Amount of RNA in fibroblast cells (and animal rights!)
gisselbr at husc8.harvard.edu
Fri Jul 9 17:57:14 EST 1993
In article <1993Jul7.193718.23911 at alw.nih.gov> Jim Owens <jow at helix.nih.gov> writes:
> [blah, blah, he said this, I said that, we were talking about RNA,
> that's all settled now]
>Can we make this a more raging controversy than the Need Safeguards for
>Gene Tinkered Food?
I don't think so. I was gonna try--had my asbestos keyboard
ready, I was thinking of polysyllabic epithets, a rant to make a
Sub-Genius proud--but they're totally out of my league. Folks, get the
clue: as so many of you have pointed out, this is a *moral* issue. As
such, you can talk, write, and scream about it until you explode in a
great cloud of frustrated righteousness, and nobody's going to change
anybody's mind. Being life scientists (or interested laypersons), we've
probably all thought this over all ready; if we hadn't when the thread
started, we certainly have now. No one out there has a single point to
make that their opposition hasn't already heard, considered, and
respectfully disregarded. This question will never be answered, because
moral questions never are--one and the same answer can be absolutely
correct and chillingly, evilly, dangerously wrong.
Jeez, it's almost making me wistful for the days when we flamed
about what intelligence is, or what a species is. Almost.
cell & dev. bio.
harvard medical school
More information about the Bioforum