"Novelty" gene

Dave Seaman ds005c at UHURA.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU
Fri Jan 5 06:59:46 EST 1996


>I stand by my original statement - I don't see the great results of genetic
>research - not yet, anyway.  Maybe gene-splicing technology will be the
>answer...  Maybe we will be able to repair bad genes in vivo...  We need to
>look for the answer - I just don't think we are going to find it.
>
>And this emphasis on genetic research takes away from other types of
>research.  I think that genetic engineering is the driving force since it
>has the potential for profit making.  Nothing against profit - but let's not
>get enamored with genetic technology.
>
>Stevejoe
What do I have to say to you?  "Humph!", that's what!  How can you say
there's no reason to keep on in genetics research the way it is now?  Just
because it gets more press does not mean that it needs to be watered down.
The way I see it, research into any viable area is good; ANY good press of
good research is a societal step forward.  And besides, genetics is one of
those areas with great potential only with a lot of work from a lot of
people.

True, there may not be any more good effects from genetics research.  But
that is a risk that comes from ALL research, especially in neuroscience!
Just think-why get any press for neuroscience, if, after all, we can't
repair Dopamine pathways?  I mean, who cares about all those little
neurons-no one could rearrange them in our lifetime, thre's so many!
(Someone please take the tongue out of my cheek now...)



--
David Seaman
University of Rochester
ds005c at uhura.cc.rochester.edu

"It's only human."
--





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list