Breeding New Reading

Ponderous opportunities to surround yourself with kindred spirits, voices and other nuisances.


http://www.literature-map.com/

What else do readers of Martin Amis read? Where else can you see Graham Greene, A. A. Milne and Jonathan Lethem rubbing shoulders?

The closer two writers are, the more likely someone will like both of them.

Click on a name to travel along.

Cryonics, Cynics and Prophetics

Cryonics is “the practice of freezing a person who has died of a disease in hopes of restoring life at some future time when a cure for the disease has been developed.” The currently irreversible practice of lowering the temperature of clinically dead “clients” who wish to be brought back to life in the future at the advent of new medical methods that will cure or treat a condition, disease or otherwise crucial issue that was impacting upon their body. There in lies the ethical questions posed when the subject is researched; Can a dead person be “raised” and still have his soul intact? Is it proper to house a body indefinitely without a guarantee of re-awakening?
The subject may seem cut and dry. What arrangements made post (or prearranged) mortem of a body remains (sic) in control of the person or family of the person. It should stand to reason that a new medical procedure such as cryonics could be an option. Yet there are two things that seem to parry the statement. Ben Best, the Director of the Cryonics Institute avers that cryonics is controversial in two main ways.
“(1) Cryonics cannot be proven to work or proven not to work until some time in the future. Cryonics is dependent on a future technology, and there is no guarantee that the future can create the required technology.
(2) Most people who seek cryonics do not simply want a procedure comparable to heroic surgery. Cryonicists are usually people who want a procedure which can transport them to a future technology capable of restoring youth, and extending youthful life-span hundreds or thousands of years or more.” (http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/cryiss.html#definition)
The questions this raises is that if you, as a medical doctor, promise to re-animate a patient, fix whatever ailment that was previously incurable and then discharge said patient, what does one do from there? Legally, the patient had to have been dead before freezing, thus his assets, social security and else have been forfeited as per the laws that oversee estates and/or social security. What does one do at this point? Who is liable to the patient? These issues will need to be examined.
Also, what occurs if in the process of thawing, the body is injured? Is that malpractice or is that desecration of a corpse? In what way will the body be taken from the morgue? I suspect that most countries have laws on the handling of dead bodies.
On the other angle, what of the needed medical care after the thawing? If the patient died of a then-incurable ailment, what certainty does the doctor have in curing the patient in the future? Such speculation may have social and legal ramifications. If patient’s bodies are held with the indefinite promise to be re-animated once the cure for their particular disease is found, to what extent is the doctor held to find such a cure or to thaw in a fair and speedy manner? Is there a warranty that can be applied?
Many cryonics centers defend their practices firmly. One such facility, run by Alcor Life Extension Foundation seems to take to their pursuits sternly and are quick to defend themselves.
“The people working on organ preservation routinely load and unload organs with cryoprotectant levels similar to what we are using…It is certainly true that our patients are badly injured. So badly injured (by disease usually) that current medical practice has no way to extend their lives (at least with any quality of life).” (http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MedicalEthicsInCryonics.html)
Though the Alcor folk may stand by their operation, they seem a bit cavalier taking money from patients when Alcor openly states “, all the king's nanotechnology will not bring back a patient's memories and personality beyond some point. We try to do as little damage to the patient as possible, guided by our experience in recovering total body washout animals.” So as it stands, they promise to bring back to life their paying (dead) customers on the notion that they have researched and experimented on animals, and agree with naysayers on their lack of scientific background as to the limits they can attest to their abilities. (http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MedicalEthicsInCryonics.html)
Another ethical question is that of whether or not such a procedure, if made widespread, will become compulsory. Given that there are laws against suicide, assisted or otherwise, can the state require your body to be cronically interred until a “cure” becomes available? What of the wishes of the departed? Can a religious body intercede? If the process of cryonics proves to be a rational delivery of life-after-death, are all deaths then considered repairable? Even of “natural causes? Can the cryonics firm choose not to re-animate a patient if there has been a failure of the responsible party to make the necessary payments; a sort of blackmail or legal lien on life itself?
Many of our life-to-death deals will come into question, both social and legal. What becomes of a marriage if there is no limit on the extension of a beloved’s life? Are you married indefinitely? Can you seek a divorce from a deceased? Real estate handling and co-signatures become tempestuous. “Wake up and sign this paper Honey”! Heirs everywhere beware, your uncle may need that suit back at some point! I cannot imagine the impact on wills, contracts, estates or even the responsibility of parenthood. If a person dies, yet is frozen, does he loose custody of a child? Is he retroactively charged for childcare until he/she is woken? Alas, the worst yet. Is a person held accountable for their actions if they had died yet re-animated? Is a soldier indebted to serve out his remaining service period if he is killed in action, only to be given a second chance at life?
These questions must be worked out morally, politically and legally before the practice of cryonics gets out of hand. The turn of the phrase “A second lease in life” certainly will carry a different allusion and weight in that near future.

To Clone, Or Not To Condone

In 1996 Science and science fiction met with worldwide ado. Ian Wilmut, a British scientist working in Scotland was able to clone a female sheep using a mammary cell. With wonder or disgust, Dolly took the center stage for the debate on the bio-ethics of cloning. Scientists clone animals by removing the nucleus from an animal egg, and replacing it with the nucleus from a body cell of another animal. This way, the egg develops into an animal that has identical genetic traits as the animal whose cell nucleus was taken. (http://www.time.com/time/2007/cloning/2.html)
This debate, whether we, as humans, have the right to clone humans, animals or otherwise, rides on the crest of many underlying ideas and opinions. As science moves forward into the future, what we decide now on the bio-ethical questions will forever mark the pathways to come.
The big question that comes up is the morality of cloning. Even before we look at the health or environmental or even the custodial principles that come into the gray are of cloning we must first think on this. Is it morally ethical to clone? This question splits into two camps..
Firstly, stepping on God’s turf. At what point of human intervention in the name of life creation, reproduction or interfering is crossing into the ventures of The Creator. “God never intended for people to be cranked off an assembly line like so many pieces of machinery. This is such a fundamental principle that even the most obtuse ought to recognize it.” (http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_ethics_of_human_cloning) The view from the Christian Courier attacks both the impetus and impact of scientific cloning ventures, stating that “While there is no apparent ethical offence in cloning a carrot, or even a frog, such is not the case with people…humans are not mere animals that have evolved from biological slime. They are creatures specially fashioned by God; which means they are unique in their nature.” The paper goes on to decry the efforts as being beyond the scope at which man should be working in.
The Other side of the moral question is that in our haste to interfere genetically with the organisms on earth that we supercede the natural ways of things, from biodiversity and beyond. A food industry specialist, Professor Andrew Starbird , director of SCU's Institute of Agribusiness states in an interview with Robin K. Sterns, Ph.D. (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sterns/doublenothing.html) that “genetic diversity has been lost through cloning-reproduction through cuttings-in grapes and apples. It has been lost, as well, through breeding in beans, corn, potatoes, and several vegetable crops.” This, he avers, will lead to loss of crops from diseases or intolerance to pests. The theory here is that when crops, humans, animals….any group organisms occur naturally, the diversity in their genetic make-up prevents a disease from attacking and killing off the whole lot. If a whole herd of cows all shared too similar a gene sequence, it leaves the whole herd open to a genetic disease that otherwise may only have affected some. This can result in an increase of major loss from disease. Genetic variability allows some individual plants to survive plagues, while genetic homogeneity makes all individuals equally susceptible to disease." (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sterns/doublenothing.html)
With these two basic views being looked at, whether a question of human will mixed with a percieved God complication or the genetic recombination waning that could end the lives of large populations through disease, cloning remains a challenge of doctrine, future-science and opinion.

Invading, North and South

Bill Bigelow leads his students in Portland Oregon south, toward the Rio Grande, and deep into areas of critical thinking. Bigelow addresses the disconnect that high school age students have between the Mexican immigrants and NAFTA and the intertwining history that America shares with the Mexican nation. Through role playing that asks students to take on personas both historical and current, the students will better grasp perspectives that are overshadowing the news and topical discussion today over the borders.
One of Bigelow’s contentions in his American History course is that the text books in his curriculum, which are probably representative of the US as a whole, seem to make a hasty mention of the poignant past transgressions the US has made against Mexico as well as the effects of NAFTA on both parties. By asking students to assume roles that may or may not coincide with their presuppositions on the subject of Mexico there will be more room for critical thinking on an individual student standpoint.
I believe that Bigelow’s views are quite correct in that the youth (and adult) population of the United States take on the Mexican influx in our population, the reasons behind this trend and the impacting precursors to this movement. What the media has created in the wake of these trends is a stereotype, fear and a general misplaced apathy to the bigger issues at stake on the US and Mexican border dispute.

“As educators, our job is not to hand students conclusions about the border. But especially because this history does not figure prominently in the traditional curriculum in the US schools—and students are unlikely to be exposed to it on the nightly news—it’s up to us to introduce some critical voices.”

The current ado over the Mexico issues at hand is the perfect example of when history, albeit sometimes shadowed by misinformation or lack of it, and current events tangle. The curriculum in American history may not be forming a strong enough basis for students to begin tackling the subject matter in terms of their own lives and current problems or events. Bill Bigelow is attempting to bring about a more round-table and empathic approach to current affairs by broaching the historic content that affects the present. I agree wholeheartedly with the implementation of role-playing in the classroom as a means of perspective gathering and critical thinking. Certain historic eras, events or ideals are somewhat slighted or undervalued in terms of generality or stereotyping. I wonder on the impact of a more in-depth look at the USSR during the 1980’s when I was in school, on the stance that I took on the Nation. Would I have had the rock-imbedded images of cold oppression that I carried in my head or would I have had a well thought on and “arrived” opinion on the subject if I had been offered more perspectives on the topic.
The relevance of this timely book is plain to see in my opinion. A better-rounded critical and up-to-date mind needs to be forged in the halls of education. The media should not be able to paint on blank canvasses with stereotypes, generalities and idolatry. These pictures should be drawn from a historical AND current evaluation of the information facing students in all arenas; whether on the Mexican border, the middle east, Trade treaties, Ecology……the list goes on. Bill Bigelow sums up why this should be a growing trend in education by his ending comments.

“Our job is to offer students imaginative ways to engage the historic, social, and economic background that will equip them to think carefully about the lines between us and the bonds that connect us.” RETHINKING Globalization: Teaching for Justice in an Unjust World

Frankenstein, Science or Fiction

Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus as it is also known, was first published in 1818. Written by Mary Shelley, this well-known tale challenges the reader to suspend hi or her disbelief, to paraphrase Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and bear witness to the “birth” of a piecemeal man, a man whose re-animating seems less than probable. Or Does it?
Modern times bring with it fresh scientific perspective. Through advances in medical methodology, genetics, and surgical strategies, the Frankenstein monster seems closer to fact than a imagined fiction. Following are what I have found in examining possible courses to take in the construction and re-animation of a human body.

Galvanism

Named for the Italian scientist, Luigi Galvani who studied the effects of electricity on nervous system and muscles. The idea behind this study was that if one could apply just the right amount of electricity to a dead animal that you could re-animate it…or at least it would twitch a lot. (http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/electro/electro.htm) Though galvanism is still practiced, it is now the term used for the physical therapy technique. Chiropractors such as Dr. Ann Raymer “a circuit of a sine wave current passes through two strategically placed pads creating a rhythmic contraction and relaxation of muscles on each side of the spine. This massaging effect helps eliminate toxins by aiding the de-congestion of the lymph system and increasing circulation. This is often used to help with sore muscles, and to rehabilitate and strengthen injured muscles.” (http://users.moscow.com/araymer/therapies.html)

Test Tube Organs
If Dr. Frankenstein had been able to conjure the correct amount of electricity to course through his patient, he would still have had to fill the body with viable organs. Well it seems that some university scientists “took cell samples from several patients with conditions that cause a weak bladder. In the lab, the researchers coaxed the cells to grow into new bladders. The lab-grown organs were then transplanted into the patients. Four years later, the bladders are functioning well and relatively free of problems common to implanted bladders cobbled together from intestinal and other tissues.” (http://www.soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment.php4?seg=836) With this newly emerging medical science, Frankenstein would have been able to generate new versions of the dead organs that he had harvested from whatever dubious point of origin. Not dealing now with lifeless lungs and gangrenous livers, but newborn lungs and livers would have greatly increased the vitality and viability in his creation. Important still, would be that if he could use as whole of a body as he could find, he would also limit the rejection of foreign proteins regarding the differing body parts negotiated into one whole. Although many new drugs are available (Thymoglobulin® et al) that aid to lower the incident of acute rejection, Use of organs and tissue grown in a test tube from the same cadaver would be best used to prevent issues. Skin synthesis or a type of “cultured skin” has been much sought after in repair of skin tissue. In a July article, appearing in Technology Review (MIT) Carolyn Strange writes that “According to its manufacturer, Organogenesis of Canton, Mass., when the living-skin tissue was used in clinical studies on patients…57 percent of patients who had battled their ulcers for more than a year saw their wounds close completely, compared with 17 percent of those receiving conventional treatment.” (http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/11575/) Perhaps Dr. Frankenstein’s creation would not have been so unbecoming had he had a way to achieve “…skin looks, feels, and behaves like normal human skin. When wounded, it can even heal itself.” (http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/11575/)
Nerve and Plastic Reconstruction
As for the nerves and their reconstruction, we simply need to ask the folks at The Institute for Advanced Reconstruction whose surgeons “can restore a healthy, normal appearance to patients who have suffered some type of trauma. Our plastic surgeons have mastered a wide range of techniques that can help give you back a normal life.” Because “developments allow patients to regain function and restore appearance in ways that were almost unimaginable in the not-too-distant past.” (http://www.advancedreconstruction.com/) What Frankenstein did not have available was surgical procedures such as brachial plexus reconstruction, bells palsy treatment, radial and ulnar nerve surgery, and foot drop treatment. In these treatments, grafts may be taken from other areas of your body and placed into the needed connections, transplants from a donor can be used in longer severe-ages, though they will need immunosuppression such as was with the organ donation.
Limb Reattachment
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center asserts that surgeons now can reattach amputated limbs to bodies. The good Dr. would be rolling in his grave had he known that in the future that doctors can now reattach limbs in such a way as we do now. Paired with the nerve repairs and skin graft/growth, he could have made a far superior monster in both medical and aesthetic terms.
“Remarkable advances in microsurgery have made it possible to reattach amputated limbs. Special microsutures and microscopes have been developed which allow a microvascular surgeon to repair the blood supply to the reattached limb. Microvascular surgeons have developed new techniques for repairing these very small blood vessels. These surgeons, originally trained in orthopaedic, plastic and general surgery, receive additional training in this highly specialized area.”
(http://www.hmc.psu.edu/plasticsurgery/services/adult/recon/microsurgery.htm)

Special microsutures and microscopes have been developed which allow a microvascular surgeon to repair the blood supply to the reattached limb.
Analysis
When we look at the problem at hand, (being how to produce a living, breathing, monster with a modicum of reliability and sustainability) we must forgive Dr. Frankenstein for the appearance, mismatch and motility of his creation. In this, the 21st century, many new and innovative medical procedures are at the beck and whim of the well-trained army of surgeons from around the globe. Whether it be gene therapy to conquer diseases, grafts, transplants or even genesis of tissue, organs or limbs, the current monster would be surely a heartier specimen.

Dolphins of Taiji, a Murder Suicide

With great alacrity do these noble fishermen, spear held aloft, carry on their hunt. Though not dressed in traditional garb or manning the small thatched canoes of their ancestors, roughly 26 men clamber into vessels at the edge of their steep, rocky shoreline. This year, as in every year, the small seaside village of Taiji at the southernmost reach of Japan's great archipelago prepare for what some may see as the most barbaric and savage of seasons. Though tradition metes out sometimes harsh realities upon our gentler and more prosaic lives, even this seems a bit harsh and out of character from the honorable people who brought us the serene sounds of haiku and nature worshiping Shinto. Nets and loud noises are used to coral these creatures, at once regarded for their poise and intelligence and their copper-like, moist flesh, into a shallow cove where they are at once beaten, speared and eviscerated. With salacious gusto, barbed gafs are employed by the men, as is threshing the very waters, to stab, pinion and pierce the writhing beasts. Hoisting them into their boats, laden with the flesh and disembodied death-mates, clicking-their dying calls. These are the last rites of what most would consider our closest cousin ( of the swimming kind).
This has not gone unnoticed. An onslaught of of publicity and the requisite public outcry met these fishermen and their grand tradition. Many conservation, animal protection and environmental activists have swum to the aide of the dolphins. In trying to interject themselves between boat and bottle-nose, many have found themselves at the intersection of the end of a spear and the end of their life.
"Thus, it was a traumatic experience that our values were attacked fiercely by western environmentalists and animal right activists." S. Hamanaka, Mayor and The People of Taiji
If the honorable Hamanaka-san is terrified by the ado stirred by the blood-roaled waters, he may want turn away, eyes cast geisha-like down when the boats come to port, bearing fins and flippers and the mercurial ire of the global community.
So we come to the grand irony, the symbolic gest. If like ours, the dolphin's proto-hand, under all the pressures of aquatic Darwanism, had taken to fingers as swimmingly as humans, they would be raising a solitary digit to these clandestinely suicidal fishermen and their compatriots who will purchase, consume and be poisoned by the very meats that they are taking such heat for partaking of.
ScienceDirect.com reveals that according to the Japanese ministry of health has found that the mercury levels found in the liver and other tastier and sought after organs "exceeds the permitted level by approximately 5000 times and the consumption of only 0.15 g of liver" and offers "the possibility of an acute intoxication by T–Hg (mercury concentration) even after a single consumption of the product."
So,the fishing village of Taiji finds itself in one clandestinely satiric situation. The very act of thumbing their nose at the conviction, conventions and custom-culling modern society will be the literal death of them. Very poetic really. In order to stave off the demise of their traditional fishing rights, they continue to kill the dolphins, which spells certain death to the villagers. If one was to view this as an outsider, as every man, woman and child outside of this piteous, execrable little far off land does, it would be lauded as the single most insane and Socaratic-ally suicidal venture in man's great fallible riddled history.
Yet, in the words of the mayor, espousing great philosophy in his A Message from Taiji, addressing the International Whaling Commission and other critics of the slaughterings ..."We are proud of our own heritage and want to hand it down to the next generations." (See mercury poisoning=no next generation.) "We believe we know more about our own sea in Taiji than anyone who lives hundreds or thousands of miles away from us."
Speaking for the dolphins posthumously, that remains to be proven.