The science side of your question is fairly straight forward.

Just as the fishermen bred for a certain trait, the mask, each time science keeps someone alive despite an otherwise fatal genetic trait, we increase the chance for that trait to spread throughout the human gene pool.

That is bad for people.

The ethical side of the question, maybe someplace like the spirituality and consciousness group would discuss it. Just know by even bringing ot up, you;re going to be attacked as a eugenicists, Nazi, and just about everything else people can think of to call you.

Okay ... I'll tippytoe into the topic Rick threw out here: we'll see where the slings and arrows go. Remember this is a group based on science ... advocates of science are aware there are moral and ethical considerations. Natural selection occurs when "nature takes its course" and the survivability or vulnerability of a trait is exposed to the ravages of its environment and either demonstrates its ability to contribute or be extinguished. That's basically what Darwin said. When we interfere with that process (in an innocuous process like the crabs ... or counter survivability process like enabling a fatal genetic trail to be passed to another generation) that is "unnatural selection." In the former, no harm no foul. In the latter, we run a foul of ethical, moral, and legal complications of human invention and processes that are counter to the Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest." This is a dilemma of ethical biology ... some of which is discussed by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene." In the recent past, medical science has enabled those with fatal genetic flaws to manage the symptoms/complications of the flaw such that those carrying it reach sexual maturity and that flaw may be passed (perhaps as a recessive gene) to the next generation. Recent medical/biological processes are potentially capable of "repairing" flawed genes such that the flaws may not be passed to the next generation. Now we get to the politics of science, because some of the basic research in this area requires the use of fetal stem cells. The use of such cells for basic research are opposed by some groups on moral and ethical grounds (the political processes are then utilized by these groups to pursue a moral/ethical agenda) ... the controversy of which is likely beyond the purpose of this group. But it brings us full circle ... for moral and ethical reasons we cannot (nor do we wish to) deny medical science that enables the survival of those with flawed genes, while at the same time, also for moral and ethical reasons, we cannot pursue the most promising basic research processes that could potentially repair or remove the incidence of the fatal flaws. Now, let's punt that to a different group.

Caveat: My purpose here is simply to describe the dilemma ... I'm an advocate of BOTH ethics and the scientific method. This is the kind of problem that science encounters: it comes with the territory. As Fromz indicated, short-sighted folks may reduce the issue to name calling ... should that occur, they are missing the point. Let's assume there are no Nazis here. The resolution of the dilemma is an on-going process the complications and implications of which go far beyond what we would be able to propose here.

Well said, Jon.

Not to derail this discussion, stem cell use is a different topic, but it appears stem cells from other sources than fetuses (Umbilical cords, adult cells from bone marrow, etc) work just as well without as great a tendency to go cancerous.

You are correct on alternate sources of stem cells, of course. Nevertheless, the controversy and politics I mentioned above persists, the foundations and positions for which I wish to avoid here. Even with the use of the alternative source stem cells, the point raised by Rick that natural selection is influenced unnaturally (although not necessarily unhealthily) is still there. This is true not only with humans, but with the foods we eat, the agricultural products we create from combinational DNA processes, the animals we domesticate, and so on.

True and that suggests we might want to widen this discussion or open a new one about how genetic manipulation has helped mankind in the past.

From the domesticated dog to that of foods like corn and rice which were first "domesticated" 5 or 6000 years ago, genetic manipulation has proved a boon to man.

And sometimes a bane as with the potato when the Irish relied too much on it and suffered the great potato famine.

Ur umm, Thanks a lot Fromz,.... actually as moderator of the Spirituality and Consciousness group I welcome you Rick to post a discussion if you would like and I promise I will not let anyone attack too hard. As far as what I think about this question, its a bit of a mute subject in the most basic way, because, more often than not, in our world culture as it stands today, prolonging life is the ethical norm.

Merry, I may not understood right, /pure linguistic problem/ but does this means that you are pro stem cell research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Ricks question. I believe in human genius.

The same way now days science and medicine managed to save the life to someone like Dr. Hawkins, will find the way to get rid of those genetic flaws.

My humble opinion ;-)