portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

animal rights | corporate dominance | genetic engineering

Biology and biotech in academia

in many colleges the biology field is influenced by genetic engineering and most life forms are subject to scientific manipulation.
Currently the Biology field is heavily influenced by genetic engineering and DNA based research. Funding and equipment is often used to define plants based on DNA in the cladistics taxonomy that views DNA manipulation as a part of (human influenced) evolution, in other words, the science field is becoming an "intellectual property rights" grab for the medicinal plants of the rainforest, where DNA info is patented and recorded on a computer..

Scientific method is flawed at the core in that it relies on rationalism and proof of existence in order to believe anything. The belief among many indigenous people of plants, trees, animals and people having spirits or souls is rejected by scientific establishment only on lack of proof. If it cannot be tested by scientific research equipment (human/factory made machinery), then it cannot possibly be real. If anyone claims that plant/tree spirits communicate with them they are dismissed as "mentally ill" by scientists who cannot and will not see beyond their rationalist box..

The reasoning behind the scientific lack of belief in anything spiritual could involve a separation of morality from research. If a scientist is called upon by the research corporation to inject a primate/lab rat with dangerous chemicals, the scientist is mentally free from the belief in animal spirits or sentient thoughts/emotions. The primate/lab rat becomes another pile of cells that are more robot-like than human. This same scientist rationalizes that their loved ones are somehow different from this non-feeling primate/lab rat, so it is ok to test on the animal to "benefit" the human. Though most of the benefits are absorbed by the pharmacuetical corporations who claim their petrochemically derived products heal people, while other healing energies like love, meditation and nutrition are not considered by corporate statisticians..

Most of science (organic chemistry) is currently about molecular manipulation of plant chemicals in pharmaceutical products isolated from these plant biochemicals found in their tissues. Do the researchers who take this information ever ask the plant about how it feels to have this medicinal compound synthesized from it? Any shaman would laugh at the foolishness of these pharmaceutical researchers who use toxic petroleum residue to attempt to mimic the molecular formulae of plant tissue biochemicals..

People can approach the plants/trees/animals/fungi/etc from a holistic perspective where we appreciate biodiversity without thinking we need to control life via molecular manipulation with machinery. Genetic engineering does not recognize the spirit of the plant, it only dissects the living being down to it's basic life material and then toys with it like some nightmarish video game. The disrespect shown to life, Nature and Mother Earth by corporate scientists is obvious by their arrogance in dealing with sentient beings, and the increased risk of famine in human populations (dependent on GE monoculture) from their tampering with Nature..
re: science 24.Feb.2004 10:53

citizen unbound

The kind of spiritual thinking you are referring to is the result of natural selection - it does not serve the deepest desires of human kind - to be free from suffering.

The Abolitionist society is a technology advocacy group which seeks to impose ethical restrictions on the use of evolving biotechnology. We believe it should be used to eliminate suffering that is hard-wired into our genetic code through natural selection.

www.abolitionist-society.com

Circumcision 24.Feb.2004 11:39

a baby

What did scientists say about circumcision ? Babies do not feel the pain?

re:a baby 24.Feb.2004 12:32

citizen unbound

I don't know about the circumstances you are speaking about, but granted there have been many mistakes made in the name of science - however, you must separate science from certain scientists - a sweeping generalization that science is bad is only detrimental.

stop suffering 24.Feb.2004 14:01

moth

if u want to stop suffering why not stop war and toxic pollution, the number one causes of suffering throughout mother earth.

The problem with science in general 24.Feb.2004 21:44

xyzzy

Whatever. I've never been particularly enthusiastic about conjuring mystical "spirits" or "energies" into existence, and see plenty of reason to reject the current direction the life sciences are going anyhow.

I see the biggest problem of science is that it is a social phenomenon that occurs within societies. Science is therefore vulnerable to all the prejudices and power imbalances of the society it takes place in. There's a near-infinite number of questions one can attempt to answer with scientific research, but only the subset of those questions most of interest to big government and big business are those that will get significant amounts of research funding. Therefore science is biased to answering the questions that most serve the interests of the ruling elite.

Science's demand on controls, isolation of causes, and repeatability of results also biases scientific research towards the "hard sciences" that deal with the material world and away from the social sciences that ask questions about human relationships and society.

I believe we're reaching the point of diminishing returns for material progress improving the quality of life, and that addressing social relationships is a more fruitful avenue for progress. Unfortunately, that falls afoul of the biases in exactly the opposite direction that the previous two paragraphs mention.

For me, the bigger metaphysical question is whether or not the universe even lends itself to large-scale, linguistic, rational understanding (as opposed to limited local-scale understanding in certain areas) in the first place.

Portland

RE: xyzzy 25.Feb.2004 00:49

citizen unbound

"I see the biggest problem of science is that it is a social phenomenon that occurs within societies. Science is therefore vulnerable to all the prejudices and power imbalances of the society it takes place in. There's a near-infinite number of questions one can attempt to answer with scientific research, but only the subset of those questions most of interest to big government and big business are those that will get significant amounts of research funding. Therefore science is biased to answering the questions that most serve the interests of the ruling elite."

I wholeheartedly agree, our concepts of the world are very much a result of our society. I hope that with a focus on eliminating suffering, science would reach a universal understanding.

"Science's demand on controls, isolation of causes, and repeatability of results also biases scientific research towards the "hard sciences" that deal with the material world and away from the social sciences that ask questions about human relationships and society."

Yep, it's pretty hard to study something as complex as relationships and society in definite terms. Current psychology and sociology seem to rely on statistics, which can be very impersonal and over generalized. Perhaps as our understand of the underlying biological processes of these phenomenon increases - we will be able to do away with alot of the vagueness.

"I believe we're reaching the point of diminishing returns for material progress improving the quality of life, and that addressing social relationships is a more fruitful avenue for progress. Unfortunately, that falls afoul of the biases in exactly the opposite direction that the previous two paragraphs mention."

Again, perhaps the aim of eliminating suffering will eliminate these distinctions.

"For me, the bigger metaphysical question is whether or not the universe even lends itself to large-scale, linguistic, rational understanding (as opposed to limited local-scale understanding in certain areas) in the first place."

Yes, it seems that we evolved as tribal creatures - you can see this in the way that people tend to care so little about what does not affect them directly.

I would hope that genetic engineering would address this in the future.