Can I Make A Copy Of Px90

The Precautionary Principle

few hours ago, while reading the newspaper (unhealthy and depressing activity where there is) there is an article that has been an increase in synaptic activity of my neurons, and it was not news: the development of genetically modified cows to produce milk more humanlike, which is more suitable for infants both nutritionally and because they provide some protection against some types of pathogens (more info here), the fact that caught my attention was the argument of the opposition groups against this particular application and against GMOs in general: the precautionary principle .

Exemplification of principle if burned fear that we would not have used the Windsor fire, we would not be where we are (image and concept by Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Plants, UPV, Oscar Vicente)

This argument, which in a nutshell is to "do anything you're not 100% sure that is not going to be dangerous, just in case", it is becoming more common in protests against this kind scientific advances. This argument at first, so logical and sensible can be a double-edged sword, as it leads to stagnation, fear and complacency. Consider for example the first aircraft and submarines, it is clear that no one went in the first metal frame built, but I doubt that at the time of the first human trial had full assurance that the device in question is not crash or bankrupt (as appropriate) in the middle of the journey, the same could be said of the first shot, I do not Edward Jenner had the complete confidence that the smallpox inoculation to the first patient with whom the vaccine was tested this is not to the disease, the same way I can get by going back to the past, such as the fact that despite the large number of traffic accidents that occur every week (I will not get to give figures, here the statistics and extrapolations is the friend Banchsinger ) no one has asked yet outright ban of cars and, moreover, we can trace to our very origins, when someone discovered the fire, if that prehistoric nice not "would have played" and played with fire (hence the expression comes in handy), you might now we were not where we are.

So forgive me if I ask politely that strictly in favor of applying the precautionary principle again to the caves and leave us scientists to deal with our affairs. This is not to say that the good things done haphazardly just because we can, but science has never been so advanced as now, and with it the risk assessment methods and environmental impact, so I apologize if I disagree on that if a technology that, due to the high social pressure against it, has overcome many more checks and controls as any other system or improving food production, if it is not a problem nor is the coast clear, I doubt that suddenly becomes harmful Satanic or apocalyptic, so forget biblical fears and stop-ahead to progress. The precautionary principle is applied as a dogma of faith goes against the very essence of man, restless and active, always pushing us to improve, to make further progress, nay, and I apologize for who may be offended, but that kind of reminds me of immobility some past situation, in which a controlling church was opposed to any scientific breakthrough that would contradict with previously accepted. Genetic improvement has traditionally becoming centuries (since the beginning of agriculture and livestock), the use of genetic engineering, just the next step of an ancient road, a fine and accurate tool to achieve the same objectives and other new, with whom we never even dared to dream. Science is not perfect, probably never will be, but I sincerely believe that is the best tool we have to keep evolving. Applications to be given to this technology may well be questionable; the technology itself, no.