Happened to flick onto the "Wright Stuff" today for 5 minutes and was absolutely staggered by what I heard. Matthew Wright tends to have a rather high opinion of himself generally, and as far as I can make out he has no real reason to do so, but the monologue he had obviously thought through and presented today on the topic of genetic research was pretty special.
Responding to a story in the press (I have a link to the Guardian's version below) concerning what is pretty groundbreaking research into prevention of serious genetic birth disorders he threw in the term "Frankenscientists", brought up the eugenics programme of the Nazi's (even manageing to have a picture of Hitler flash up on the screen) and generally riled - almost foaming at the mouth - at all the contributions of science in general - you know the atomic bomb etc.
Apparantly "only" 1 in 200 children could potentially benefit from this treatment (so in the UK that would be around 4000 per year - hardly worth bothering with).
In the space of the 10 minutes I watched, open mouthed, as he suggested that sick kids should just die because that was natural, and that if we didn't stop this then the next thing would be super soldiers and everyone would be ordering genetically modified designer babies, because let's face it that's what always happens when science makes any progress.

Have I lost touch with "the public"? This programme and Wright himself, sets itself up as a sounding board for "ordinary" people (he even managed, with help from the Terry Christian, to have a pop at the "genetic inbreds" who were currently being humiliated on ITV at the same time by Jeremy Kyle ). Is this really the case? Help me here, is it really that case that general public opinion comes anywhere near what this guy is spouting?

Even the Guardian's article - while balanced and factual - has the extremely misleading "three parents" in the title. I guess even the Guardian has to sell print.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ee-parents

Happened to flick onto the "Wright Stuff" today for 5 minutes and was absolutely staggered by what I heard. Matthew Wright tends to have a rather high opinion of himself generally, and as far as I can make out he has no real reason to do so, but the monologue he had obviously thought through and presented today on the topic of genetic research was pretty special.
Responding to a story in the press (I have a link to the Guardian's version below) concerning what is pretty groundbreaking research into prevention of serious genetic birth disorders he threw in the term "Frankenscientists", brought up the eugenics programme of the Nazi's (even manageing to have a picture of Hitler flash up on the screen) and generally riled - almost foaming at the mouth - at all the contributions of science in general - you know the atomic bomb etc.
Apparantly "only" 1 in 200 children could potentially benefit from this treatment (so in the UK that would be around 4000 per year - hardly worth bothering with).
In the space of the 10 minutes I watched, open mouthed, as he suggested that sick kids should just die because that was natural, and that if we didn't stop this then the next thing would be super soldiers and everyone would be ordering genetically modified designer babies, because let's face it that's what always happens when science makes any progress.

Have I lost touch with "the public"? This programme and Wright himself, sets itself up as a sounding board for "ordinary" people (he even managed, with help from the Terry Christian, to have a pop at the "genetic inbreds" who were currently being humiliated on ITV at the same time by Jeremy Kyle ). Is this really the case? Help me here, is it really that case that general public opinion comes anywhere near what this guy is spouting?

Even the Guardian's article - while balanced and factual - has the extremely misleading "three parents" in the title. I guess even the Guardian has to sell print.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ee-parents

It's a light entertainment TV programme and all he's doing is putting up an argument to get some ratings. However, there is a serious issue there up for debate and on genetics I don't think we've really had any sort of in-depth discussion as to where this should go. I can't see how we can just dive into genetic research without establishing guidelines, processes, ethical responsiblities etc., about the issue.

Perhaps there's somebody on here who is involved in this area who can give us an insight as to what the issues are. I'm not skeptical about the case for genetics but I'm not that aware of the risks/dangers that need to be considered especially when you start getting into patents and the like. It's not dissimilar to the work that Craig Venter does, in that is prompts question which require detailed discussion and resolution before it gets out of control.

It's a light entertainment TV programme and all he's doing is putting up an argument to get some ratings. However, there is a serious issue there up for debate and on genetics I don't think we've really had any sort of in-depth discussion as to where this should go. I can't see how we can just dive into genetic research without establishing guidelines, processes, ethical responsiblities etc., about the issue.

Perhaps there's somebody on here who is involved in this area who can give us an insight as to what the issues are. I'm not skeptical about the case for genetics but I'm not that aware of the risks/dangers that need to be considered especially when you start getting into patents and the like. It's not dissimilar to the work that Craig Venter does, in that is prompts question which require detailed discussion and resolution before it gets out of control.