, will we make it sign a treaty and try it in international court like the Nazis after World War II?

Before coming to Cornell, I spent a year at a German high school, where my government class spent an extensive amount of time discussing the war in Afghanistan, which Germany continues to be involved in (there are currently 950 German troops in Afghanistan,and 56 Germans have died there). One of the big takeaways I got from the discussions in that class was that the NATO coalition had gone into Afghanistan without a concrete plan, rushing in with the vague goal of “combating terror.” But not enough thought was given to what would happen after we overthrew the Taliban.

America has policed the world since the beginning, going as far back as President Monroe’s declaration of American influence over the Western hemisphere. But this policy has gotten us into many sticky situations before (e.g. Vietnam, Korea, Syria as it that situation continues to develop…), and it’s landed us in a position in Afghanistan in which we are stuck helping the current government barely hold off the Taliban by providing funds, training, and assistance (see NATO’s “Resolute Support” mission). We continue to pour in resources (and lives) with relatively little improvement, but the alternative—risking a Taliban takeover—is unacceptable to us, in terms of human rights and political concerns.

This tension between domestic and international interests, in the sense that international commitments eat up resources and energy that might be otherwise dedicated to domestic concerns, has always been an important American question. Of late, though, it’s been especially at the forefront of national discussion. As we (as a nation) continue to answer questions about Afghanistan, we may be changing our role and emphasis in international politics.

16 Years Later…

Posted on by

I attended the War on Terror Table Talk. Because it was on the 16th anniversary of this tragic event, we started with talking about what we remembered about this day. It was interesting because most of us were 3 or 4 years old, and had no memory of the actual day it occurred, but rather remembered learning about it or noticing something off about the day. For me, I didn’t remember 9/11 nor the first time I heard about it, but I can remember having moments of silence every year in elementary school to remember the event and having conversations in my classes, talking about the Twin Towers and the additional planes that went down.

But 9/11 was not the end, rather it was the beginning of a U.S. policy declaring ‘War on Terror’. This event lead to a sharp increase in military operations, and a month later the first of countless many US troops were sent into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime and capture al-Qaeda forces. This also means that the US has been fighting a war in Afghanistan for almost 16 years. Naturally, the discussion shifted to what the US can do to bring back troops from the Middle East. The method I agreed with was training the Afghan troops, so they could be self-sufficient with the US maybe supplying weapons.

This was an interesting conversation that allowed us to explore a important but uncommon topic. Even though we are still fighting a war in Afghanistan, the coverage about it has decreased. So this table talk gave us the opportunity to share our views about this.

My perspective of War on Terror

Posted on by

For this week’s table talk, on the date of September 11th, we discussed the war on terror. We ranged from topics of what we personally remembered from the actual incident. I personally, do not recall what happened that day seeing as I was four years old. However, after years later of learning about it in classrooms and doing research about it on my own, I understand that this incident changed the United States of America forever. Secondly, we discussed the definition of the war on terror. I defined it as an ambiguous term, who’s origin was President George W. Bush. He declared this in his speech post 9/11, when Al-Qaeda took responsibility for the incident.

While this declaration increased his presidential popularity, it also gave vulnerable Americans a new, but at times misguided sense of patriotism. I also talked about the aftermath, which was some Americans used this patriotism to put prejudice upon people from the middle east. This is still prevalent in the present.

I also learned from others that, we’ve made ourselves allies with countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan because it is better to have as allies rather than enemies. In Saudi Arabia, they have strict human right violations which impede on people’s freedom.