Peace be upon you all.
I thought this would be an interesting discussion to open.
What are your opinions and thoughts on this:
a) Is it okay to genetically modify a human being at the embryo stage? Things to bear in mind: may have an unfair advantage, or may be made fun of...
b) Is it okay to merge a human with machinery, in other words cyborgs? For example, people could be given metal limbs which act like normal limbs (e.g. luke skywalker with the hand that's actually metal).
Do you think it's okay to alter the human? Morally, religiously, in terms of advantages, and so on.
Looking forward to everyone's replies.
may God bless you all.
It would be unethical or immoral to modify a human being without their consent. An embryo cannot give consent therefore it would be unethical to genetically modify a human embryo.
OTOH, what about modifying an embryo to eliminate a genetic disorder? Or reduce the impact of genetic disorder on the embryo's future life? Surely that wouldn't be unethical? Perhaps we might think that anything that weakens the gene pool (this modified human might still pass on defective genes to future generations) is unethical?
We might also consider modification unethical because we do not know enough about the implications for the future of the embryo, or the future of humanity.
As for merging a human with machinery - it's already happened. From wooden legs to exo-skeletons in a few hundred years. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2494/24945801.jpg. Artificial organs that can be permanently implanted will soon be around (if they aren't already) - pacemakers have, of course, existed for many years. Think what an artificial pancreas might mean to a diabetic.
As for religion - why let religious objection or opinion hold back the development of the human race? If man can devise the technology and put it into practice, and "God" created everything, surely this means that it is our "God"-given right to use the technology for the advancement of the human race? Man's meddling with nature causes harm which he either ignores or is ignorant of. Genetic modification of plants is already a step to far. The modfied plants can cross with wild plants causing superweeds which cannot be iradicated. Organic farmers are suffering because GM crops are being grown too close theirs and cross pollination means they can no longer be classed as organic.
Whether plant or animal, we have evolved over millions of years to be as we are now. Every part of us interacts with other parts and to add or remove something will knock things out of balance. Take white willow bark, which is used as a painkiller. It's very rare for a person taking willow bark to have any adverse reaction to it. Scientists isolated the painkilling ingredient and eventually made a synthetic equivalent which they called asprin. A great painkiller, but it no longer has the other ingredients which balanced it, and the consequence of this is side effects. I'm unable to take asprin because the side effects will leave me with severe stomach problems.
I've got to stop now, I'll have to come back to this discussion later.
Wasnt one of the first things that bush did as president was sign a thing banning human gene modding research? Or was that only for cloning?
good topic idea. I'm sure there will be tons of mixed opinions on this matter as it's always been an area that nobody has been able to determine what is okay and what is wrong other than their personal opinion on the matter.
| Quote: |
| Genetic modification of plants is already a step to far. |
I dont see anything wrong with altering plants. I mean c'mon, have you tried one of those things that are like a pear but taste like apple but with a pears texture or something like that? Thats just cool. Or this year I noticed they have genetically modifyied halloween pumpkins out. You can get either albino (all white) or a mix of white & orange pumpkins. Pretty harmless if you ask me.
As for screwing around with human genes, I think that's a little too much like trying to play god. Sure it does have potential for good things, but equally something like this in the wrong hands or used with the wrong kind of intentions has huge potential for wrong. Just watch any movie that has to do with cloning or gene modifying. Scary is how a crazy scenario like in a movie wouldnt even surprise me if it happened in real life with this kind of technology. | GSIS wrote: |
| OTOH, what about modifying an embryo to eliminate a genetic disorder? Or reduce the impact of genetic disorder on the embryo's future life? Surely that wouldn't be unethical? Perhaps we might think that anything that weakens the gene pool (this modified human might still pass on defective genes to future generations) is unethical? |
But do we have the right to change the next stage of evolution, or should we let it run its course as nature intended. Yes we could eliminate/weaken some genetic disorders, but that is not as nature intended. A perfect example is the o-zone layer, and global warming. Man thinking he had the right to do what he wanted with the Earth has resulted in the Earth fighting back, and threatening to eradicate all life.
We don't know what repercussions altering someone's genetic make-up may have, all we do know is that by doing do so, we may be changing the next stage of evolution, something no-one has the god-given right to do. | Genesiz wrote: |
We don't know what repercussions altering someone's genetic make-up may have, all we do know is that by doing do so, we may be changing the next stage of evolution, something no-one has the god-given right to do. |
Self-determination and self-control of our evolutionary path (or paths) may be the next natural phase of human evolution. We are the first Earth species in history to have the knowledge and developing ability to determine what we want our species to evolve into. This will happen whether we want it or not, whether we think it's ethical or not. We may be following our natural evolutionary path.
There will be mistakes, but as the knowledge and technology improve so will the results.
There'll also be huge political and human rights issues. There'll be attempts to create human variations to carry out specific tasks - just as we have done with selective breeding of dogs to create specific variants suited to specific tasks. We'll need to be certain that these variations are not thought of as 'sub-species' or 'slaves'. What, for example, should we do if a human variant engineered for one task decides he/she doesn't like that line of work and wants to do something else?I'm a big advocate for science, but the alteration of humans that will potentially lead to a sort of Brave New World style predestination, in my opinon, is greatly unethical and completely debilatating to the human spirit. Human diversity is absolutely integral to being human. Making some people smarter, faster, it just doesn't work, because there will always be dissidents to the natural order that people are trying to create. Everyone is unique in their own way, and we shouldn't have a eugenic society that favors those that can afford to genetically modify their children. It's a truly frightening thought to think of a society where there is no personal freedom anymore, and that the playing field is so drastically uneven. Engineering success and happiness is the topic of nearly all the great dystopic literature of the twentieth century. I understand the drive for better, faster, stronger, smarter, but in my opinion, the human form is already at what it should be, and if it is improved, it should be improved by natural evolution.
Some replies to some posts
| GSIS wrote: |
As for merging a human with machinery - it's already happened. From wooden legs to exo-skeletons in a few hundred years. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2494/24945801.jpg. Artificial organs that can be permanently implanted will soon be around (if they aren't already) - pacemakers have, of course, existed for many years. Think what an artificial pancreas might mean to a diabetic.
|
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I do not mean wood or organs from other people, but literal cyborgs from comics. People with metal arms, for example, that are super strong and super fast (which is why i raised the question of 'would it be fair?'). This would also affect sports, and sport competitions, such as the olympics.
By the way, i don't think that link works.
| Quote: |
As for religion - why let religious objection or opinion hold back the development of the human race? If man can devise the technology and put it into practice, and "God" created everything, surely this means that it is our "God"-given right to use the technology for the advancement of the human race?
|
Maybe it's not a development but an abuse. Or may God created us with brains clever enough to learn about science, but with restrictions (in the form of "do not alter creation" found in some woirld religons' scriptures).
---------------------------------
| GSIS wrote: |
We'll need to be certain that these variations are not thought of as 'sub-species' or 'slaves'.
What, for example, should we do if a human variant engineered for one task decides he/she doesn't like that line of work and wants to do something else?
|
That would be a massive problem on the issue of slavery. And knowing people, people would pretend or ignore the fact these sub-species were treated with less respect and even shunned and contribute. Also, changing them for one line of work would be troublesome: a) the person can't choose b) the person can't change because he's suited only well enough for one...and even if he's got a NATURAL good ability at another, he probably can't compete with other slaves (yes notice my wording) c) some people would be normal, like rulers, which would cause segregation in society d) evolution is severely limited e) Some jobs would become obsolete, like they have throughout time. The sub-species would then not be allowed to have children f) Children of intermixing sub-species might create genetically diseased children or prevent children being born.
----------------------------------
| brilliantbeauty wrote: |
I'm a big advocate for science, but the alteration of humans that will potentially lead to a sort of Brave New World style predestination, in my opinon, is greatly unethical and completely debilatating to the human spirit.
|
Could you please explain what you mean by "brave new world style predestination"?
| Quote: |
Human diversity is absolutely integral to being human. Making some people smarter, faster, it just doesn't work, because there will always be dissidents to the natural order that people are trying to create.
|
Completely true. Here are some further interesting points
(thanks for replying everyone!):
-Altering the human to remove certain genes (not necessarily genes that will cause a genetic disorder) will reduce the number of alleles in the population and hence decrease the variation and hence limit natural selection as well as making us all much more vulnerable to the same diseases.
-Those who say altering genes to improve them are the way forward; It's not NATURAL evolution, and so we may not be able to become something better
-On the issue of modifying plants there have been ideas of putting in genes of jellyfish into some plants (e.g. wheat) which would make it glow, when ready for harvest (or whatever the technical term is).
Scientists can also put genes from animals into the fruits. This would be troublesome with religious followers, such as hindus, Muslims, and Jews, who can't eat certain animals. So eating these fruits with pig genes (for example) would be a troublesome issue.
may God bless you all. Peace!
| loyal wrote: |
Some replies to some posts
| GSIS wrote: |
As for merging a human with machinery - it's already happened. From wooden legs to exo-skeletons in a few hundred years. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2494/24945801.jpg. Artificial organs that can be permanently implanted will soon be around (if they aren't already) - pacemakers have, of course, existed for many years. Think what an artificial pancreas might mean to a diabetic.
|
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I do not mean wood or organs from other people, but literal cyborgs from comics. People with metal arms, for example, that are super strong and super fast (which is why i raised the question of 'would it be fair?'). This would also affect sports, and sport competitions, such as the olympics.
By the way, i don't think that link works.
|
We're talking about exactly the same thing. What's the difference between using 1600s technology (a wooden leg) to enhance the abilities of a disabled person, and using modern technology (metal and other hi-tech materials) to enhance the abilities of a non-disabled person? Only the ethics, I think. If you can afford a bionic/cyborg attachment why shouldn't you have one? I don't see it as any different from using a fork-lift truck to move a heavy pallet, or a motorcycle to travel at high speed. I think where we differ is that your concept, if I understand you correctly, is to have a permanent fitting. My concept would be to have a non-permanent one so that the fitting can be changed to suit the needs of the moment. The real problem, for those who want to have a perfectly good natural limb replaced with a bionic/cyborg one would be finding a surgeon willing to do it. Such replacements will, I believe, initially only happen for those who have had accidental amputations, or amputations for medical reasons. My personal opinion, though, is that if someone wants to 'enhance' themselves who am I to stop them?
As for pacemakers and artificial organs, well - pacemakers are permanently fitted. Other organs might be temporary or permanent. Renal dialysis machines (artificial kidneys) are used several times a week. Big unwieldy things that almost literally hog-tie the patient and prevent him/her from leading a reasonably normal life. There'll never be enough organ donors to ensure that everyone who needs a transplant gets one quickly. It might become possible to produce an artificial kidney that is highly portable. It might even become possible to generate a true-match transplant kidney from the patient's own stem cells - perhaps some genetic engineering might be needed to prevent the new one from dying the same death as the old ones.
Not quite sure about that link - it looks as though the New Scientist web site generates dynamic pages that expire quite quickly. The link is, currently, http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg18624945.800-bionic-suit-offers-wearers-superstrength.html for the whole story.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
As for religion - why let religious objection or opinion hold back the development of the human race? If man can devise the technology and put it into practice, and "God" created everything, surely this means that it is our "God"-given right to use the technology for the advancement of the human race?
|
Maybe it's not a development but an abuse. Or may God created us with brains clever enough to learn about science, but with restrictions (in the form of "do not alter creation" found in some world religons' scriptures).
---------------------------------
|
I think this is down to personal opinion. You appear to live a subservient life. I don't. I believe that if there is a God (and I really do not believe there is) then he/she/it has allowed us to be masters of our own destiny.
| Quote: |
| GSIS wrote: |
We'll need to be certain that these variations are not thought of as 'sub-species' or 'slaves'.
What, for example, should we do if a human variant engineered for one task decides he/she doesn't like that line of work and wants to do something else?
|
That would be a massive problem on the issue of slavery. And knowing people, people would pretend or ignore the fact these sub-species were treated with less respect and even shunned and contribute. Also, changing them for one line of work would be troublesome: a) the person can't choose b) the person can't change because he's suited only well enough for one...and even if he's got a NATURAL good ability at another, he probably can't compete with other slaves (yes notice my wording) c) some people would be normal, like rulers, which would cause segregation in society d) evolution is severely limited e) Some jobs would become obsolete, like they have throughout time. The sub-species would then not be allowed to have children f) Children of intermixing sub-species might create genetically diseased children or prevent children being born.
----------------------------------
|
a) Why wouldn't the person/variant be able to choose? I suppose the fundamental problem would be that the 'creators' of the variant would have invested considerable effort and money into producing that variant for a specific task. In effect, the variant would be a financial asset - a slave. The world is full of natural human variants who are clearly in the wrong job - Tony Blair and George W Bush to name two ...
b) Why can't the person change? Same reason. The variant would not be allowed to change because its 'owners' would never permit it.
c) Wouldn't variants, in time, be considered normal? It's only our perception and life experience that make something 'normal' or 'not normal'. Not long ago someone with a pacemaker would have been considered abnormal. Now they're very common. Wouldn't it also be likely that some variants might be produced with enhanced mental capacity. The implication is, of course, that 'normal' people might end up under the control of the variants ...
d) Evolution is limited only because it seeks to best suit the developing species to its limited and changing environment. Those best suited survive, those unsuited do not. The strongest get to mate. The weakest don't. Did you ever wonder why many ladies seem to be attracted to the strongest, most brutal men around them? Human evolution, however, has all but stopped. We no longer change our species to suit our changing environment. Because we have all but mastered our environment we now change our environment as we wish. We have little need to evolve. We do have some pressing needs, though. It's unlikely we'll get climate change under control so it may become necessary to genetically engineer a human variant that can survive. Soon we'll be heading into deep space - we'll need human variants who can survive the extremes of time and space.
e) As you say, some jobs will become obsolete. Who can say what will happen to the variants doing those jobs? Redeployment to other jobs might be an answer. Perhaps 'slave' variants will have, deliberately, a short life-span. Perhaps they'll be sterile. Perhaps they'll simply be sent to the gas chamber ...
f) Interbreeding between variants could be a serious problem. This could be solved by ensuring that variants are sterile.
Clearly, the possibilities of human genetic engineering - in the long term - would cause sweeping changes to the way we perceive humanity. These changes may even mean that humanity, as we currently understand it, ceases to exist. It's also possible that the vastly increased diversity of the species may enhance humanity.
Realistically, though, I don't think that as sentient beings we are ready to take this step. We have more than enough problems dealing with the diversity we already have. The prospect of trying to maintain an orderly and functioning society alongside such radical change does not bear thinking about.
Don't misinterpret me, though. I don't think human genetic engineering is wrong per se - I just think that other than for dealing with medical conditions we're ready to deal with it yet.
| Quote: |
| brilliantbeauty wrote: |
I'm a big advocate for science, but the alteration of humans that will potentially lead to a sort of Brave New World style predestination, in my opinon, is greatly unethical and completely debilatating to the human spirit.
|
Could you please explain what you mean by "brave new world style predestination"?
| Quote: |
Human diversity is absolutely integral to being human. Making some people smarter, faster, it just doesn't work, because there will always be dissidents to the natural order that people are trying to create.
|
Completely true. |
Surely if (BIG IF) we can learn to accept the variants as human then taking a pro-active decision to genetically engineer better/faster/smarter humans could only increase that diversity? 
| Quote: |
Quote:
Genetic modification of plants is already a step to far.
I dont see anything wrong with altering plants. I mean c'mon, have you tried one of those things that are like a pear but taste like apple but with a pears texture or something like that? Thats just cool. Or this year I noticed they have genetically modifyied halloween pumpkins out. You can get either albino (all white) or a mix of white & orange pumpkins. Pretty harmless if you ask me.
|
So you think it's Ok that the result of GM crops can lead to superweeds which cannot be eradicated, that organic farmers are going out of business? No, I've not tasted a fruit that looks like a pear but tastes like an apple. If I want to taste an apple, I'll eat an apple. Pumpkins come naturally in a variety of colors, just because white or bi-colored doesn't mean they are genetically modified.
Nature produces some wonderful natural crosses in both the natural and animal kingdom. What's interesting is that many plants which are naturally crossed either produce no seeds or sterile seeds and I believe all the animals are sterile. Surely nature is telling us something.Because the embryo cannot make decisions for itself, that implies that decision regarding the embryo must be made my someone/something else. Therefore, genetic modification to the embryo is, in my opinion, perfectly alright ... at least from that point of view.
I fear that once we begin, we will not stop. We will seek to create the 'perfect' human being. And then what happens? Where would we draw the line?
I see it becoming just as big as plastic surgery ... especially in Hollywood!
'Oh, I want to change my eye colors'
'There's a great new genetic surgery place'
'Thanks!'
At the same rate, anything that is different people tend to tease, ridicule, dispise, or in some other way negatively interact with .. so, these genetically modified people would probably be subject to much discrimination.
Also, if we completely clone someone - what is their legal status? Are they a citizen of the United States? Are they even a real person?
Mind-boggling, that's for sure...
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| So you think it's Ok that the result of GM crops can lead to superweeds which cannot be eradicated, that organic farmers are going out of business? |
Organic farmers would get screwed anyway; genetic enhancement only makes the process faster. Don't forget we've been fundamentally altering every organism we could get fed from since the beginning of farming. Genetic level alterations merely make the process faster and more cost effective than before; that's the reason why some enterprises live merely from that.
| woundedhealer wrote: |
No, I've not tasted a fruit that looks like a pear but tastes like an apple. If I want to taste an apple, I'll eat an apple. Pumpkins come naturally in a variety of colors, just because white or bi-colored doesn't mean they are genetically modified.
|
Actually, yes. Just in a way more blunt way, a lot like making playdoh sculptures with a sledgehammer. This wiki article makes a good intro to the technique.
| woundedhealer wrote: |
Nature produces some wonderful natural crosses in both the natural and animal kingdom. What's interesting is that many plants which are naturally crossed either produce no seeds or sterile seeds and I believe all the animals are sterile. Surely nature is telling us something. |
We haven't eaten anything 100% natural since at least 5000 years ago (around the time writing arose as a way of recording stuff as it happened).
I don't see the problem on altering any living organism, at least if everyone can afford it and it doesn't become a way to enforce a real genetic caste system. | loyal wrote: |
-On the issue of modifying plants there have been ideas of putting in genes of jellyfish into some plants (e.g. wheat) which would make it glow, when ready for harvest (or whatever the technical term is).
|
And then have the wheat cross-pollinate with wild grasses until the whole countryside glows at a certain time of year?
As great as modified plants are, they have some problems.
I'm altogether for genetic modification of nearly everything, but I say it should be done with more caution. We don't entirely understand what we're messing around with, and it's possible we could screw something up that would go wild and cause lots of ecological damage. Take the salmon they're trying to make super-fast growing as an example; it's working all right, but the fish turn green. Nobody knows why. I'd say genetically modified animals and plants need to be kept in confined test areas for long enough to study several generations extremely thoroughly, and make sure that no unexpected changes show up.
As for modifying fetuses, it should be the parents' decision, and none other. Since the fetus is too young to give consent, we must go to its legal guardians for consent. Since they (supposedly) have the baby's best interests at heart, they won't do anything to hurt it. They should be informed of all possible consequences, though. | woundedhealer wrote: |
So you think it's Ok that the result of GM crops can lead to superweeds which cannot be eradicated, that organic farmers are going out of business? |
| PMK-Bear wrote: |
| Organic farmers would get screwed anyway; genetic enhancement only makes the process faster. Don't forget we've been fundamentally altering every organism we could get fed from since the beginning of farming. Genetic level alterations merely make the process faster and more cost effective than before; that's the reason why some enterprises live merely from that. |
Here in the Uk the majority of people are against GM crops, with some surpermarkets not using GM foods in their own brands, while the buying of organic food is on the increase. The government takes no notice of what the people themselves want and will still sanction GM crops even if they aren't used. They get sent to the third world countries instead, so those people have no choice but to eat it. In some areas they are helped to grow crops in their natural way, working with the land instead of against it. This is proving to be successful.
| woundedhealer wrote: |
No, I've not tasted a fruit that looks like a pear but tastes like an apple. If I want to taste an apple, I'll eat an apple. Pumpkins come naturally in a variety of colors, just because white or bi-colored doesn't mean they are genetically modified. |
| PMK-Bear wrote: |
Actually, yes. Just in a way more blunt way, a lot like making playdoh sculptures with a sledgehammer. This wiki article makes a good intro to the technique.
|
OK, so crab apples are the original apples, but my point was I want to eat something that looks and taste what it's supposed to be, not to eat something because it's a novalty.
While there may be GM pumpkins, this doesn't mean they all are, I haven't yet come across any yet. As a horticulturist I know about plant breeding. There is a huge difference from choosing breeding stock for the next generation to genetic manipulation. Nature itself changes things. New strains can come naturally.
[quote="woundedhealer"]Nature produces some wonderful natural crosses in both the natural and animal kingdom. What's interesting is that many plants which are naturally crossed either produce no seeds or sterile seeds and I believe all the animals are sterile. Surely nature is telling us something.
| PMK-Bear wrote: |
We haven't eaten anything 100% natural since at least 5000 years ago (around the time writing arose as a way of recording stuff as it happened).
|
That's not neccessarily true. While domesticated food is not like it's wild cousins, there is still plenty of food available which has not been domesticated, you just need to know what is edible and where to look for it. Foraging for food is a great pastime.
The point I was making is there is a huge difference in taste of organic foods and non-organic food. | woundedhealer wrote: |
| OK, so crab apples are the original apples, but my point was I want to eat something that looks and taste what it's supposed to be, not to eat something because it's a novalty. |
You should absolutely not eat anything that doesn't taste as it is supposed to, regardless of whatever the heck it has been built from.
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| There is a huge difference from choosing breeding stock for the next generation to genetic manipulation. |
The same difference as in dog breeding vs. genetical enhancement of such dogs. The only REAL difference is that genetic level characteristics manipulation is much newer & faster. That's not the same as saying it's safer (for you ocalhoun). | woundedhealer wrote: |
| Just Nature itself changes things. New strains can come naturally. |
From a technical standpoint, nature isn't a sentient being, thus it can't change anything by itself. So let's say that changes happen by themselves following some sort of process... that is true until you can actually influence the process through application of a modelization of such process (properly called a scientific theory's). So, people can (if the model is accurate) modify stuff in a pretty much similar way nature does. Just faster and since a lot less time.
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| What's interesting is that many plants which are naturally crossed either produce no seeds or sterile seeds and I believe all the animals are sterile. Surely nature is telling us something. |
So, by castrating a cat you're playing Mother Nature's role? Are sterile couples a divine message?
Last edited by PMK-Bear on Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:18 pm; edited 1 time in totala BODY IS JUST A BODY....
What if we extend life from a lifetime of 100 years by 10 times to 1000 -> by alter the genetics. SOON we will disover that!!!
And let's think after that 1000 years we have the opportunity to regenerate the cells so we will be back in our youth again -> yes it is mathematically correct to assume that with certain.
So if you then can live as long as you like -> when will you celebrate life? What is life? What will you alter now in life with that in mind that you or you kids will live forever???
spinout, multiplying lifespan by such a factor is much more complex than for instance making a flu-vaccine-banana (which was an active project some 5 years ago here in Argentina's INTA). To do such thing you need to know precisely WTF is required to age 
, to begin with something. | Quote: |
What's interesting is that many plants which are naturally crossed either produce no seeds or sterile seeds and I believe all the animals are sterile. Surely nature is telling us something.
So, by castrating a cat you're playing Mother Nature's role? Are sterile couples a divine message?
|
I've never thought about it in that way, but yes you're right, by castrating a cat (or dog) we are playing Mother Nature's role. In the wild it's normally only the strongest that gets to breed. In pack animals it's the alpha male and female or the alpha male with any female he chooses that breed. In solitary animals males may fight for a female or the female chooses a male she thinks is worthy of breeding with. Unlike domesticated animals, wild ones do not neccessarily get to breed just because they are able to.
Castrating our cats and dogs is the resposible thing to do.
| Quote: |
There is a huge difference from choosing breeding stock for the next generation to genetic manipulation.
| Quote: | | The same difference as in dog breeding vs. genetical enhancement of such dogs. The only REAL difference is that genetic level characteristics manipulation is much newer & faster. |
|
I don't somehow think the Kennel Club will allow genetical enhacement of dogs. There are already problems with breeding the perfect specimen. Each breed already has it's medical problems and genetic modification is not an answer to this either. We may think the answer lies in producing the perfect specimen, but that perfect specimen may turn out to be a sickly weakling. Even supposing the perfect specimen is produced, who's to say the next generation will be just as perfect.
