Bodies and Dollars: Crash Course History of Science #41
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
August
Ummm. perhaps it was my professor, but I recall vividly in my College biology class that we differentiated between GMOs and Genetically Engineered Organisms (I don't know if GEO would be a proper acronym so I go with what I have said. Basically, the reason my professor did this was to point out the difference between taking a line of genetic code from a bacterial equivalent which had the properties wanted for the plant, i. e, to genetically engineer it, and Genetically Modifying it. Because accordingly and dependent on our definition and inclusivity of Modify, we can include the entire history of agriculture under the heading of GMOs. This is to say, that simply choosing where to plant the plant counts under this modification. This is further to say that Genetic Engineer is merely a subsection of Genetically Modifying and not it in its entirety, and that other things like pollination, irrigation, and pest control counts as Genetically Modifying the Organism which does not involved the technological aspect of DNA splicing.
The reason I mention this is because it seems disingenuous otherwise, that is, if this is the history of science, then you miss the historical agriculture that is the section underneath of which genetic engineering is merely a subsection. In another way, there is this craze for Organically grown food, but that would merely mean to grow it without the genetic engineering or the use of pesticides which would mean that whoever is planting the crops would be choosing where to plant the food and providing other nutrients to the food, or if we consider artificial to mean an arrangement by human hands, then the food that we grow is still done in an artificial manner.
reply
Ummm. perhaps it was my professor, but I recall vividly in my College biology class that we differentiated between GMOs and Genetically Engineered Organisms (I don't know if GEO would be a proper acronym so I go with what I have said. Basically, the reason my professor did this was to point out the difference between taking a line of genetic code from a bacterial equivalent which had the properties wanted for the plant, i. e, to genetically engineer it, and Genetically Modifying it. Because accordingly and dependent on our definition and inclusivity of Modify, we can include the entire history of agriculture under the heading of GMOs. This is to say, that simply choosing where to plant the plant counts under this modification. This is further to say that Genetic Engineer is merely a subsection of Genetically Modifying and not it in its entirety, and that other things like pollination, irrigation, and pest control counts as Genetically Modifying the Organism which does not involved the technological aspect of DNA splicing.
The reason I mention this is because it seems disingenuous otherwise, that is, if this is the history of science, then you miss the historical agriculture that is the section underneath of which genetic engineering is merely a subsection. In another way, there is this craze for Organically grown food, but that would merely mean to grow it without the genetic engineering or the use of pesticides which would mean that whoever is planting the crops would be choosing where to plant the food and providing other nutrients to the food, or if we consider artificial to mean an arrangement by human hands, then the food that we grow is still done in an artificial manner.
reply
Damon
Fortunately science is very beneficialto us in alot of ways. Just like for example, without medical science, most of us would be dead by our forties. There are countless reasons why medical science helps the human race and helps to prevent illness and prolong our lifespan. People are living much healthier and happier lives because of breakthroughs in medicine and science in the pastfew decades. But science may harm us if ever people used it in an evil and abusive manner for the sake of greed.
reply
Fortunately science is very beneficialto us in alot of ways. Just like for example, without medical science, most of us would be dead by our forties. There are countless reasons why medical science helps the human race and helps to prevent illness and prolong our lifespan. People are living much healthier and happier lives because of breakthroughs in medicine and science in the pastfew decades. But science may harm us if ever people used it in an evil and abusive manner for the sake of greed.
reply
education
You'd think a solution to prevent others from profiting from your body is to simply not provide consent, but that doesn't work. If you need a surgery or some other medical procedure, you'll have to sign a waiver that includes a part about granting them ownership of anything they take from you during it. If you don't sign, you don't get the procedure. It's like how companies have EULAs that grant them sweeping rights and if you don't accept it, you don't get to use it at all. -
reply
You'd think a solution to prevent others from profiting from your body is to simply not provide consent, but that doesn't work. If you need a surgery or some other medical procedure, you'll have to sign a waiver that includes a part about granting them ownership of anything they take from you during it. If you don't sign, you don't get the procedure. It's like how companies have EULAs that grant them sweeping rights and if you don't accept it, you don't get to use it at all. -
reply
Ainie
Brain science took off, and several researchers found, starting with animal models, that treating brains with different chemicals could affect mood and behaviour. Thorazine is an antipsychotic. It reduced the need for electroconvulsive treatment. It still used today. Meprobamate or -minor tranquilizers-- nowadays called anti-anxiety medications. The cell with other researchers, and the cell line hela became the most important cell line in biomedical research and remains so today.
reply
Brain science took off, and several researchers found, starting with animal models, that treating brains with different chemicals could affect mood and behaviour. Thorazine is an antipsychotic. It reduced the need for electroconvulsive treatment. It still used today. Meprobamate or -minor tranquilizers-- nowadays called anti-anxiety medications. The cell with other researchers, and the cell line hela became the most important cell line in biomedical research and remains so today.
reply
Mark
The cloning idea was fantastic how scientist successfully clone a sheep named dolly. Injecting the DNA of the original animal to another cell which then fertilizes and will be born perfectly clone to the other animal. Scientists wonder if this method will be applicable to human but because it is prohibited, it is not tested yet. If I am asked to clone myself through that method, I will agree in order to contribute to science in the field of cloning. Hihihi
reply
The cloning idea was fantastic how scientist successfully clone a sheep named dolly. Injecting the DNA of the original animal to another cell which then fertilizes and will be born perfectly clone to the other animal. Scientists wonder if this method will be applicable to human but because it is prohibited, it is not tested yet. If I am asked to clone myself through that method, I will agree in order to contribute to science in the field of cloning. Hihihi
reply
Kimberly
Just finished The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and the amount she and her family went through is ridiculous. Glad she is getting some recognition but wish some the millions made off her cells would go to her family. Side note, GMO foods are quite literally some of the best fruits of science and I'm at the point where I grit my teeth a bit every time I see stickers bragging that they're non-GMO
reply
Just finished The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and the amount she and her family went through is ridiculous. Glad she is getting some recognition but wish some the millions made off her cells would go to her family. Side note, GMO foods are quite literally some of the best fruits of science and I'm at the point where I grit my teeth a bit every time I see stickers bragging that they're non-GMO
reply
Lu
I'm positively surprised by his part on GMOs. Usually Americans fall into uneducated catchy slogans like -GMOs are safe and undeniably awesome-, whereas here, on the contrary, he sticks with science= he stays more skeptical/neutral with a science-fact-driven explanation rather than falling into the American money or emotion-driven-pro-GMO-propaganda
reply
I'm positively surprised by his part on GMOs. Usually Americans fall into uneducated catchy slogans like -GMOs are safe and undeniably awesome-, whereas here, on the contrary, he sticks with science= he stays more skeptical/neutral with a science-fact-driven explanation rather than falling into the American money or emotion-driven-pro-GMO-propaganda
reply
ЛевМЭХ
I mean, no one was consented for the use of their discarded tissues at the time, and plenty of similar stories could (and have, though with less fanfare) been told about people of all races and genders. This wasn't about race or gender. It was just about consent-taking practices. What harms, in any case, were actually incurred?
reply
I mean, no one was consented for the use of their discarded tissues at the time, and plenty of similar stories could (and have, though with less fanfare) been told about people of all races and genders. This wasn't about race or gender. It was just about consent-taking practices. What harms, in any case, were actually incurred?
reply
Tor
If cells that came from my body, taken from me more or less as easily as picking up a discarded toenail, could save lots of lives, then not making use of it would be immoral. Presumably it was tried on white and black patients alike, and comparing it to slavery is pretty ridiculous.
reply
If cells that came from my body, taken from me more or less as easily as picking up a discarded toenail, could save lots of lives, then not making use of it would be immoral. Presumably it was tried on white and black patients alike, and comparing it to slavery is pretty ridiculous.
reply
Josh
It's controversial but I believe that taking those cells and distributing them was exactly moral. Among permission and giving them the chance to say no is wrong. The patient loses exactly NOTHING. It does not affect them in any way at all, but potentially saves millions of lives.
reply
It's controversial but I believe that taking those cells and distributing them was exactly moral. Among permission and giving them the chance to say no is wrong. The patient loses exactly NOTHING. It does not affect them in any way at all, but potentially saves millions of lives.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
