Genetic research is a necessary evil.?

Question

What is your opinion on this statement?

Answer 1

What a silly statement.  Genetic research isn't evil.

Answer 2

Neither.  

Define necessary.   It's certainly not evil.  Knowledge is a good thing.  It can be used sometimes for things that aren't good.  We could live without it so it isn't necessary.  But it IS necessary in order to do lots of good things, and I think it's much better to have it than not have it.  Maybe you can learn more about it and make a career out of it. Then it would be a really good thing.  For you.

That help?

Answer 3

a necessary evil or not necessarily an evil? Genetic research can be done ethically and has the potential to save millions of lives, and cure thousands of diseases.  Curing diseases and saving doesn't sound very evil to me.

Answer 4

I believe it is necessary but I do not believe it is evil. Science is not evil, but people can be evil.

Answer 5

False statement....

Answer 6

It's necessary scientific progress.

Answer 7

It's necessary and it's usually not evil.  A lot of genetic research doesn't kill animals, and most doesn't use stem cells.

Without it people die of incurable diseases, which is MUCH more evil.

Answer 8

What's evil about it?

Answer 9

Genetics research isn't evil. Research, or basically anything inanimate, isn't evil. Evil is wielded by people, regardless of the tools they use to achieve it.

The whole concept of 'necessary evil' is an interesting one, however. Some would say the act of war is a necessary evil, based on what side of the war they find themselves. In my opinion, it comes down to the very personal answer of, "Do the ends justify the means?" For example, if you were told that killing the person next to you would save 10,000 lives, would you do it?

Personally, I don't think that genetics research falls into the category of a so-called "necessary evil."

Just curious, but how did the question of genetic research as a necessary area come up?

Answer 10

In all honesty you'd laugh if you knew the truth about "Genetic Research".....its way way over hyped. Really, it doesn't use a lot of animals except in what they call "knock out/Knock in " type animal models of disease...and thats nearly all medical research

When you read that Gene "X" is implicated in diabetes you gotta realise the bullshit basis for these sensational newspaper headlines...it means a family with lots and lots of kids with diabetes ( and lots and lots of children maybe 10-12), typically in some mad catholic country like Ireland where birth control is frowned upon has been analysed to see can they link a marker on DNA to the transmission of diabetes in that family to locate a possible gene implicated possibly in diabetes. They produce this unbelievable maths statistic called a LOD score based on Bayes theorem and from about 10 peoples results they infer all sorts of claims about Gene X and diabetes....almost pseudoscience.

Then there is the bacterial and C. elegans ( worm) and drospohila ( fly) and Arabodopsis ( weedy plant) research that is sooooooooooooo boring and full of bull too.

Then there is the Bioinformatics guys who basically dream up an idea of evolution and then set up a computer Perl programme to skew the data enough to " prove" their theory of molecular evolution.....in most cases totally made up and totally so hard to disprove. Pure pseudoscience.

So no.....If you had researched genetics first you'd have realised Medical Research is what you shoulda picked. Genetics is pseudoscience