Opinion: Three-Parent Babies Are an Ethical Choice

Perhaps the biggest fear raised by advances in genetic engineering like the ability to create a baby with three parents is that we are heading straight down a road that leads to eugenics the attempt to create perfect "designer" babies.

From "Star Trek" to "Star Wars" to many more films like "Gattaca" and "The Boys from Brazil," Hollywood has warned us time and again that genetic engineering of animals or people is nothing but bad news.

History sadly also shows the horror that eugenics programs have produced in Germany, Japan and many other nations when some people are deemed more desirable and others are seen as defective, burdensome or subhuman. Death camps, forced sterilization, restrictions on marriage, exile, concentration camps, prohibitions on immigration all have all been carried out in the name of eugenics.

But Hollywood is wrong. Not everything about genetic engineering is morally horrible. Nor is human genetic engineering always motivated by eugenic goals.

"Hollywood is wrong. Not everything about genetic engineering is morally horrible."

The FDA is considering approving an experiment to repair a genetic disease in humans by creating embryos with DNA from three parents. Genes would be transferred from a healthy human egg to one that has a disease and the "repaired" egg then fertilized in the hope that a healthy baby will result. The goal of the experiment in genetic engineering is not a perfect baby but a healthy baby.

One in 4,000 children inherit terrible diseases due to genetic mutations in their mitochondria. The mitochondria are the batteries of cells. They provide the energy that lets cells divide and grow. All mitochondria are inherited from the mother from her eggs. And, the mitochondria are separate, tiny units in the egg meaning you can pick them out and transplant them.

So if you know that a mitochondrial disease runs in your family, you might want to try getting pregnant using one of your eggs that has been genetically engineered to have mitochondria from a donor egg.

None of this should raise concerns about abortion. Only eggs, not embryos, would be involved. There are, however, safety concerns. We won't really know if mitochondrial transplants work until healthy young people exist who have been made using the technique. Studies in primates look promising but safety in humans is still a risk.

"How far we go in engineering future generations through genetic manipulations is up to us."

Read the original:

Opinion: Three-Parent Babies Are an Ethical Choice

3-parent babies

By Matt Smith, CNN

updated 9:28 PM EST, Wed February 26, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" that drive cells.

The procedure is "not without its risks, but it's treating a disease," medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical "as long as it proves to be safe," he said.

"These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy. I think that's a humane ethical thing to do," said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center.

"Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, 'While we're at it, why don't we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?' "

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

"There is no genetic engineering. It isn't a slippery slope. It's a way to allow these families to have healthy children," said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

The rest is here:

3-parent babies

FDA Considering In Vitro Fertilization Using DNA From 3 Parents

A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

FDA deciding whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses. (Credit: Getty Images)

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the powerhouses that drive cells.

The procedure is not without its risks, but its treating a disease, medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNNs New Day on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical as long as it proves to be safe, he said.

These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they cant make power. Youre giving them a new battery. Thats a therapy. I think thats a humane ethical thing to do, said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York Universitys Langone Medical Center.

Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, While were at it, why dont we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

There is no genetic engineering. It isnt a slippery slope. Its a way to allow these families to have healthy children, said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

What were doing is, without at all changing the DNA of the mother, just allowing it to grow in an environment that isnt sick, she added.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel concluded two days of hearings into the procedure Wednesday. The panel discussed what controls might be used in trials, how a developing embryo might be monitored during those tests and who should oversee the trials, but no decisions were made at the end of the session.

The rest is here:

FDA Considering In Vitro Fertilization Using DNA From 3 Parents

FDA pondering 3-parent babies

Posted on: 8:44 pm, February 26, 2014, by CNN Wire, updated on: 08:45pm, February 26, 2014

(CNN) A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the powerhouses that drive cells.

The procedure is not without its risks, but its treating a disease, medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNNs New Day on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical as long as it proves to be safe, he said.

These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they cant make power. Youre giving them a new battery. Thats a therapy. I think thats a humane ethical thing to do, said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York Universitys Langone Medical Center.

Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, While were at it, why dont we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

There is no genetic engineering. It isnt a slippery slope. Its a way to allow these families to have healthy children, said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

What were doing is, without at all changing the DNA of the mother, just allowing it to grow in an environment that isnt sick, she added.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel concluded two days of hearings into the procedure Wednesday. The panel discussed what controls might be used in trials, how a developing embryo might be monitored during those tests and who should oversee the trials, but no decisions were made at the end of the session.

Read this article:

FDA pondering 3-parent babies

FDA considering '3-parent babies'

By Matt Smith, CNN

updated 9:28 PM EST, Wed February 26, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" that drive cells.

The procedure is "not without its risks, but it's treating a disease," medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical "as long as it proves to be safe," he said.

"These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy. I think that's a humane ethical thing to do," said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center.

"Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, 'While we're at it, why don't we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?' "

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

"There is no genetic engineering. It isn't a slippery slope. It's a way to allow these families to have healthy children," said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

Read more here:

FDA considering '3-parent babies'

FDA weighs 3-parent baby to prevent disease

Posted on: 3:14 pm, February 26, 2014, by Katrina Lamansky, updated on: 06:19pm, February 26, 2014

(CNN) A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the powerhouses that drive cells.

The procedure is not without its risks, but its treating a disease, medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNNs New Day on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical as long as it proves to be safe, he said.

These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they cant make power. Youre giving them a new battery. Thats a therapy. I think thats a humane ethical thing to do, said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York Universitys Langone Medical Center.

Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, While were at it, why dont we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel concluded two days of hearings into the technique Wednesday. The panel discussed what controls might be used in trials, how a developing embryo might be monitored during those tests and who should oversee the trials, but no decisions were made at the end of the session.

Mitochondrial problems are inherited from the mother. In the procedure under discussion in Washington for the past two days, genetic material from the nucleus of a mothers egg or an embryo gets transferred to a donor egg or embryo thats had its nuclear DNA removed.

The new embryo will contain nuclear DNA from the intended father and mother, as well as healthy mitochondrial DNA from the donor embryo effectively creating a three-parent baby.

In June, Britain took a step toward becoming the first country to allow the technique. One in 6,500 babies in the United Kingdom is born with mitochondrial disorder, which can lead to serious health issues such as heart and liver disease.

Read more:

FDA weighs 3-parent baby to prevent disease

To stop illness, a '3-parent baby'

A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" that drive cells.

The procedure is "not without its risks, but it's treating a disease," medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical "as long as it proves to be safe," he said.

"These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy. I think that's a humane ethical thing to do," said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center.

"Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, 'While we're at it, why don't we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?' "

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

"There is no genetic engineering. It isn't a slippery slope. It's a way to allow these families to have healthy children," said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

"What we're doing is, without at all changing the DNA of the mother, just allowing it to grow in an environment that isn't sick," she added.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel concluded two days of hearings into the procedure Wednesday. The panel discussed what controls might be used in trials, how a developing embryo might be monitored during those tests and who should oversee the trials, but no decisions were made at the end of the session.

Mitochondrial disorders are inherited from the mother. In the procedure under discussion in Washington, genetic material from the nucleus of a mother's egg or an embryo gets transferred to a donor egg or embryo that's had its nuclear DNA removed.

Continue reading here:

To stop illness, a '3-parent baby'

Jewishness, Orwell, Eugenics & Stolen Foreskins: An Interview With Philosopher Gilad Atzmon – Video


Jewishness, Orwell, Eugenics Stolen Foreskins: An Interview With Philosopher Gilad Atzmon
Journalist Joshua Blakeney interviewed world-famous saxophonist and philosopher Gilad Atzmon. Atzmon, who describes himself as an ex-Jew and ex-Israeli, addr...

By: Globalization1492

Follow this link:

Jewishness, Orwell, Eugenics & Stolen Foreskins: An Interview With Philosopher Gilad Atzmon - Video

Eugenics and Coerced Sterilization in California: A Digital History | MCubed Symposium 2013 – Video


Eugenics and Coerced Sterilization in California: A Digital History | MCubed Symposium 2013
Eugenics and Coerced Sterilization in California: A Digital History is an interdisciplinary project that aims to create a virtual collection of archival, pri...

By: Michigan Engineering

Here is the original post:

Eugenics and Coerced Sterilization in California: A Digital History | MCubed Symposium 2013 - Video

The Science of Stupid: Galileo Is Rolling Over In His Grave

Details Published on Thursday, 20 February 2014 21:05

Getty Images.So heres a fine howdy-do for Galileo Galilei: Exactly one dayone flipping dayafter the great mans 450th birthday, on Feb. 15, 2014, a study by the National Science Foundation (NSF) revealed that one in four Americans does not know that the Earth orbits the Sun. Thats roughly 78 million people, or six times greater than the entire population of Galileos native Italy in 1632the year he was sentenced to life under house arrest for advancing that heretical belief. Yet somehow, four centuries later later, 25% of us still havent gotten the word. If theres any comfort at all to be taken from the studyand there is, but only in that Im-not-the-dumbest-one-in-the-class sort of wayits that the European Union fared even worse, with 36% flunking the heliocentrism part of the science test.

Its a reassuring truth of human history that wisdom is eternal. Our greatest accomplishments and insights in art, science, technology, philosophy, theology, medicine and government are timelessthings that once known can never truly be unknown. But its an equally hard truth that stupid is forever too. The flat-earthers have always been with us, as have the believers in phrenology and alchemy and eugenics and sorcery, and, more recently and perniciously, the climate change deniers and the vaccines-cause-autism ninnies.

Sometimes its greed and political calculation at work: If we call climate change a hoax, we keep the riches flowing to the fossil fuel industry. Sometimes its a search for answers (if a child develop autism someone must be to blame) coupled with a know-nothing carnival barker like Jenny McCarthy. And sometimes its religion.

Galileos persecutors were the fathers of the Catholic Church, holding fast to a Bible that described the Earth as fixed and unmovable and the sun as rising and setting and returning to its place each day. The people who deny evolution today arent in the field, collecting the bones and offering reasoned alternatives to what Darwin discovered. They too know what they know because the Bible saysor seems to sayits true.

But to blame the believers is, in its own way, a blinkered view of things. The hard fact is, there are plenty of peoplethe majority of people, in factwho can comfortably live in a world in which faith and science live side by side. It was Carl Sagan himself who once wondered why a God who presides over a universe in which evolution unfolds, in which physical sciences play out and in which great truths are slowly discovered by people with dawning wisdom, isnt somehow a subtler, more nuanced and more appealing God.

The very same day the dispiriting NSF study was announced, Rice University released a far more encouraging survey of 10,000 scientists, evangelical Protestants and average Americans. According to the Rice results, almost 50% of Evangelicals believe that science and religion can work together, a figure that actually exceeds the 38% of all Americans who believe the same thing. As for all those non-spiritual scientists? Eighteen percent of them attend weekly religious services, only slightly less than the 20% of average Americans who are also regular worshippers. And 15% think of themselves as very religious, compared to 19% of everyone else. Scientists who also happen to be Evangelicals actually practice their religion more than Evangelical non-scientists.

Yes, there are some findings in the survey likely to give science types heartburn: 60% of Evangelicals believe that scientists should be willing to consider miracles as possible explanations for the phenomena they study, as do 38% of all Americans. But on the whole, the warring camps we hear so much about may be smaller and friendlier than weve come to believe. And to the extent that a battle does exist, its mostly being fought out at the extremes: the finger-in-the-eye atheists like Bill Maher, who regard believers with a kind of pitying disdain and dont care who knows it; the religious fundamentalists who defy inquisitiveness, defy reason, demanding a literal interpretation of Scripture that includes a great flood and a 6,000 year old world and a planet full of fossils and billions-year-old rocks that are put there merely to test our faith.

In fairness, there is not a complete equivalency here. The likes of Maher may be tiresome, but they make a point: The world is 4.5 billion years old. Full stop. The Earth does revolve around the Sunperiod. On these matters, the modern day fundamentalists arehow best to put this?wrong. When the Catholic Church as long ago as 1758 lifted its ban on teaching the sun-centered solar system and in 1992 formally acknowledged error in its treatment of Galileo, the very guardians of Scripture themselves were acknowledging that simply because a verse is written in a book does not make it so. To insist otherwise is to fight a rearguard action, one that holds entire societies back.

Science has been with us since the beginning of time. Faith has been with us since we opened our eyes and began wondering what all that science and everything else around us means. By now, many eons on, we ought to have figured out a way to marry the two. Perhaps in another 450 years we will.

Read the original post:

The Science of Stupid: Galileo Is Rolling Over In His Grave

Virginia Eugenics Victims Demand Compensation Before It's Too Late

For 55 years the commonwealth of Virginia took away close to 7,500 people's right to have children.

Under the commonwealth's sterilization law those classified as feeble minded, promiscuous, or even just seen as socially unacceptable were sterilized.

A shameful era in Virginia history that ended less than 40 years ago.

86-year-old Marine veteran Lewis Reynolds has been in the forefront of the fight to hold the government accountable, along with Attorney Mark Bold.

Reynolds was involuntarily sterilized at thirteen because he suffered from epileptic seizures. A procedure he didn't know took place until later when he enlisted. "I think they done me wrong, took my rights away from me, from having a family," Reynolds said.

Sisters Sadie and Janet Ingram are among the fifteen victims in Virginia who have come forward in the last 2 years. They too were unknowingly sterilized as teenagers.

North Carolina agreed last year to compensate each victim of that state's eugenics program $50,000, but a subcommittee rejected a similar bill in Virginia last week.

"We can't delay any longer. Mr. Reynolds is 86, next year he'll be 87. Time is not necessarily on his side so we need to provide compensation now," said Attorney Mark Bold.

Delegate Bob Marshall says he'll bring the bill back up on the house floor on Thursday, along with provisions ensuring $50,000 for each victim, to be paid immediately.

An opportunity for Virginia to right a wrong before it's too late.

Read more:

Virginia Eugenics Victims Demand Compensation Before It's Too Late

Virginia lawmakers debate eugenics compensation

RICHMOND, Va., Feb. 18 (UPI) -- Virginia lawmakers are debating possible compensation for people the state sterilized involuntarily during a more than 50-year period.

Lawmakers in the Virginia House voted two weeks ago to delay action for one year on a plan to pay $50,000 each to victims who come forward with proof they were part of the now discredited eugenics plan, which sought to strengthen the human gene pool by weeding out those regarded as defective from the 1920s to the 1970s.

The House's 2014-16 budget includes a scaled-down version of the compensation plan, offering $25,000 to $500,000 to victims, the (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot reported Tuesday.

It is estimated there are some 8,000 people who were sterilized by the state, the Roanoke (Va.) Times has reported.

Lawmakers said the matter remains up for debate with some arguing $50,000 figure is a more appropriate.

The state Senate's budget draft does not include any money for eugenics compensation, meaning if it passes the House it would need to be resolved in conference.

Go here to read the rest:

Virginia lawmakers debate eugenics compensation

Virginia Sterilization Victims to be Compensated Half

RICHMOND (WRIC) - The sun is shining in Richmond and just like the icicles that have melted away, there appears to be a thawing towards providing compensation to victims of Virginia's now discredited eugenics program.

More than 7,000 Virginians were deemed unfit to breed and forcibly sterilized at state hospitals during the last century. The survivors - so far only 10 have been identified - have been calling on state lawmakers to offer up more than words of apology & make reparations for stealing away their ability to have children and grandchildren.

"I don't have nobody to take care of me I am all by myself," says victim Lewis Reynolds.

Lawmakers have repeatedly balked.

This was the scene on February 5:

"We're going to take a look at it and see what we can do," says Del. Riley Ingram. "I can't promise you action will be taken."

Despite their unwillingness to make a promise, members of the House appropriations sub-committee did make an effort.

In a budget amendment issued this week, they recommend setting aside $500,000 to compensate "some of our most vulnerable citizens who were subjected to forced sterilization."

But here's the catch - the fund would only provide $25,000 per victim - half of what those sterilized in North Carolina were awarded just last year and the money wouldn't be made available until next year.

Mark Bold, the director of the Christian Law Institute and an advocate for the sterilization victims is criticizing the House proposal. In an email he writes "to suggest that victims should receive half the amount to that of North Carolina's victims is a disgrace. Sterilization victims here are of no less value."

Read more:

Virginia Sterilization Victims to be Compensated Half

Galileo Rolls Over in His Grave

Too many of us still know way too little about how the world worksbut there is hope

Galileo Galilei

So heres a fine howdy-do for Galileo Galilei: Exactly one dayone flipping dayafter the great mans 450th birthday, on Feb. 15, 2014,a study by the National Science Foundation (NSF)revealed that one in four Americans does not know that the Earth orbits the Sun. Thats roughly 78 million people, or six times greater than the entire population of Galileos native Italy in 1632the year he was sentenced to life under house arrest for advancing that heretical belief. Yet somehow, four centuries later later,25% of us still havent gotten the word. If theres any comfort at all to be taken from the studyand there is, but only in that Im-not-the-dumbest-one-in-the-class sort of wayits that the European Union fared even worse, with 36% flunking the heliocentrism part of the science test.

Its a reassuring truth of human history that wisdom is eternal. Our greatest accomplishments and insights in art, science, technology, philosophy, theology, medicine and government are timelessthings that once known can never truly be unknown. But its an equally hard truth that stupid is forever too. The flat-earthers have always been with us, as have the believers in phrenology and alchemy and eugenics and sorcery, and, more recently and perniciously, the climate change deniers and the vaccines-cause-autism ninnies.

Sometimes its greed and political calculation at work: If we call climate change a hoax, we keep the riches flowing to the fossil fuel industry. Sometimes its a search for answers (if a child develop autism someone must be to blame) coupled with a know-nothing carnival barker like Jenny McCarthy. And sometimes its religion.

Galileos persecutors were the fathers of the Catholic Church, holding fast to a Bible that described the Earth as fixed and unmovable and the sun as rising and setting and returning to its place each day. The people who deny evolution today arent in the field, collecting the bones and offering reasoned alternatives to what Darwin discovered. They too know what they know because the Bible saysor seems to sayits true.

But to blame the believers is, in its own way, a blinkered view of things. The hard fact is, there are plenty of peoplethe majority of people, in factwho can comfortably live in a world in which faith and science live side by side. It was Carl Sagan himself who once wondered why a God who presides over a universe in which evolution unfolds, in which physical sciences play out and in which great truths are slowly discovered by people with dawning wisdom, isnt somehow a subtler, more nuanced and more appealing God.

The very same day the dispiriting NSF study was announced, Rice University released a far more encouraging survey of 10,000 scientists, evangelical Protestants and average Americans. According to the Rice results, almost 50% of Evangelicals believe that science and religion can work together, a figure that actually exceeds the 38% of all Americans who believe the same thing. As for all those non-spiritual scientists? Eighteen percent of them attend weekly religious services, only slightly less than the 20% of average Americans who are also regular worshippers. And 15% think of themselves as very religious, compared to 19% of everyone else. Scientists who also happen to be Evangelicals actually practice their religion more than Evangelical non-scientists.

Yes, there are some findings in the survey likely to give science types heartburn: 60% of Evangelicals believe that scientists should be willing to consider miracles as possible explanations for the phenomena they study, as do 38% of all Americans. But on the whole, the warring camps we hear so much about may be smaller and friendlier than weve come to believe. And to the extent that a battle does exist, its mostly being fought out at the extremes: thefinger-in-the-eye atheists like Bill Maher, who regard believers with a kind of pitying disdain and dont care who knows it; the religious fundamentalists who defy inquisitiveness, defy reason, demanding a literal interpretation of Scripture that includes a great flood and a 6,000 year old world and a planet full of fossils and billions-year-old rocks that are put there merely to test our faith.

In fairness, there is not a complete equivalency here. The likes of Maher may be tiresome, but they make a point: The world is 4.5 billion years old. Full stop. The Earth does revolve around the Sunperiod. On these matters, the modern day fundamentalists arehow best to put this?wrong. When the Catholic Church as long ago as 1758 lifted its ban on teaching the sun-centered solar system and in 1992 formally acknowledged error in its treatment of Galileo, the very guardians of Scripture themselves were acknowledging that simply because a verse is written in a book does not make it so. To insist otherwise is to fight a rearguard action, one that holds entire societies back.

Read the original:

Galileo Rolls Over in His Grave

Lichnovsky wins $1,000 MCRTL scholarship

Homeschool senior student Cassidy Lichnovsky is the 2014 scholarship winner of the Montgomery County Right to Life Oratory Contest at Conroe Bible Church. She received a $1,000 check.

Second place winner was Erica Michelson, who received $500, and Madison McQuary and Chad Golden tied for third place, each receiving $250.

A total of 13 students participated Saturday by each writing and giving a 5-7 minute pro-life speech on abortion, eugenics, euthanasia or infanticide.

Junior and senior students represented Conroe High, Oak Ridge High, The Woodlands High and area homeschool groups.

Attorney Larry Foerster, Judge Michael Seiler, Judge Kathleen Hamilton, Joseph Strack, and Conroe Attorney Marcia Tillman served as judges for the contest.

Lichnovsky spoke about the false reality of abortion and the anguish her grandmother, Jean, went through when she was caught between the sound of her conscience and the voice of a doctor. Her grandmother was told that her child would be born with severe physical and possible mental disabilities and was admonished that she was selfish to bring a disabled child into the world. Her grandmother was pressured to abort her child.

However, Jean did give birth and her son, Joseph, was born with disabilities. However, Joseph, despite doctors predictions even after his birth, is now Cassidys father.

Her fathers reality is that he has never taken welfare and has sustained employment, gives to charities, supports missionaries, votes in every election, Cassidy said.

The world needs to see that a child, planned or not, is the farthest thing from a burden to society, Cassidy said.

She encouraged the audience that it is a lie that beauty can only be seen in perfection, where in reality our world needs imperfection and that in reality, every child has a right to life.

More here:

Lichnovsky wins $1,000 MCRTL scholarship

Scientific racism's long history mandates caution, experts warn

Racism as a social and scientific concept is reshaped and reborn periodically through the ages, and according to a Penn State anthropologist, both medical and scientific researchers need to be careful that the growth of genomics does not bring about another resurgence of scientific racism.

"What we are facing is a time when genomic knowledge widens and gene engineering will be possible and widespread," said Nina Jablonski, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology. "We must constantly monitor how this information on human gene diversity is used and interpreted. Any belief system that seeks to separate people on the basis of genetic endowment or different physical or intellectual features is simply inadmissible in human society."

What worries Jablonski and the sociologists, psychologists and evolutionary biologists in her session at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, on February 14 in Chicago, are people who believe that they can use genetic traits to describe races and to develop race-specific interventions for each group. One particularly disturbing approach, although currently suggested as beneficial, is application of genetics to create special approaches to education. The idea that certain individuals and groups learn differently due to their genetic makeup, and so need specialized educational programs could be the first step in a slippery slope to recreating a new brand of "separate but equal."

Similar approaches in medicine that are based not on personal genetics but on racial generalizations can be just as incorrect and troubling, especially because human genetic admixture is so prevalent.

"Our species is defined by regular admixture of peoples and ideas over millennia," said Jablonski. "To come up with new reasons for segregating people is hideous."

Classification of humans began innocently enough with Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, who simply classified humans into races in the same way they classified dogs or cats -- by their physical characteristics. These were scientists classifying the world around them and realizing that the classifications were not immutable but had a great deal of diversity and overlap. However, in the last quarter of the 18th century, philosophers, especially Immanuel Kant, looked to classify people by behavior and culture as well as genetics. Kant suggested that there were four groups of people, three of which because they existed under conditions not conducive to great intellect or achievement were inferior. Only the European race was capable of self-improvement and highest level of civilization.

Kant's ideas, widely accepted during his lifetime, set up the idea of European superiority in the future. Coupled with the great rise and profitability of slavery at the time, his views were adopted and morphed to legitimize the slave trade.

In the late 19th century, after Darwin's ideas became accepted, many applied his principles to the cultural, political and social spheres, developing the concept of Social Darwinism. Darwin's nephew, Francis Galton, suggested that in parts of the world there were still "pure races" and that these needed to be preserved. This line of thought led to the eugenics movement and eugenic engineering ideas of the early 20th century. Included in this were the rise of European superiority and the trappings of eugenics and racial purity.

"The most odious of all was the rise of Nazism and biological justification of Nordic supremacy," said Jablonski. "Emphasis was placed on the need to maintain the purity of all races, but especially the Nordic race and to improve the races."

The reasoning given was that the quality of a race could be improved by preventing reproduction of those deemed physically or mentally undesirable either by sterilization or extermination.

Read the original here:

Scientific racism's long history mandates caution, experts warn