Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:46:27 EST
Subject: Re: [HAB:] re: distinctions and risks in genomic technologies


 
In a message dated 11/11/2004 8:31:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
coherings-AT-yahoo.com writes:

A  keynote of Hughes' book—shown by the regulatory-needs emphasis of the 
quotes I  providedfrom his *Introduction*—is to address the dangers.People who are 
 vaguely familiar with what the genomiccommunity is up to (which is very  
criticallyself-oriented) act as if that community is vaguelyfamiliar with the  
dangers—as if risk analysis issomething not inherent to  biotech.


My awareness of the opinions of others is that this therapeutic-enhancement  
distinction is
not understood and that the genomic community is considerably misled.   It 
seems that lobbying efforts are being made to qualify this field among the  
bigshots who so far are not buying in, but the therapeutic benefits are not  
happening and fears arise over the similarities between animal studies and  
possible human experiments.  Now unless I have not understood Habermas, he  clearly 
states that the enhancement thrust is not appropriate but this main line  of 
his is being dissembled by his references as if the enhancement thrust is  
potentially acceptable.  Just because Habermas refers to a particular  school does 
not mean he has endorsed it!!!  But, you are failing to address  the political 
issues I have raised!
 
Fred Welfare


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---