The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, March 23, 1992, Image 11

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    March 23
IS!
ers
Opinion
Monday, March 23, 1992
The Battalion
Page 11
I® 6, wlienii
million to|
die NASAci
I'en, Penti|
ed to moreft
ar,
spends neailj
dollar on sen:
is ranging It
stems, it s;
lie contracts, |
The Battalion Editorial Board
DOUGLAS PILS, Editor-in-Chief
The
Battalion
BRIDGET HARROW. Managing Editor
BRIAN BONEY, Opinion Editor
JASON MORRIS, Night News Editor
MORGAN JUDAY. Night News Editor
MACK HARRISON. City Editor
KARL STOLLEIS, Photo Editor
SCOTT WUDEL, Sports Editor
ROB NEWBERRY. Lifestyles Editor
idvised Nd
: no mechani
ch the appitt
:harge billing
cials told at
Genetics
Should society limit the advances
PRO
Party
races
3t , G t . .
I Genetics is a
nii/f topic that has
I IVl intrigued and
1 Tightened
I\I') “^ generations of
is native W*ti ence fiction
confidenc* ea d ers an( j one
nud ^ s .. a ,fwhose potential
iesubM* s F fi rs t
i, 1 Jhincovered by scientists nearly 20
9 elect!onl y ears a 8°- Since the establishment of
news the many subfields of genetics, the
Prime community has posed many
defensive Blhical questions on society. Today,
iqucnt platV ur knowledge of human genes has
49 isalsoa|i ncrease< ^ tremendously, but the
Hier: thrusfilhical battle grows more and more
main strtT Com P^ ex as study of genetics
lining toviincorporates larger aspects of our
lentary disrllives.
etched harl Although the study of genetics has
i, remembewontributed much to the fields of
after an ailscience and medicine, the numerous
negative ethical aspects and potential
rom thevajdangers of genetics outweigh its
icople, andj potential benefits.
onderfulpB The most recent controversy
y Phillips Jeters on the use of genetics to treat
s wife,G anc i p re v en t diseases. This "gene
lam street! therapy" was the topic of discussion
v in a recent conference at Houston's
of the KiitJ Texas Medical center.
in gene research?
CON
:ivr candfl
Gene therapy was first used by Dr.
cafIet^ U T! Anderson less than two
^ years ago in two children who were
born without an enzyme that is
orn nea' F 55en haJ to development of the
iner LiA ^ uman irnmune system. His patients
received injections of corrected white
blood cells to replace their own
nent W
able mine:
now havet
ed light ini
n this di deficient cells. Since the injected cells
igo. h ave a limited life-span, the children
h theirte pust undergo repeated treatments
about every 90 days.
To date, the children's therapy
seems to be going well, but it also
raises a new crop of philosophical
questions to the public. These
questions are likely to explode during
^ . the next few decades as genetic
JVHl banipu^tion becomes the common
J Ichoice of therapy for more and more
. , , w iiseases.
1 ° ere '' Incorporating genetics into
0 militam' ^dicine could allow couples to know
vard Nusad ^ their newborn or even if their
inborn children have any genetically
> said Sund.’ ratable diseases, but using genetics
and wod 0 diagnose or treat common ailments
r. such as high cholesterol or cancer
I awed KurJ ttuld leave room for manipulation by
d for age« insurance companies or health care
idayonSa! providers who might deny coverage
to certain individuals based on their
;enetic makeup.
These possibilities raise the
uestion of where to draw the line on
dividual privacy. If parents can find
tut about the genetic makeup of their
hildren before they are born, who
Ise will have access to this
nformation? And later on down the
oad, who can say whether the
overnment will force all pregnant
omen to have genetic tests done on
their unborn fetuses.
When doctors are able to use
genetics to predict and correct
diseases, who will get the right to
determine what the definition of a
disease is? Some people may only
Want genetics to be used in treating
terminal illnesses while others may
consider the traits of lefthandedness
or shortness to be undesirable,
therefore insisting on gene therapy to
alter these conditions. The latter
group brings to mind an image close
to that of eugenics in which genetics
could be used to create a "master
human race" like that of Huxley's
"Brave New World".
Even with the medical benefits in
hand, the use of genetics in medicine
opens up a Pandora's box that is
much too dangerous to be opened by
our society.
We must realize that the value of
privacy and of humanity exceeds by
far the short term benefits for the field
of medicine.
HOAD
I T 1
N
EAR
SHIPS
Hall
Saddler is a sophomore
psychology major
As if in some
Star Trek episode,
humans are
attaining the
ability to alter the
very building
blocks of their
being.
The
possibilities are endless. Cancer, AIDS
and birth defects all could be cured by
the advances mow being made in
genetics. It's possible in the not-too-
distant future that people no 1 onger
will have to worry about human
defects that cause them to bear the
brunt of scorn and ridicule. We could
the pain suffered by millions.
Yet some would deny these people
that opportunity because genetic
research conflicts with their narrow
views of ethics or religion.
The ethics we can work out as the
needs arise. There is no need to derail
the science of genetics because we have
no ethical answers now.
Of course the ethical questions are
important.
Should women be forced to undergo
treatment to prevent children who
might be born gay?
Should couples be allowed to
engineer the appearance of their
children?
Should criminals be altered to deter
their anti-social ways?
All of these and more questions rate
serious discussion.
But without knowing the specifics of
each genetic solution, society cannot
determine the proper course of action.
We cannot answer a question that
hasn't been written.That's no reason to
stop genetic research.
Perhaps the hardest fight, though,
will be that against religion.
The question of "curing"
homosexuality is the perfect example.
If science eventually proves that
homosexuality is genetic, as I believe,
then Christian dogma dictates that the
unborn child must be altered, or else
the parents would be sinners.
But what if the parents chose to
have a homosexual child and altered it
accordingly? The church would be
forced into preventing the operation.
The simple fact of mankind altering
"God's creation," a child, strikes fear in
religious leaders. They can be expected
to fight genetic research tooth and nail.
The ethical debate will and should
continue.
But to stop research before the
answers have been found is to deny
millions in the future of treatments that
could greatly improve their lives. It is
very easy for those of us who are
normal height, with no handicaps or
diseases to point at those who do and
tell them to accept their lot in life.
Would we be so quick to defend that
position if we were forced to live life in
a wheelchair, or to take insulin, or to
undergo continual operations?
The answers to many of mankind's
plagues are out there, waiting for us to
find them. We cannot let our
shortsightedness destroy the possible
reality that could be: a race of people
who have no physical flaws or
ailments.
Some science fiction theories would
have believe that a race such as this
would be inherently evil. They say that
humans would lose their humanity.
We would be too close to perfection.
Is that so bad, though?
Just as we have a responsibility to
each other to relieve the suffering that
disease and other calamities cause, we
have a responsibility to the future to
lay the groundwork now that could
mean better lives for upcoming
generations.
Genetic research must continue.
The benefits mankind could realize
far outweigh the possible mistakes we
could make.
It is our nature to move forward, not
backward.
Boney is a senior education
certification major
Kitegate
Check-bouncing excuses insult the intelligence of constituents
because, "They didn't tell us there
I thought I was going to write a
serious column about life or
something this week, but we the
people caught Congress with its hand
in the proverbial cookie jar again.
So what did our esteemed and
honored Congress do now? For those
of you just getting over Spring Break-
related hangovers. I'll sum it up.
Congress has its own bank, a full-
service bank with
checking
accounts for each
representative.
Representatives
can have their
exorbitant
paychecks
conveniently
deposited
directly to these
accounts, and
may then use
checks to
withdraw their
hard-earned pay. This is very similar
to the account you probably have
right now, except congressmen have
significantly more money in their
accounts.
The House bank allows
Congressmen to overdraw their
accounts for any amount anytime
they choose. The process is called
'kiting,' since the checks are paid by
the bank and the debt is left floating
in a fiscal nether world until the
overdraft is rectified. There is no
penalty for this behavior at the House
Bank; in other parts of America,
overdrafts can result in jail time.
But the House bank does not
operate by the normal rules of
banking. This should be obvious, of
course, since it's run for the benefit of
Congress — the same organization that
has exempted itself from many of the
laws it has forced upon the rest of us,
such as the latest civil rights act and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Congress has created for itself and its
own posterity a kind of Never-Never
land in which it may suspend any
laws or standards of ethics it pleases.
Such behavior is nothing new for
the House of Representatives, and this
"Kitegate" scandal would probably
not grace my byline had some of the
congressional kiters used better
excuses for their actions.
Denial is an overused excuse in the
scandal. Arkansas congressman
Tommy Robinson tops the kiting list
by overdrawing 996 times. However,
even in the face of things like facts or
bank records, Mr. Robinson denies
that he ever overdrew his account.
New Yorker Robert Mrazek drew 972
overdrafts, and was overdrawn for 23
consecutive months. He, too, claims
not a single overdraft in his account.
Some representatives used a
"moral high ground" approach to
justify their fiscal responsibilities.
Californian Robert Dorman bounced a
check that bought a small cave
dedicated to the Virgin Mary for his
backyard.
Charles Hatcher from Georgia
holds 819 bad checks, and was
overdrawn for 35 months. "I haven't
been a high liver, I don't think,"
Hatcher said. "But I've had living
expenses and family expenses."
New Yorker Susan Molinari made
a ringing endorsement for Congress'
intellectual level when she
commented on her six bad checks:
"I'm a dope, not a crook."
Tim Penny from Minnesota blames
his overdrafts on his office manager.
And besides, he said, two of his three
bounced checks were to a Christian
youth group and a corn-grower's
association, so at least they were for
good causes.
"I feel that I was victimized," said
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., from
Wisconsin. He claims the House bank
never told him of his 13 overdrafts
amounting to $50,000. Apparently he
never thought of scrutinizing his bank
statements.
Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio claims
she thought she had to deposit her
paycheck in a House Bank account
was another way to get your check."
The 15-year House veteran claims she
never realized she could deposit her
paycheck anywhere she chose. Oakar
admitted to six overdrafts; current
records show 217. Oakar, by the way,
sits on the House Administration
Committee, which controls the House
Bank. So much for "Congressional
oversight."
I have no trouble accepting stupid
exploits of the US. Congress, but 1 do
not appreciate members of Congress
treating the rest of us like illiterate
morons. These excuses are pathetic.
Every representative has his own
speech writer. These writers should be
creative enough to make up
acceptable excuses for the public's
consumption, especially since you pay
for the guys. Even honesty would be a
nice change of pace.
"Yeah, I kited 632 checks worth
$500,000. Hey, I'm a 12-term
incumbent, and I don't have to talk to
repulsive, insignificant constituents
like you! Now get out; I've got an
appointment with my federally
funded masseuse."
Or, "I'm a Kennedy. I can do
anything I want."
Kitegate is more proof that
Congress is unwilling to police itself.
We, the voting public, cannot impose
rules on the House and Senate, but we
can still use two means of ridding our
government of this corruption. We
can force through term limitations, or
we can vote them all out of office.
Illinois voters kicked out several
House members in last week's
primaries there. The rest of the
country has November to cast a pink
slip.
Throw the bums out first. Then we
can set up term limits to keep the
bums out.
DeShazo is a junior electrical
engineering major
Mail Call
Aggie hoops
deserve pride
This past academic year Texas
A&M has been slammed and slammed
again by not only the local media but
the national media as well. From the
Bryan-College Station Eagle to the
New York Times and from KBTX to a
Current Affair, the Aggies have
repeatedly been the recipients of bad
press and biased reporting which has
tarnished our reputation nationwide.
As if this is not enough, Texas A&M
has once again become the brunt of
the media. Our basketball team was
placed on the killfloor of the Erwin
Center for Texas to massacre on
national TV. All this for the sake of
making the Texas basketball program
look better. Not once during the whole
coverage was it stressed that the
Aggies had almost entirely walk-on
team as opposed to Texas' scholarship
athletes. The whole "horns-fest" was
positively disgraceful. Jeers to ABC.
Despite all of this, I remain proud
of our basketball program. There were
some great moments this year,
foreshadowing what is to come in the
near future. The team that played
Sunday is not the same team that
started the season against Marathon
Oil. I applaud all of you on your
determination not to give up,
especially you. Coach Barone. Last
semester when your new basketball
program was slapped with NCAA
sanctions that you and your players
had nothing to do with, you could
have left but you stayed. Thank you
for not giving up on us. Despite what
the majority of the nation is saying.
Aggies are pretty good people and I
hope you and your players know that
the student body is proud of you as
well as the entire basketball program.
Thanks for a great season. Although
it wasn't winning, it was certainly one
of which to be proud.
Gretchen E. Kelly
Class of'92
Have an opinion?
Express it?
The Battalion is interested in hearing
from its readers. All letters to the editor
are welcome.
Letters must be signed and must
include classification, address and a
daytime phone number for verification
purposes. Anonymous letters will not
be published.
The Battalion reserves the right to
edit all letters for length, style and
accuracy. There is no guarantee that
letters will appear.
Letters may be brought to 013 Reed
McDonald, sent to Campus Mail Stop
1111 or can be faxed to 845-2647.
hi campus
-t Avenue.
9336.