Curiosity Killed the Cat

Okay, more like knocked her over or something.

This insatiable drive I have to learn has finally caught up with me. Sometimes I wonder if it's just better not to know things, especially things you have no way of changing.

1) Food Inc: If you haven't seen this documentary, and like eating meat, don't watch it.  Okay, it's about a lot more than just meat. It's got some good info on how we get our food, and how the process has been changed. But disheartening overall. Did you know that something like 80% of the processed foods on the US market have genetically modified ingredients in them? It's just very depressing. And listening to what Mo.nsa.nto (for one example) is doing to the farm industry/individual farmers. You can't fight. No one has the money the corporations do.

But this definitely made me want to cut meat out of my diet (too bad that leaves me nothing else to eat, since I don't like most veggies).  The feed lots of the cows were ugly, ugly, ugly. And I thought I was going to puke when they showed the cow where someone had made an opening into her upper stomach (rudiment?) and kept it open with a plastic tube and cap. We're talking large enough for a man to scoop some of the food out that she was "digesting". OMG. Want to puke just thinking about it. And the chickens. Horrible, horrible, horrible.

I'm going to have to look up several of the books referred to in the documentary.

2) The Immortal Life of Herietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot

This one is a little harder for me to pinpoint. It's an astonishing tale on how one woman's cells made an impact on science. It's extremely easy to read, especially considering the science involved. But it's pretty light on that aspect. Enough to give an idea of what is going on, but no so much your eyes glaze over.

There's a suprising amount of interest for this book. At least at my library. I was number 5 on the waiting list, and there are 4 more people waiting for it. Considering it's the author's first book and was just released in February, I'm a bit surprised.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issues this book brings up. Ethical or unethical to use someone's cells without their consent? What about the commercial aspects? Shoudl they be able to make money off it? Off the top, my gut says "Hell, no, that's not ethical". But then I wonder where would science be? Medicine? It might be my cell, yet they're doing the work. But then there's the fact that it's my DNA. Pretty scary stuff to have out there for "all the world to see". So to speak. Tricky topic.

What definitely bothers me is learning that as of 2005

 "...the U.S. government had issued patents relating to the use of about 20 percent of known human genes, including genes for Alzheimer's, asthma, colon cancer, and, most famously, breast cancer. This means pharmaceutical companies, scientists, and universities control what research can be done on those genes, and how much resulting therapies and diagnostic tests will cost." [page 323]

One company owns the rights to the breast cancer and ovarian cancer genes, and charges $3000 to test for those genes. Insane!

"One survey found that 53 percent of laboratories had stopped offering or developing at least one genetic test because of patent enforcement, and 67 percent felt patents interfered with medical research. Because of patent licensing fees, it costs $25,000 for an academic institute to license the gene for researching a common blood disorer...and up to $250,000 to license the same gene for commercial testing." [page 324-325]

That's just to get permission to access the gene. Forget about the costs of the actual research! What the hell is going on here? How can a company be allowed to control our genes? Shouldn't this be open access for researchers and scientists and doctors? So everyone has access to the tests and cures affordably? And how has this happened with none of us knowing about it?

Muddy Waters

Sitrep: 1x Abs#1, 1x Arms

Like everyone else, I've been seeing/hearing stories about the F.LDS church in Texas that the government recently raided. 437 children were removed, large-scale DNA testing is being done, and now it appears it was all done on the basis of phone calls from a woman in another state with a known history of false reports of sexual abuse. How much of this was known in advance by the officials I don't know. But before I heard that I was uneasy reading the articles.

What bothers me is the limited evidence (if it can be called that) that prompted the raid. And raid it was. The number of children torn from their families and placed in state custody and moved to foster care...How disastrous is this to them? How disastrous will it be to them in future? To make no attempt to keep these children with their mothers is startling to me. They could demand that the men move off the compound, leaving the children with at least one parent in the meantime. I don't know what "proof" they've found during/after the raid. The articles I've been reading say they have 20 women they think were/are underage. Think being the operative word. How easy is it to tell someones age? Did the FL.DS even keep records? Do they celebrate birthdays? And how old were they when they "married". Sixteen? Seventeen? Younger? It's all so murky. How does that compare with other state laws that allow parental consent to marriage at 16? I don't know TX law.

And the whole DNA thing is scary to me. Now the state has the DNA of all the members of a different religious group, whom many are calling a "cult". I might not agree with their way of life, but really. A "cult"? Go to http://www.dictionary.com/ and type in "cult". If you read those definitions, everything, every religion, can be considered a cult.

Would the authorities have moved this fast if this wasn't a group that kept itself outside the mainstream? What about the Amish? How young do they marry? Don't you think they have pressure in their society to conform, to marry as/when told? Many groups do. Now, I'm not even remotely trying to say the Amish practice child abuse. I don't know if the FL.DS does either. That's what concerns me. The heavy-handed state intervention.

I think the state may have overplayed their hand. Why not investigate? Get some facts, proof before hand. Instead of taking all these children in this dramatic fashion. Maybe my thinking is all muddled, maybe my writing it out is all muddled. I just have this sense of unease when I listen to or read stories on this case. I have from the first. To just go in there and take all these children away, to do the DNA testing on such a large number of citizens (and yes, they are citizens), to require it for them to get their kids back and then to not give the kids back...It frightens me. Our government can and has been zealous when it comes to groups it considers "bad". Ruby Ridge, anyone? But I don't mean to get into that.

How many cases are there of the state wrongly taking children from their parents on inaccurate information and outright lies? And it takes years and money and lawyers to get them back. In the meantime, the children are the ones that suffer. Then there's the plain and simple fact that the majority of states have horrible child welfare systems. Overworked, overburdened, understaffed and underpaid. How is adding this number of children into that system helpful to anyone? Least of all the children? And if it's the girls that are being subjected to child abuse, why take the boys? Are they being abused? They took boys, too, didn't they? Or did they leave them. See, I'm so confused this morning.

Where is the line between freedom of religion and secular law? It really is confusing, and not sharply drawn at all. Nor is it possible to do so, I guess. I don't agree with children being forced to marry. If they are sixteen and want to marry, and have parental consent...Well, I'm not super thrilled with that, but it's been found to be legal in our secular society. Why not in a religious society? I don't have a problem with polygamy, any more than I do with monogamy. It's personal choice, with choice being the operative word I suppose. I think wanting to be married to more than one person at the same time is as crazy as being involved (but not married) with multiple people at the same time. But I'm a loner. And possessive. I do not share well. And that's just my stuff. Forget about someone I'm in an emotional & physical relationship with. Hah. Anyway. I just wonder how young these children really are when marrying, & is that when they start having sex and children? And is there any harm to them if it is how they are raised, and how the society they are raised in functions? In their world it is normal. If it's normal, does it harm? I don't know.

I mean, look at many mainstream religions. Why isn't some of the stuff taught there considered mental abuse? I mean, it's as much indoctrination as anything else when children are raised from birth to believe one way and this is the only way and if you stray from this particular path you will burn in hell for all enternity and all sorts of bad stuff will happen to you, and everyone else is wrong and going to burn in hell, etc, and so on ad infinitum. How many people actually leave what they've been brought up with? Hmm. Looks like another research topic for me. (Why do I do this to myself?) I wonder what the numbers are on that. We can talk about freedom and choice all we want, but how much do we really have when you factor in peer, societal and familial pressure to toe the line and fit in? And when government interferes and makes actual laws or behaves in ways to reinforce a view over another? I understand there have to be laws or total chaos will reign. It's all well and good in theory, but what about the practice?

I know I've already said it, but it really is muddled water. I suppose morals and ethics usually are.

I did some messing around on the Internet (big surprise) and found a blog where posters are much more eloquent than I am. [g] http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/ I haven't read too much on this blog, just a couple of the posts on this issue, and the comments. It's interesting, at any rate.