And before we get into a discussion about this: I've said from the beginning I find fault on both sides, and this sorry episode has dragged on too long. But if we use it as an example of how not to treat an abduction, maybe it will have some value.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Rubbing Salt on Old Wounds...
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
Han
piscator ψ
I agree that they are both in the wrong. but I think one is more wrong than the other.
I suppose this demonstrates how different people react to the same information, and how our personal experience has a bearing on how we feel about it.
I haven't really got a horse in this particular race, just an immense amount of sympathy for people who are "abducted", which must be unbearable, especially as it appears to me there is very little in the way of help available. Maybe this results in me being overly harsh on jacobs, and too sympathetic towards woods.
It is a unique and complex scenario, and I don't feel that I can add anymore to the discussion as I am not qualified, but I would repeat my request that people think about how they would deal with someone approaching them: saying they had been abducted, this information could be extremely important and helpful.
I suppose this demonstrates how different people react to the same information, and how our personal experience has a bearing on how we feel about it.
I haven't really got a horse in this particular race, just an immense amount of sympathy for people who are "abducted", which must be unbearable, especially as it appears to me there is very little in the way of help available. Maybe this results in me being overly harsh on jacobs, and too sympathetic towards woods.
It is a unique and complex scenario, and I don't feel that I can add anymore to the discussion as I am not qualified, but I would repeat my request that people think about how they would deal with someone approaching them: saying they had been abducted, this information could be extremely important and helpful.
I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for Emma Woods. We exchanged a couple of polite emails recently when I explored the claim about her friend, paraschtick. I'm happy that was resolved.
And if I was watching over Jacobs when it happened, I would have given him one of those "NCIS-style" slaps in the head for taking on her case.
And if I was watching over Jacobs when it happened, I would have given him one of those "NCIS-style" slaps in the head for taking on her case.
Walkabout
Paranormal Novice
...And there is the exact heart of the problem: You and others assume that what Jacobs or Hopkins say that they do with abductees is in fact what they are actually doing (or once did). Who would really know? Nobody's watching them on a day-to-day basis. They didn't file a research plan or have peers follow up on the results. You and others simply assume that these are 100% truthful men. That they are not making anything up. That they never manipulate facts or skew what is laughably called "data" in this field.
Oh, my dears, I so wish that were true!
But it's no more reasonable to assume that these "researchers" are always straightforward with the facts than it is to assume that all human beings always speak the truth. We know the latter isn't true; it isn't reasonable to expect. That's not how human beings behave, especially when they have reason to feel that their posterior is in an unguarded position and the heat is on.
In your assumption, Gene, ("read the summary Jacobs offers") lies the greatest, most heartbreaking fallacy in the general thinking about researchers of "alien abduction." What these men tell you they do or have done is sometimes simply utterly false. It's a crushing thing to realize that an admired person is badly flawed. Many times, those instances of bad behavior and unethical manipulation of what can be known about the phenomenon are completely demonstrable. As in provable.
But if people in this field prefer to keep their admired figures intact, all they have to do is turn their heads away from the proof that is presented to them. Listen to Jacobs on audio recordings. Don't turn away. Watch Hopkins on video. Don't turn away. And stop counting the number of g.d. edits in a piece of tape. That's ridiculous.
All public media presentations are edited for length, so that people will stay with the story. All really good media presentations are edited to eliminate minutiae, petty or useless detail, and the "ums" and "ahhs" of an exchange. Editing media has been an honored way of working in radio and film for over 100 years. Edits in a medium don't mean the person presenting the evidence is a cheat or a con. The only people who say things like that are people who prefer attempting to baffle us by piling up massive amounts of insignificant, boring minutiae. In these days of short attention spans, who is going to put in the hours and hours of dutiful "homework" it would take to digest a slush pile of factoids?
Almost nobody.
The transcripts presented on Jacobs' Emma Wood site are supposed to be complete as to individual sessions. It doesn't appear that Woods presented versions that were as complete. In other words, she clearly did some editing, or just didn't post them at all. But it appears most of that stuff was taken down.
Jacobs said she took the sessions out of context to put him in a bad light. When you see his versions, it does appear he was correct in terms of being more complete. But some will feel what's there still raises questions.
You don't believe it, fine. But that's an evidence-free claim. You have no proof to indicate what he may have omitted, you just suspect he omitted critical evidence.
The problem with your logic is that what's up there doesn't do anything to vindicate Jacobs' approach. If he wanted to sanitize the details of his encounters with Woods, he would surely have tried to do a better job. All these warts actually support the claim that the session transcripts, at least the ones posted there, are complete.
What Hopkins left on the cutting room floor doesn't matter. What did Jacobs leave behind? Would it put him in a worse place than what's there already? It's bad enough for those who are skeptical of his approach to abductions.
Show us, don't tell us!
Jacobs said she took the sessions out of context to put him in a bad light. When you see his versions, it does appear he was correct in terms of being more complete. But some will feel what's there still raises questions.
You don't believe it, fine. But that's an evidence-free claim. You have no proof to indicate what he may have omitted, you just suspect he omitted critical evidence.
The problem with your logic is that what's up there doesn't do anything to vindicate Jacobs' approach. If he wanted to sanitize the details of his encounters with Woods, he would surely have tried to do a better job. All these warts actually support the claim that the session transcripts, at least the ones posted there, are complete.
What Hopkins left on the cutting room floor doesn't matter. What did Jacobs leave behind? Would it put him in a worse place than what's there already? It's bad enough for those who are skeptical of his approach to abductions.
Show us, don't tell us!
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
First off I want to start by stating that I will not get heated. I will not invest my emotions into this matter. This response as to the defense of the "poor Emma" rationale in perspective, and the opposing rationale which clearly consists of an attack on David Jacob's character, should be seen as impartial to the veracity of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon itself.
Please, whether this be Jeremy, Jack, Tyler, Harvey, or whomever, please know this is not a personal leveling, but rather what I feel is owed the matter from a purely unbiased vantage point. It is minus the prejudice of emotional based loyalties, or any right and wrong judgements concerning the matters herein.
1) Hearsay as testimony in this informal case clearly substantiates nothing. That or the matter would be over before it began. Legitimate third party records, and other irrefutable facts as clear evidence of an outlined objective identity, is what gets the job done. Jacobs has publicly supplied this much. The anonymous person forwarding the "Emma Woods" personage has not. I personally see this as clearly being intentionally, and favorably, subjective rather than objective. Indeed, as much should assuredly be considered as dangerous, with respect to an unbiased assessment of any and all's character.
2) Substantiate this statement please.
3) This is a perfect example of what is the accusatory Straw Man that the Emma Woods as victim perspective consists of from start to finish. David Jacobs has NEVER attempted to con anyone. Please quote me where this man has outlined what he claims is irrefutable proof in support of the AAP (Alien Abduction Phenomenon) as being critical fact. No one can, because the man never has. Who is attempting to con who here? Jacobs makes no personal claim to be the abducted. However, he most certainly does investigate, and reports on, those many individuals who have sought him out, and claim to have been abducted. To state that David Jacobs has a moral obligation to provide clear evidence for the AAP is actually nothing short of a distracting equivocation with respect to Jacob's real responsibilities. The only responsibility that Jacob's shares with respect to his investigative reporting is sheer accuracy. Even if every bit of the testimony via hypnosis is purely confabulation on the part of the hypnotized, accuracy is all that Jacobs owes anyone. With respect to any and all anomalous investigations, of which the AAP certainly is, an accuracy of determined patterns are critical because ultimately they are all you really have. With respect to the reporting of anomalous experiential veracity, happenstance is to the social anomaly, what genetics are to the contemporary forensic detection process.
Jacobs is more than aware of the shaky nature of the evidence that his investigations yield in support of the AAP. He has made this abundantly clear in every book I have ever read by the man. In fact, it's critically outlined via the front page of the man's website. International Center for Abduction Research
David Jacobs' writes:
I wrote most of the information on this web site based on more than 50 years of UFO research. In addition, since 1986 I have conducted over 1,150 hypnotic regressions with abductees. I have tried to be as objective and as "agenda free" as possible. I have no New Age, spiritual, religious, transformational, or transcendent program to promote. I try to stay as close to the evidence as I can. However, there is no possibility that I have avoided error. The majority of evidence for the alien abduction phenomenon is from human memory derived from hypnosis administered by amateurs. It is difficult to imagine a weaker form of evidence. But it is evidence and we have a great deal of it. Still, readers must be skeptical of what I say and of what all others say in this tangled arena of alien abductions, hypnosis, popular culture, and memory. Abduction researchers are mainly amateurs doing their best to get to the truth knowing that objective reality may elude them.
David M. Jacobs, Ph.D
4) I too believe that "something" is happening to people all over the globe. Including those that Jacobs has investigated. That certainly does not mean that I share David Jacobs' specific views, or that I buy into the AAP as reported by Jacobs. I want to know however, precisely how will you SUBSTANTIATE your libel concerning Dr. Jacobs? Via what you have written so far, I have only seen a passively vicious, yet admittedly, highly intriguing defamation of the man and his efforts.
Still in yet I personally find it quite suspiciously convenient, that the only individual out of the hundreds and hundreds that have been investigated via Jacob's AAP research, to be someone whose first order of business it is, to remain completely anonymous. I am not so certain that this individual could be said to be as "agenda free" as Doctor Jacobs dis/claims to be.
More: When Emma Woods first released her transcripts and recordings, her supporters said, no way, she wasn't taking them out of context as Jacobs claimed.
Since Jacobs posted expanded versions of these transcripts that he presents as complete and includes the material she withheld, he is accused of omitting content.
Double standard.
Since Jacobs posted expanded versions of these transcripts that he presents as complete and includes the material she withheld, he is accused of omitting content.
Double standard.
Why are they biologically improbable ?
There are any number of species on this planet alone that if simply described to you would seem biologically improbable, the giraffe the elephant the platypus the list goes on and on, and yet they exist.
What specifically , is biologically improbable about the greys
Walkabout
Paranormal Novice
I don't find the greys to be biologically improbable, in and of themselves, and in theory (which they still are). What I object to are the UFO researchers' constant use of the terms "hybrids," and now the silly-sounding, made-up word "hubrid." Oh, evidence, please!
"Hybrids" (as in partly human, partly alien) are way more bad science and pure fantasy than anything generally found in the natural world. (And yes, I know about the mule, a horse-donkey hybrid that also proves the biological rule that anything that is a hybrid is also sterile. You can't breed a mule.) Hybrid creatures are extremely rare, since there's a lot of flesh, chromosomes, and chemistry that has to match up precisely between a male and a female in order for them to reproduce. Think lock and key, then consider genitalia, for example. Just as those sexual organs need to match in order to pair up, so do the number and order of chromosomes, which can be very different between species. The chemical components each species carries need to "like" each other, too. There's more, I'm sure, that I haven't touched on. The point being: abduction researchers should really try to be less ignorant.
Dr. Mike Swords, UFO researcher and biologist, has been saying for years that the concept of "hybrids" is fairly ridiculous. Even the great apes don't mate between species. Ever see a spider monkey-chimpanzee hybrid? Nope, me either. What about a canine crossed with a feline? Why not? Dogs and cats hang around in the house together a lot. They even like each other. There must be a really good reason we don't see the animal shelters full of illegitimate pooch-pussy hybrids....
"Hybrids" (as in partly human, partly alien) are way more bad science and pure fantasy than anything generally found in the natural world. (And yes, I know about the mule, a horse-donkey hybrid that also proves the biological rule that anything that is a hybrid is also sterile. You can't breed a mule.) Hybrid creatures are extremely rare, since there's a lot of flesh, chromosomes, and chemistry that has to match up precisely between a male and a female in order for them to reproduce. Think lock and key, then consider genitalia, for example. Just as those sexual organs need to match in order to pair up, so do the number and order of chromosomes, which can be very different between species. The chemical components each species carries need to "like" each other, too. There's more, I'm sure, that I haven't touched on. The point being: abduction researchers should really try to be less ignorant.
Dr. Mike Swords, UFO researcher and biologist, has been saying for years that the concept of "hybrids" is fairly ridiculous. Even the great apes don't mate between species. Ever see a spider monkey-chimpanzee hybrid? Nope, me either. What about a canine crossed with a feline? Why not? Dogs and cats hang around in the house together a lot. They even like each other. There must be a really good reason we don't see the animal shelters full of illegitimate pooch-pussy hybrids....
But there is nothing biologically improbable about hybrids we make them ourselves using gene splicing
Glow In The Dark Rabbits Created Using Jelly Fish DNA |
Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the 1940s, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents was thought to be particularly difficult to achieve and thus hybrid species were thought to be extremely rare. With DNA analysis becoming more accessible in the 1990s, hybrid speciation has been shown to be a fairly common phenomenon, particularly in plants
So from improbable to fairly common......................
Glow In The Dark Rabbits Created Using Jelly Fish DNA |
Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the 1940s, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents was thought to be particularly difficult to achieve and thus hybrid species were thought to be extremely rare. With DNA analysis becoming more accessible in the 1990s, hybrid speciation has been shown to be a fairly common phenomenon, particularly in plants
So from improbable to fairly common......................
Last edited by a moderator:
Walkabout
Paranormal Novice
Hi, Mike,
In the first article, the term "hybrid" is never used. This implies sexual reproduction. Scientists do manipulate genetic material between species, yes, but they refer to the resulting offspring primarily as "transgenic" animals. Not "hybrids."
The other term in Wikki I don't know much about, so won't go there. I'm not pretending to be an expert in biology. I'm just asking the people who write books about "hybrids" and "hooobrids" to know what the hell is involved in their claims....
Han
piscator ψ
Ok so this has gone a bit off topic and what I am about to say is not intended to support claims of ET/Human "Hybrids" but:
A spider monkey is not a Great Ape it is a "New world Monkey".
Humans sort of are Great Apes, we are a result of interbreeding between ancient Hominids and if you go far enough back we are all descended from Algae type slime.
Our life cycle especially at the beginning is no different from a Great Ape, ovoviviparous Sharks, ovoviviparous Snakes, Whales, Monkeys and a whole host of other animals that "give birth" to live young.
Of course there are differences, but there are far more similarities.
For example Human embryos develop in a Fluid environment (Amniotic Sac) they have Gill slits and a Tail, and even a yoke sac.
Humans only started to understand DNA relatively recently, but IF (and its a big if) there are species far in advance of us in terms of understanding and manipulating DNA, I don't see why they couldn't have solved and negated any problem regarding "interbreeding" of vastly different organisms.
I am probably the only person left in the world that does not believe that life exists outside of Earth, it might be possible (and some say highly probable) that there is, but I want to see it (or at least see hard evidence of it). I don't believe in a "creator" either. I think its just a case of luck, but I will certainly change my mind as soon as evidence (from outside Earth) is available.
My biggest problem with the "Hubrids" is there inconsistency and illogical behaviour, surely if the have solved problems such as interstellar travel, mind and behaviour control and "hybridisation" (or whatever you want to call it) they would pick better targets for "abduction" why don't they go after the president or the prime minister, the head of the armed forces, or similarly powerful people? Why can't they do a relatively simple thing like find and eliminate people who are "exposing" their presence and existence? e.g jacobs. It can't be a case or morality, given their treatment of their victims.
I think the truth is far more disturbing because: it demonstrates how little we understand about the brain and "reality".
As I have said before I haven't got the answer to why people are being "taken" against there will (or feel that they are) but I am not buying the "Hybrid/Grey/Hubrid/ET" explanation, but if pushed into a corner: I would say it has something to do with "Energy"* but as for the origin or type of Energy I am not sure.
Dr Persinger has demonstrated that the brain responds to "Magnetic fields" with his "God Helmet"**
But this raises a lot more questions, like: are some people more receptive than others? is the stimuli targeted or random? etc etc a lot more research should be done by qualified and responsible people, but who knows, sometimes things are discovered completely by accident when looking for something else.
Anybody who is interested in learning more about the similarities in life cycles and anatomy, might be interested in watching this documentary, it does a much better job of explaining things than I can:
*woo woo alert
**God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A spider monkey is not a Great Ape it is a "New world Monkey".
Humans sort of are Great Apes, we are a result of interbreeding between ancient Hominids and if you go far enough back we are all descended from Algae type slime.
Our life cycle especially at the beginning is no different from a Great Ape, ovoviviparous Sharks, ovoviviparous Snakes, Whales, Monkeys and a whole host of other animals that "give birth" to live young.
Of course there are differences, but there are far more similarities.
For example Human embryos develop in a Fluid environment (Amniotic Sac) they have Gill slits and a Tail, and even a yoke sac.
Humans only started to understand DNA relatively recently, but IF (and its a big if) there are species far in advance of us in terms of understanding and manipulating DNA, I don't see why they couldn't have solved and negated any problem regarding "interbreeding" of vastly different organisms.
I am probably the only person left in the world that does not believe that life exists outside of Earth, it might be possible (and some say highly probable) that there is, but I want to see it (or at least see hard evidence of it). I don't believe in a "creator" either. I think its just a case of luck, but I will certainly change my mind as soon as evidence (from outside Earth) is available.
My biggest problem with the "Hubrids" is there inconsistency and illogical behaviour, surely if the have solved problems such as interstellar travel, mind and behaviour control and "hybridisation" (or whatever you want to call it) they would pick better targets for "abduction" why don't they go after the president or the prime minister, the head of the armed forces, or similarly powerful people? Why can't they do a relatively simple thing like find and eliminate people who are "exposing" their presence and existence? e.g jacobs. It can't be a case or morality, given their treatment of their victims.
I think the truth is far more disturbing because: it demonstrates how little we understand about the brain and "reality".
As I have said before I haven't got the answer to why people are being "taken" against there will (or feel that they are) but I am not buying the "Hybrid/Grey/Hubrid/ET" explanation, but if pushed into a corner: I would say it has something to do with "Energy"* but as for the origin or type of Energy I am not sure.
Dr Persinger has demonstrated that the brain responds to "Magnetic fields" with his "God Helmet"**
But this raises a lot more questions, like: are some people more receptive than others? is the stimuli targeted or random? etc etc a lot more research should be done by qualified and responsible people, but who knows, sometimes things are discovered completely by accident when looking for something else.
Anybody who is interested in learning more about the similarities in life cycles and anatomy, might be interested in watching this documentary, it does a much better job of explaining things than I can:
*woo woo alert
**God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thats Just semantics The definition of Hybrid is Something of mixed origin or composition, so our glow in the dark bunnies are hybrids even if the article didnt use the term.
And yet you felt qualified enough to insist the claims are biologically improbable and called on them to be less ignorant. If you dont know what the hell is involved in your own claims...... then you are living in a glass house with a fist full of stones
Georgia Lawmaker Wants To Make Sure Embryos Don't Glow In The Dark
This is a list of genetic hybrids which is limited to well documented cases of animals of differing species able to create hybrid offspring
List of genetic hybrids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hybrid | genetics
So again from biologically improbable, to fairly common both thru natural process and also by technological mechanisms where pretty much the skys the limit.
You cant possibly make the case that alleged beings in flying craft couldnt create hybrids or even that it would be improbable.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html#ixzz4DaAstmkZ
HYBRID AND MUTANT ANIMALS
"less ignorant" was the term i think you used ? seems like good if misplaced advice
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem here is its like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle blindfolded, you can feel the pieces but the rest is guesswork
But to throw some guesses as your question.
Age factor: if the alleged visitors have a lifespan much greater than ours then "powerful people" isnt a factor, if you are dealing with mayflies you dont really bother about such aspects
Superiority: if they posess the alleged technology that the narrative suggests, the term "powerful" becomes relative, we are all primitives to them
Stealth invasion: same thing
Genetic uplift: same thing
Post biological sophonts: Who cares about primative biologicals and their social hierarchy
The list goes on, they would be indifferent to the factors you raise.
In pretty much the same way we are indifferent to the animals we observe and yes genetically manipulate.
Why mess with our DNA ?
50 years ago that might have been a valid argument. Today................
Tech Companies Mull Storing Data in DNA
All the worlds data on a DNA drive the size of a teaspoon
So the technology is there, the application is there.
If all the worlds data can fit a DNA harddrive the size of a teaspoon, then surely a whole planet would be a great place to store a galaxys worth of data or more
Last edited by a moderator:
paraschtick
Paragilmorian guy
[QUOTE="Remember that Emma Woods came to Jacobs and Hopkins via her "counselor" because she had a lifetime of experiences that may have been abduction related. She appears to want to dismiss this all now as sleep-related. So is that what's happening to all these people?[/QUOTE]
Hi Gene,
Just going back to a previous point you made about Jacobs claiming that Emma is now dismissing all her experiences as being sleep-related, apart from what he says being completely untrue, he must know it is untrue since he must have seen the opening paragraph on her home page where she says that she is an experiencer.
To make this even clearer, she has re-posted some videos regarding her experiences on her website and youtube channel.
Jacobs has obviously read Emma's home page, and knows she still believes she is an experiencer. She has also talked about her experiences in public on interviews.
So why does Jacobs claim otherwise? He knows this not to be the case. It's all untrue but still says it otherwise. He just can't seem to stop himself. Why I have no idea ... apart from the fact that it diverts attention away from what Emma is actually saying.[/QUOTE]
Hi Gene,
Just going back to a previous point you made about Jacobs claiming that Emma is now dismissing all her experiences as being sleep-related, apart from what he says being completely untrue, he must know it is untrue since he must have seen the opening paragraph on her home page where she says that she is an experiencer.
To make this even clearer, she has re-posted some videos regarding her experiences on her website and youtube channel.
Jacobs has obviously read Emma's home page, and knows she still believes she is an experiencer. She has also talked about her experiences in public on interviews.
So why does Jacobs claim otherwise? He knows this not to be the case. It's all untrue but still says it otherwise. He just can't seem to stop himself. Why I have no idea ... apart from the fact that it diverts attention away from what Emma is actually saying.[/QUOTE]
Actually a transgenic animal is a hybrid
Successful artificial transgenic hybridization between two species of loach (genus Misgurnus) has been reported
Transgenic hybrids are viable and grow more rapidly than transgenic salmon and other wild-type crosses in conditions emulating a hatchery. In stream mesocosms designed to simulate natural conditions, transgenic hybrids express competitive dominance and suppress the growth of transgenic and non-transgenic salmon by 82% and 54%, respectively.[60] Natural levels of hybidization between these two species can be as high as 41%.[60] Researchers examining this possibility concluded "Ultimately, we suggest that hybridization of transgenic fishes with closely related species represents potential ecological risks for wild populations and a possible route for introgression of a transgene, however low the likelihood, into a new species in nature."[56]
Genetically modified fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://secure.hosting.vt.edu/www.grains.cses.vt.edu/links/2007 Transgenic Hybrids Report NECIC.pdf
Human-Pig Hybrids Could Develop into Monsters with ‘Our Brains’
It was revealed today that in a futuristic Dr Frankenstein-like experiment, scientists in the US have injected human stem cells into pig embryos to produce human-pig embryos known as chimeras.
But, concern has already surfaced that playing God in this way could open the door to pig’s developing with human intelligence and too much like us.
There are fears that mixing pig and human genes in this way coud see the animals develop looking like animals but with human brains or boosted intelligence
Which is part of the jacobs narrative as i recall, that they are changing us
That we are doing it ourselves is proof of concept, it thus imo becomes less improbable ET might do it to us and for similar reasons/results.
I'm not insisting its really happening, but that given its a reality here already, we cant say that its impossible or even improbable. It is in fact possible. we do it already
Last edited by a moderator:
paraschtick
Paragilmorian guy
Just to let you know, Jeff, Emma is not the only subject to have complained about Jacobs. There is audio confirming this from Jacobs own mouth on Emma's homepage.
Emma is only anonymous in public. Jacobs knows exactly who she is, and he says this himself.
I suggest that you actually go through Emma's website and read carefully what she says there, and listen to the audio. A lot of what has been said about her is erroneous in the extreme.
Another thing you could do is compare what Jacobs says, and has done, to the guidelines provided by the Office for Human Research Protections (the OHRP) in the US
Regulations
What Jacobs has done regarding Emma, and other research subjects is so far away from the regulations and protocols outlined here it makes your head spin.
Genetic Uplift as a concept was something Scientist David Brin presented as fiction
To Uplift or Not To Uplift: The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation
In David Brin's science fiction series called The Uplift Novels, the reader is presented with a world in which humans have not only become a space faring species and made contact with extraterrestrials, but also made an astounding feat on their own world; they have made dolphins and chimpanzees into thinking, sentient creatures through a process called uplift. Uplift is a process of elevating animal species to full sapience through methods of breeding and genetic engineering. The uplifted species, known as clients, then serve their patrons, the species who uplifted them, until the patrons release them from indenture. Naturally, this causes many problems. Client species are often looked upon as inferior; this is partly due to strict regulation of activities such as breeding. Although uplift is still just an author's invention, we are rapidly gaining the techniques and knowledge to make uplift a reality. This is why we must carefully examine the ethics of genetic manipulation.
First, the methods of genetic manipulation must be discussed. In the Brin novels, a combination of selective mutation, breeding programs, education and prostheses were used to evolve the natural form into a sentient being. These methods, while hardly gentle, were not drastic and took place over hundreds of years, gradually eliminating the undesirable traits and encouraging admirable characteristics (1). Today, there are several methods of genetic manipulation, most of which involve various methods of inserting foreign DNA into the animal. They all share the same goal: "to integrate and stabilize a desired DNA strand into the genome of an organism" (2). The most widely used are retroviral infection, pronuclear microinjection, and nuclear transfer.
Retroviral infection uses a virus, which contains the desired gene that will be incorporated into the organism's genome, to infect groups of embryos in culture in both prenatal and postnatal life. This method takes a lot of time and effort because the construction of the virus is quite complicated. Another effect of infection is that the information of the viruses may not always be incorporated into all the cultured cells, requiring outbreeding of selected organisms to isolate those with the desired gene (2).
Pronuclear microinjection is another method of genetic manipulation. Linear DNA fragments containing the desired gene are injected into the nucleus of a fertilized egg, where they will be incorporated at random locations. The desired gene will eventually be expressed in a percentage of resulting organisms. While relatively simple, there is little control over the expression rate of the genes or the disruption of genes vital to the organism's survival (2).
Nuclear transfer is the most efficient method of genetic manipulation we have yet developed. Cultured cells are transfected with the desired genes; these cells can then be analyzed to determine whether the integration of DNA is successful. Selected cells are starved so they will not divide, then the nucleus is inserted into the original egg. The transgenic animal is then born, hopefully expressing the desired gene (2).
The biggest concern about the methods of genetic manipulation is the large number of failures, that is, animals that don't express the desired gene. What will be done with the failures? Should they be killed, and would that be merciful, or cruel? Also, as Philip Tung Yep pointed out, when it comes to scientific technology, we don't have the patience to uplift animals like they did in the Brin books; if such a project were developed, it would be done "as quickly as we knew how" (1). Brin himself acknowledged this human impatience, saying, "For all of their unusual and rapid successes in Uplift, Terren geneticists still had a way to go with neo-dolphins and neo-chimpanzees . . .. By Galactic standards they had made great strides, but Earthmen wanted even more rapid progress" (Brin, 110). Should we even attempt to evolve other species into full sapience if the methods will create so much misery?
The most important question about the ethics of genetic manipulation in animals is not whether the methods are sound; it is whether it is moral to do so in the first place. There are several issues, including playing God, interfering with nature, reducing diversity, ownership, and religious objections.
Playing God suggests that by manipulating genes, we are taking the power of creation into our own hands. We have altered animals in the past, but our biotechnology was always "limited to what organisms produce naturally. We could put yeast to work for us, but we did not alter its products. In selective breeding, we were limited to traits that already appeared within a given species" (3). Now, however, we can produce organisms with traits that were never there to begin with. Playing God also suggests that we do not understand all that God does, so we should tamper cautiously with genes, if we should tamper at all. We should be cautious because we still do not fully understand the risks and side effects of genetic manipulation (4).
Interfering with nature is another aspect of genetic manipulation that is a cause for concern. If genetically altered organisms were released into the wild, it could dramatically affect the ecosystem. What effect would these organisms have on the already-established balance since they have never been subjected to natural selection? (5). Because they are living things that can reproduce, it would be very hard to stop them if they had a significant impact on the ecosystem. The only genetically altered organisms that would be safe would be those that cannot exist without human help (6). Reduction of diversity is another way in which the natural order would be affected. As species are genetically manipulated, they will become increasingly dependent on human technologies to maintain the diversity (4).
Genetic manipulation is offensive to some because it turns animals into commodities. With the patent system the way it is, any cloned or altered organism can be patented and owned (7). Genetic manipulation is most often used to alter farm animals so they will be more productive. These same methods have been used on plants for many years, but people have become more aware of the issue because of the way these commodified animals are treated. People aren't concerned about patenting new varieties of plants, but when scientists patent new varieties of animals they protest, especially about the "rights" of the animals. It is this kind of double standard that complicates the issue of whether genetic manipulation is ethical.
Another point to consider is if we did uplift a species into sapience, would we patent them as new animals or would we give them the rights of a thinking being like humans? Our previous history does not tend toward the latter; humans have a history of prejudice even among those of our own species who look or act differently. What are the chances that a creature, who has until that time been nothing more than an animal, would be welcomed into society? Even if uplifted species were officially given the rights of a thinking creature, it would take many years for humans to fully accept them as equals.
Brin also points out in his book that to most people, the actions of the uplifted species look like a mimicry of their patrons. We would have no way of knowing which behaviors were true decision-based actions and which were merely copied from humans. If we did genetically manipulate a species into sentience, "How much of the original animal will remain and how much will be behaviours, values, concerns and drives grafted on by the engineers? In short, will we meet another equal but alien mind or a reflection of our own desires? If the latter, will there be any point to the exercise?" (1). If the result of all our manipulations is simply to produce beings that our reflections of ourselves, we not only are "playing God," we have accomplished nothing more than exercising our "power" over nature by doing something "just because we can." Also, there is no guarantee that our client species would appreciate being ripped from their carefree existence into our hectic world. Higher intelligence isn't necessarily a benefit; to that species, it could be as much a curse.
Brin shows us the consequences of genetic manipulation involved in raising a species into sentience. He believes that humans would be mostly sensible, not only in the methods of uplifting, but also in our decision to do so in the first place. Based on our development of genetic manipulation so far, is this the most likely scenario? Or are we more likely to exploit in the name of science?
The Ethics of Uplift , ethics of biological advances in science fiction
Cloning and Transgenic Technologies: Animals, Plants, and Microbes; , description of the methods of genetic manipulation and cloning
Is Genetic Engineering Co-Creation? , theological exploration of the ethics of genetic engineering
Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using New Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture , description of different areas of concern about genetic engineering
Urgent Appeal , objections to the European Directive on the patentability of living beings
Genetic Engineering: Dreams and nightmares , discussion of the principal ethical issues caused by modern biology
Hybrids, Genes and Patents , description of current patent process as it applies to genetically engineered organisms
But as this article suggests, its now a serious reality
Human-Pig Hybrids Could Develop into Monsters with ‘Our Brains’
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5403595/one-gene-tweak-could-make-chimps-talk
Human ‘language gene’ makes mice smarter
50 years ago the concepts expressed in the jacobs narrative would have been science fiction.
Today we are doing it.....................
To Uplift or Not To Uplift: The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation
In David Brin's science fiction series called The Uplift Novels, the reader is presented with a world in which humans have not only become a space faring species and made contact with extraterrestrials, but also made an astounding feat on their own world; they have made dolphins and chimpanzees into thinking, sentient creatures through a process called uplift. Uplift is a process of elevating animal species to full sapience through methods of breeding and genetic engineering. The uplifted species, known as clients, then serve their patrons, the species who uplifted them, until the patrons release them from indenture. Naturally, this causes many problems. Client species are often looked upon as inferior; this is partly due to strict regulation of activities such as breeding. Although uplift is still just an author's invention, we are rapidly gaining the techniques and knowledge to make uplift a reality. This is why we must carefully examine the ethics of genetic manipulation.
First, the methods of genetic manipulation must be discussed. In the Brin novels, a combination of selective mutation, breeding programs, education and prostheses were used to evolve the natural form into a sentient being. These methods, while hardly gentle, were not drastic and took place over hundreds of years, gradually eliminating the undesirable traits and encouraging admirable characteristics (1). Today, there are several methods of genetic manipulation, most of which involve various methods of inserting foreign DNA into the animal. They all share the same goal: "to integrate and stabilize a desired DNA strand into the genome of an organism" (2). The most widely used are retroviral infection, pronuclear microinjection, and nuclear transfer.
Retroviral infection uses a virus, which contains the desired gene that will be incorporated into the organism's genome, to infect groups of embryos in culture in both prenatal and postnatal life. This method takes a lot of time and effort because the construction of the virus is quite complicated. Another effect of infection is that the information of the viruses may not always be incorporated into all the cultured cells, requiring outbreeding of selected organisms to isolate those with the desired gene (2).
Pronuclear microinjection is another method of genetic manipulation. Linear DNA fragments containing the desired gene are injected into the nucleus of a fertilized egg, where they will be incorporated at random locations. The desired gene will eventually be expressed in a percentage of resulting organisms. While relatively simple, there is little control over the expression rate of the genes or the disruption of genes vital to the organism's survival (2).
Nuclear transfer is the most efficient method of genetic manipulation we have yet developed. Cultured cells are transfected with the desired genes; these cells can then be analyzed to determine whether the integration of DNA is successful. Selected cells are starved so they will not divide, then the nucleus is inserted into the original egg. The transgenic animal is then born, hopefully expressing the desired gene (2).
The biggest concern about the methods of genetic manipulation is the large number of failures, that is, animals that don't express the desired gene. What will be done with the failures? Should they be killed, and would that be merciful, or cruel? Also, as Philip Tung Yep pointed out, when it comes to scientific technology, we don't have the patience to uplift animals like they did in the Brin books; if such a project were developed, it would be done "as quickly as we knew how" (1). Brin himself acknowledged this human impatience, saying, "For all of their unusual and rapid successes in Uplift, Terren geneticists still had a way to go with neo-dolphins and neo-chimpanzees . . .. By Galactic standards they had made great strides, but Earthmen wanted even more rapid progress" (Brin, 110). Should we even attempt to evolve other species into full sapience if the methods will create so much misery?
The most important question about the ethics of genetic manipulation in animals is not whether the methods are sound; it is whether it is moral to do so in the first place. There are several issues, including playing God, interfering with nature, reducing diversity, ownership, and religious objections.
Playing God suggests that by manipulating genes, we are taking the power of creation into our own hands. We have altered animals in the past, but our biotechnology was always "limited to what organisms produce naturally. We could put yeast to work for us, but we did not alter its products. In selective breeding, we were limited to traits that already appeared within a given species" (3). Now, however, we can produce organisms with traits that were never there to begin with. Playing God also suggests that we do not understand all that God does, so we should tamper cautiously with genes, if we should tamper at all. We should be cautious because we still do not fully understand the risks and side effects of genetic manipulation (4).
Interfering with nature is another aspect of genetic manipulation that is a cause for concern. If genetically altered organisms were released into the wild, it could dramatically affect the ecosystem. What effect would these organisms have on the already-established balance since they have never been subjected to natural selection? (5). Because they are living things that can reproduce, it would be very hard to stop them if they had a significant impact on the ecosystem. The only genetically altered organisms that would be safe would be those that cannot exist without human help (6). Reduction of diversity is another way in which the natural order would be affected. As species are genetically manipulated, they will become increasingly dependent on human technologies to maintain the diversity (4).
Genetic manipulation is offensive to some because it turns animals into commodities. With the patent system the way it is, any cloned or altered organism can be patented and owned (7). Genetic manipulation is most often used to alter farm animals so they will be more productive. These same methods have been used on plants for many years, but people have become more aware of the issue because of the way these commodified animals are treated. People aren't concerned about patenting new varieties of plants, but when scientists patent new varieties of animals they protest, especially about the "rights" of the animals. It is this kind of double standard that complicates the issue of whether genetic manipulation is ethical.
Another point to consider is if we did uplift a species into sapience, would we patent them as new animals or would we give them the rights of a thinking being like humans? Our previous history does not tend toward the latter; humans have a history of prejudice even among those of our own species who look or act differently. What are the chances that a creature, who has until that time been nothing more than an animal, would be welcomed into society? Even if uplifted species were officially given the rights of a thinking creature, it would take many years for humans to fully accept them as equals.
Brin also points out in his book that to most people, the actions of the uplifted species look like a mimicry of their patrons. We would have no way of knowing which behaviors were true decision-based actions and which were merely copied from humans. If we did genetically manipulate a species into sentience, "How much of the original animal will remain and how much will be behaviours, values, concerns and drives grafted on by the engineers? In short, will we meet another equal but alien mind or a reflection of our own desires? If the latter, will there be any point to the exercise?" (1). If the result of all our manipulations is simply to produce beings that our reflections of ourselves, we not only are "playing God," we have accomplished nothing more than exercising our "power" over nature by doing something "just because we can." Also, there is no guarantee that our client species would appreciate being ripped from their carefree existence into our hectic world. Higher intelligence isn't necessarily a benefit; to that species, it could be as much a curse.
Brin shows us the consequences of genetic manipulation involved in raising a species into sentience. He believes that humans would be mostly sensible, not only in the methods of uplifting, but also in our decision to do so in the first place. Based on our development of genetic manipulation so far, is this the most likely scenario? Or are we more likely to exploit in the name of science?
The Ethics of Uplift , ethics of biological advances in science fiction
Cloning and Transgenic Technologies: Animals, Plants, and Microbes; , description of the methods of genetic manipulation and cloning
Is Genetic Engineering Co-Creation? , theological exploration of the ethics of genetic engineering
Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using New Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture , description of different areas of concern about genetic engineering
Urgent Appeal , objections to the European Directive on the patentability of living beings
Genetic Engineering: Dreams and nightmares , discussion of the principal ethical issues caused by modern biology
Hybrids, Genes and Patents , description of current patent process as it applies to genetically engineered organisms
But as this article suggests, its now a serious reality
Human-Pig Hybrids Could Develop into Monsters with ‘Our Brains’
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5403595/one-gene-tweak-could-make-chimps-talk
Human ‘language gene’ makes mice smarter
50 years ago the concepts expressed in the jacobs narrative would have been science fiction.
Today we are doing it.....................
Last edited by a moderator:
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
We're all gonna need some hi-powered weed-whackers now!
Walkabout
Paranormal Novice
Hi, Mike,
I'm having some trouble in following up on your original source material. It could be that I don't know how to use this forum or its resources yet. But if I go look for your footnotes [56] and [60], for example, I cannot locate the source. Maybe you could clarify that.
The Daily Mail article is not one that I'd accept, either, as serious source material regarding the subject.
I also couldn't link to any of these articles you cited:
The Ethics of Uplift , ethics of biological advances in science fiction
Cloning and Transgenic Technologies: Animals, Plants, and Microbes; , description of the methods of genetic manipulation and cloning
Is Genetic Engineering Co-Creation? , theological exploration of the ethics of genetic engineering
Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using New Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture , description of different areas of concern about genetic engineering
Urgent Appeal , objections to the European Directive on the patentability of living beings
Genetic Engineering: Dreams and nightmares , discussion of the principal ethical issues caused by modern biology
Hybrids, Genes and Patents , description of current patent process as it applies to genetically engineered organisms
All that said, I'm sure that this is a rapidly changing field, as you suggest. It's possible that I'm not up to date on the latest technology. But the genetic engineering you refer to here was not much more than science fiction in the 1980s when abduction researchers first began writing in frightening terms about aliens creating "hybrid" offspring from humans and non-human aliens. It was not good science then, yet they used the concept anyway. And continued to use it without themselves becoming knowledgeable about the rapid changes in neurobiology and genetics. If the people who walked into the famous author's home, his book under her arm, and, under hypnosis, came out with "hybrid," that's what was reported. I'm not convinced that means anything more than that the environment was highly suggestive.
I don't think that either you or I are exactly top of the line expert biologists or geneticists. Nor are the abduction researchers. Perhaps it's pointless to pursue a detailed discussion of biology with wildly divergent sources being used to make a point. Aren't we a bit off topic?
I accept your point about the spider monkey not being a great ape. My mistake.