Cloning Beagle Dogs

There have been cases of cloning dogs in South Korea. Scientists in South Korea say they have engineered four beagles that glow red using cloning techniques that could help develop cures for human diseases. The four dogs look like typical dogs by daylight, but they glow red under ultraviolet light and the dogs' nails and abdomens. They glow red to the naked eye. Seoul National University professor, Lee Byeong-chun is the head of the research team.
He called them the first transgenic dogs carrying fluorescent genes. His team has identified the dogs as clones of a cell donor through DNA tests. Scientists in the United States, Japan, and Europe have cloned flourescent mice and pigs but this would be the first time that a dog has been successfully cloned. What is so significant about this is not neccessarily the cloning aspect, but the the fact that they planted genes into these dogs. Lee stated that his team took skin cells from a beagle, and inserted flourescent genes into them and put them into eggs.
They then implanted those eggs into the womb of a surrogate mother. These beagles were born in December 2007. Two died but four others survived. The glowing dogs show it is possible to successfully insert genes with a specific trait. They believe it could lead to implanting other genes that could help treat specific diseases. Scientists are now starting to implant human disease relatd genes in dog cloning, saying that it will help them find new treatments for genetic diseases such as Parkinson's.
Many people seem to be for it. Veterinary professor Kong II-keun stated, "we can appraise this a step forward. What is important now is on what specific diseases Lee's team will focus on." There was however some question on whether or not Lee's data was true or not. Due to scientist Hwag Woo-suk, whose breakthroughs on stem cell research were found to have been made using fake data. However they were able to prove that Lee's team cloning was genuine.
I believe this could potentially not turn out so good. I mean sure the flourescent gene worked for the dogs, but what about the other genes they later try and implant in the poor dogs? They might not work so well. Just because one study went well does not neccessarily mean that the other one will. We are talking about a whole different gene they will be implanting these dogs with, who knows how the dogs body might react to it, or how the gene will react to the specimen?
I feel as though scientists are always believing that they can do anything and the reality is that they can not. More importantly just because it works well with dogs does not mean it will work well with humans. Even though they did do the study on mammals,humans DNA does not match that of a dog. Therefore you could have a case where the implanting might work well for a dog, and then try it on humans and potentially have a very fatal case. It's just too much to risk I believe.

The underlying question that many people have about communication technology is tough to answer. Has the advent of all this new advancement in communication technology actually made people’s lives easier? Because time machines do no exist yet, the exact answer can’t be discovered right now. There are many experts that render their opinion and try and find out if new forms of communication technology are helping society or hurting it.

There are plenty of good uses for technology like the internet like email for example. Tons of people take advantage of this instant form of communication instead of using “snail mail” like in the olden days. The email applications now have the ability to send the same email to thousands of people with a click of a button.  The fact that people are using the internet instead of mailing also helps the environment by cutting down on waste. Large amounts of paper are saved every time a company sends and email to it’s employees instead of faxing them all letters. Other simple applications that computers have made possible are things like storing all one’s music in Itunes, or creating a personnel video in Windows Movie Maker. Simple things like this help to make people’s lives easier. 

Back in the time before word processors, people would type letters on a type writer. If they made a mistake, they would have to use white out or tape off the mistake and correct it. Now with our latest advancements, people can do everything from spell check to print thousands of copies of their work. This is an obvious reason why so many people feel that these systems are beneficial to own and use. 

Gerard Noonan, the social issues editor at Digital Life.com thinks that these word processing systems are depleting people’s ability to hand write things. Children are experiencing this the worst at these cross roads of computer education. 

“The disjunction between the acquired skill of keyboarding and the need to handwrite exams has led some schools to incorporate handwriting lessons in years 11 and 12 as students find they have to relearn the art of using a pen and paper quickly - lost after years of using computers, laptops and mobiles.” (Noonan,shm.com)                      What Noonan is saying is that children these days are not even learning hand writing skills to the extent that children in the past have. Tests like the SAT require intense writing segments that unless one has a proven disability, must be turned in hand written.   The State Examination Commission out of Dublin, Ireland said in a report that in many cases, teenagers seemed “unduly reliant on short sentences, simple tenses, and a limited vocabulary” and that with the use of phonetic spelling and little or no punctuation, it’s the beginning to pose a threat to traditional conventions in writing, not to mention oral communication. This phenomenon is becoming more and more popular with younger people around the world mostly due to new “text message priority phones” with full keyboard features and large layouts. 

Phones and PDA’s are becoming very addicting says PC magazine. “You’ve probably heard the term “cracberry.” (Deleo,PC mag) They say society has started to compulsively check their email, even at negligent times like on vacation with the family. Personal attention that could be going towards one’s family and friends is now going to a hand held device and many people don’t even realize is happening. Many new phones have the capability to surf the web at high rates of speed and allow applications like Facebook and Myspace to be stored on each device. This is becoming a large scale problem in schools across the United States. Dr. Claire Summers, an associate professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia said in a Oct. 5 press release that there's an ongoing battle between teachers and students over classroom cell phone use that “has become a substantial problem.” (Summers, Associatedcontent.com) She said that the students who are continually distracted by cell phones are unable to engage in the class as fully as others. An article by associatedcontent.com reviewed an argument that was debating on whether or not to fully ban cell phone use in schools. While several teachers gave their opinions, a fourth grade teacher from Arizona said cell phones “should absolutely be banned from school. They are nothing but a disruption to class instruction.” She believes that “if a student is waiting for a call for example, they think about nothing but receiving that call, therefore blocking out anything that is being said, and it’s simply not a necessity for being successful in school”  Another teacher in Pennsylvania said that “cell phones and other electronic devices can be a distraction, but students need to learn when and where a cell phone can be appropriate...This is one of those life lessons we can teach them. Technology is a wonderful and useful tool when used properly.” 

Is technology in communication making people’s lives easier? Even though the truth may not exist as one concrete answer, it is safe to say that it varies with situations and the use of personal responsibility. Anything can be rendered bad if used to often and technology is no different. Society must find a way to responsibly limit it’s use and if accomplished, technology can be a very helpful tool but if ignored, society can grow self centered and distracted.

Text messaging

Text messaging can be dated back to 1989 via NASA. It wasn't until the early 1990's when it became commercial. This feature wasn't very popular with people until about the 2000's. But when it took off, it ruined lives. A survey done by Nokia has concluded texting to be "an addictive activity" Texting is sending simple messages through text via phones or computers. These messages are limited to 160 characters including spaces.

Texting has had a bad effect on our society and have been the cause of a new public nuisance. Enhanced cheating within relationships, given people new ways to cheat on tests and exams, and caused many teenage girls to cause brutal car accidents. With some states even beginning to enable laws against texting while driving and/or walking. Recently Arnold Schwarzenegger has deemed it illegal to text while driving in the state of california. First offense being 20 dollars and 50 dollar fine for subsequent violations. It has even been reffed to as “Sexting.” Sexting is slang term, the act of sending sexually explicit or suggestive content between mobile devices using text messages.

This has created monsters within society, people texting non stop. It has changed the youth greatly. I am for social use of texting, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is where, what laws should be made in order for the world to be a safer place. Eliminate texting all together, I'm sure this would cause an uproar and riots within junior high schools. For the time being people in power can only limit and make small restrictions to attempt to stop people from ruining their own lives via text message.

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Text-Messaging-Started&id=1882851

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/25/local/me-arnold25

I never actually found out what the assignment was... so i just read other peoples and tried to make assumptions of what the assignment was. I hope this works and/or makes sense.

-Brenten

Stem cell research

Stem cell research has been a topic of controversy for a while now. Some people think it is a great idea and others think that it is against God’s will. First brought up in 1908 by a Russian histologist Alexander Maksimov. In 1968, the first bone marrow transplant was successful between two siblings. It wasn’t until the 90’s when break through really started to happen. Stem cells are basically an internal repair system that replenishes other cells in the body as long as it lives. Stem cells can stay the same or change to be another cell that may be needed. They are able to divide to renew themselves either after being inactive or to become tissue. Scientists have been mainly doing research on two types of stem cells, embryonic and non- embryonic cells. Non- embryonic cells are also called “somatic” or “adult” cells. This research helps scientists understand how an organism develops from a single cell. It also plays a major part in finding a cure for cancer, birth defects, and other serious diseases. It is already being used in bone marrow transplants fro leukemia patients. Scientists are hoping that soon, stem cells will be able to help treat and possibly even cure other diseases like cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and muscle damage, as well as others.


The controversy about the research goes even deeper into the issues. It comes down to thee ethics of things and how testing is done for stem cells. People against stem cell research claim its because they feel like it could lead to cloning and they are uncomfortable with that idea. It has been a big debate in politics as well. In May of 2000, George W. Bush , who was running for office at the time, opposed stem cell research and told pro-life groups just that. He allowed scientists to use the embryos that they had for research, but he cut all other funding for future research on the topic. One option Bush had was to fully decline all funds to all research and make them stop what they were doing with what they had. However, this wasn’t possible due to the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court decided that a woman can do with her body what she pleases. This is why women are able to have abortions or donate embryos to stem cell research. And this is why women are still able to donate their embryos for the research. It’s like a loophole.

Personally, I’m all for stem cell research. A really good friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer when he was just a freshman in high school. Last year, he was given another chance at life by having a stem cell transplant. It is because of the work and research that has been done, that this boy will be able to graduate high school, he is able to finally work again, and live like a normal human being. It has been over a year now since he received the treatment and he is cancer free. As a personal opinion, I am all for stem cell research because I will be able to have more time with someone that means a lot to me.

Cocaine

Cocaine use dates back more than fifteen centuries to the indigenous people of the Andes Mountains, who would use the drug for medicinal and recreational purposes. The first person to synthesize processed cocaine hydrocholoride was a man by the name of Albert Niemann. Dr. Niemann worked at the University of Gottigen in Germany and synthesized the drug in 1859. The immediate reaction to the new supposed miracle drug was that it could cure any ailment, from fatigue to toothaches to headaches. In later years, cocaine began to be used as an anaesthetic and as a treatment for addictions to morphine.
One of the first warnings that the effects of the drug could be problematic was the addiction to cocaine by Dr. William Halstead. Dr. Halstead was the first doctor to use cocaine as an aplicable form of anaesthetic. In the 1900's, the United States mixed cocaine in with everyday products. Hay fever elixers, nerve tonics, and even Coca-Cola - which changed its perky incredient to caffeine in 1903 - contained cocaine as a main incredient.
Since cocaine was found to be highly addictive, it was declared a national threat by former-President William Taft in 1910. In 1914, the Harrison Act was passed. This act prevented the non-medical use and importation of cocaine into the United States, delt the same penalty for abuse as harder drug users, and strictly required prescriptions to obtain cocaine. Through the Harrison Act and the introduciton of amphetamines, police attention to cocaine use, abuse, and addiction was no longer considered necessary by the 1950's.
In the 1960's, cocaine use spiked back up and was at it's highest peak since the Harrison Act was put into effect. Congress declared the drug a Schedule II controlled substance. This means that cocaine could have a high abuse or dependancy rate but still had legitimate medical uses. In the 1980's, psychiatrists claimed that cocaine had no major problems associated with its use as long as it was limitted to two or three times a week. The use of cocaine has since risen, and the fight to control its abuse is once again in effect.
The obvious controversy about cocaine is that it is an addictive and illegal drug. The effects of cocaine range from Short-Term Effects to Long-Term Effects. The short-term effects are noticable immediately and include increased blood pressure, heart rate, energy, and temperature as well as constricted blood vessels, dilated pupils, mental allertness, and decreased appitite. The long-term effects prevail in high tollerance abuse of cocaine and include addiction, paranoia, irritability, mood disturbances, and auditory hallucinations.
The punishment for possesion of cocaine can range from four months to fifteen years in prison and a person can be fined from $1,000 to $500,000. The punishment for selling cocaine is one year to life in prison and a person can be fined from $2,500 to $1,000,000.
I believe the use of cocaine is wrong, even with the practicle medical implications. I'm sure people who use cocaine disagree with me, but of all the lives and relationships and careers the drug has probably ruined through its addictive nature, I couldn't understand anything positive about it.

Design Your Baby!

First of all I wanted to thank Chet a whole bunch for stealing the picture I was going to use for this post…thanks a lot, now I have to pick a new one.

Anyways, for this blog I wanted to focus on the new fad “designer babies”. I didn’t know much at first when I began 

researching this topic and I had only heard small details about it from some media. My initial thought was: “Why the hell would people want to do this to their unborn children?” I had set my mind to the fact that I thought in no way should this be legal. I think children are born a way for a reason, and that we, still pretty immature in human sciences, should not be able to change aspects of a persons’ physical appearance to the wishes of parents for social acceptance later in life. Also, you never know what could happen if something with science goes wrong, we are still not fully formed as a society to deal with the thought of manipulating life.  

The term “designer babies” is used to describe a child whose hereditary makeup would be, using various reproductive and genetic technologies, purposefully selected to be the optimal recombination of their parents' genetic material. It works by using InVitro Fertilization to fertilize eggs with sperm in test tubes outside the mother's body in a laboratory. At the moment it is only legally possible to carry out two types of advanced reproductive technologies on humans. The first involves choosing the type of sperm that will fertilize an egg: this is used to determine the sex and the genes of the baby. The second technique screens embryos for a genetic disease: only selected embryos are implanted back into the mother's womb. This is called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis.  

There is a mixed reaction with the idea of people being able to change the genes of their babies. On the one side there are people who think that its “playing god”, by getting to decide the sex or physical appearances of their children. On the other side there are the people that consider this process because it can also reduce the chance that a child will be born with a genetic disorder. There are huge pros and cons on this topic. Everyone has his or her own opinion and ideas to how creation of a human should happen. It scares people that the original way of birth and human development is changing and makes them wonder what else can come from this advancement, good or bad.  

After researching the topic more my opinion has changed somewhat. I still don’t believe that people should be able to change appearance for aesthetic qualities. However, I have someone in my family who was born with a genetic disorder, and if this process was available when she was still developing as a fetus, and someone told our family that we could take away that disorder, then maybe I would have considered this a good idea, because it could have helped her for the future.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.htmlhttp://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm

Dish Washers

A dishwasher is a mechanical Device used for cleaning dishes and eating utensils. Dishwashers can be found in restaurants and private homes. Unlike manual dishwashers, which relies largely on physical scrubbing to remove soiling, the mechanical dishwasher cleans by spraying hot( 55-65 degrees celsius or 130-150 degrees farenheit) water on the dishes now detergent- added products is used for cleaning purposes, then clean water to remove the detergent residue. Some dishwashers have multiple wash and rinse periods within the complete cycle. In some dishwashers a rinsing aid can be added to the rinse cycle. As there is no human contact during the process strong detergents may be used which would be to alkaline for habitual exposure to the skin. Many dishwashers have a heating element to achieve fast drying and sanitation for the dishes. In some models this element can also be used to heat cold water to the desired water temperature.

The history of dishwashers-The first reports of a mechanical dishwashing device are of an 1850 patent by joel houghton of a hand powered device modern dishwashers are descended from the 1886 invention of josephine cochrane, also hand powered, which she unveiled at the 1893 chicago world fair. She never washed dishes herself and only unvented it because her servants were chipping her fine china. By the 1970s dishwashers had become commonplace in domestic residences in the U.S
My Belief- I believe that dishwashers are one of the greatest creations ever they were created for those that don't have time to wahs dishes themselves or that just don't like washing dishes and its great for people that want to multi-task and do other things while the dishes are washing.

human genetic engineering

With science improving everyday nothing is off limits, this includes manipulating an unborn baby to be designed to the parents specifications; although the actual doing-of hasn't been done yet the idea of getting closer is pretty weird. While a major focus lies on the ability to give the fetus a certain eye color, hair color and other aspects of their appearence there's also a big focus on controlling the traits, behavior and intelligence of the child. This then brings up the ethical question about the future of the child and their happiness, knowing that they're not necessarily and individual and got to decide things on their own but that they were "made" a certain way. It also brings up an argument about altering the course of nature and the right or wrong of it. They're saying that if a parent desires a strong, athletic kid messing with the genes can help achieve this.
However, in this article they also discussed some benefits in being able to go in and test for diseases whether they be lifetime or as the individual gets older. In a way of knowing it lets them prepare. My parents went to a genetic doctor to find the chances of both me and my brother getting the osteogenesis imperfecta (which we both did) because it's a dominant gene, that my dad has, that has a 50% chance of getting passed down. I think for cases like this it's acceptable to do whatever "engineering" that can be done to prevent such diseases.
The latest forms of genetic engineering, not just with humans, was dated back to the late 70's, not until the 80's did it reach humans and then stir up the controversy. Obviously since then it's been causing debate and in my opinion I think things like using the term "designer babies" should not be a neccessity. I think that the appearence of a child should just be as is, how it was intended to be, parents already control alot of the aspects of their children's life why take it to the extreme? But to actually use this discovery in a good way would be to test for those genetic diseases and procceed with gene therapy to maybe cure what could've been. Or what they also said in the article, to prepare the indivdual for later in life.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Genetic-Inequality-Human-Genetic-Engineering-768

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/07/16/human_genetic_engineering.htm

Cloning

In my research I focused on Cloning. Cloning was first invented by a man named Hans Spemann. He did cloning with differentiated cells by nuclear transfer. This was founded in 1938. Also in 2001, the first animal was cloned. It was a baby bull gaur named Noah. This shows that we can save endangered species. Cloning is the process of making a genetically identical organism through nonsexual means. It Has been used for many years to produce plants. Their are many different types of cloning but a common one would be reproductive cloning. This has to do with people, animals, and plants. Three common types of cloning technologies are recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning, reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning. Recombinant DNA refers to the transfer of a DNA fragment of interest from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid.

Therapeutic Cloning is the production of human embryo for the use of research. The goal of the process is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease. This is very expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% temps fail. Cloning animals is easier but they seem to die young or at an early age. I believe this was recreated for a new way of life. Helping families have a child that they lost or to save endangered species. I could not just find one reason why this was created but he had good intentions.  

Meghan Stoll

 

http://www.ask.com/bar?

q=Who+Invented+Cloning&page=1&qsrc=6&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Flibrary.thinkquest.org%2FC0122429%2Fhistory%2Fhistory.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/cloning.htm

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=how+does+cloning+work&page=1&qsrc=2106&ab=6&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ornl.gov%2Fsci%2Ftechresources%2FHuman_Genome%2Felsi%2Fcloning.shtml

Designer Babies

Fertility doctors and reproductive specialists have been helping couples become parents for years. With innovations such as in vitro fertilization, doctor's were able to fertilize the egg outside of the womb and theoretically alter it. The concept of 'designing' babies first arose when we discovered the technology to cure genetic diseases in embryos by replacing faulty DNA with healthy DNA. The knowledge of it's success turned the 'engineering' of children into a new field of science in itself. Reproductive Specialists have been working for years to try and help parents choose things such as the gender of their child. This technology allowed us to go further and alter the physical traits of a child. According to L.A.'s Fertility Institute, parents can already select the hair and eye color of their unborn fetus. 

This brings up some serious ethical questions. What happens if parents pay millions to pick and choose what their son or daughter will look like and they don't get the results they paid for? Will they love the child less? Will they not want the child anymore? Doesn't this objectify children and turn them into products? 

While I'm fascinated with the new technology we have, I'm also scared at how close we are to crossing the line. Playing god is dangerous and something that won't go without consequences. I personally love that we are growing as a race and still learning so much about the mysteries of life. On the other hand I do believe that by 'designing' babies, we are turning children into products. Like I mentioned before, what happens when the product doesn't turn out how the customer wanted? Children aren't objects and they certainly shouldn't be products you can buy. I mean think about it, if you can buy the kid you want, what's stopping someone from selling the kid they don't want? I know that's farfetched, but it's just something to think about. We need to be careful and responsible with the knowledge we continue gaining and respect human life for what it is. 

in vitro fertilization

Artificial Insemination research began in the late 1800’s and became widely experimented throughout the first half of the 20th century. There was not one single creator for the method, but a collaboration between many doctors and scientists (pbs.org). In vitro fertilization is a process by which egg cells are fertilized by sperm outside of the womb. The Latin term in vitro means within the glass. The procedure got this name because the process is done in glass containers such as Petri dishes. Babies conceived using IVF have often been referred to as “test tube babies” (Wikipedia).
IVF conception starts with stimulating the woman’s ovaries and inducing ovulation. After this, anywhere from ten to thirty eggs are retrieved from the uterus. Once in the laboratory, the eggs as well as the sperm are treated so that they are prepared for fertilization. The two are incubated together for about 18 hours, which is enough time for the egg to be fertilized. Once it reaches a certain stage and is now an embryo, it is transferred back into the woman’s uterus for the continuation of the pregnancy (Pandora’s Baby).
In vitro fertilization was created to replace surgical approaches for fertility therapy. It is a revolutionary way for couples to get pregnant when it is not happening naturally (Brave New World). Despite the positive aspects of IVF, there can be many complications and it is the topic of much controversy. First of all, the treatment can carry physical as well as emotional burdens on the mother as well as long term health risks. Often the process takes several tries and a number of treatment sessions. This can be stressful to the patient as well as expensive (Brave New World).
IVF has sparked controversy and ethics. When it was first introduced it was very unpopular. Many people thought it would be the first step towards controversial scientific research. This includes things such as genetic engineering, designer babies, stem cell research and human cloning (Pandora’s Baby). Some other ethical issues surrounding IVF include who it should be able to be used for, specifically older woman past the age of menopause and same-sex couples. It is also widely opposed by religious denominations, as they see it as “taking God’s work and putting it into their own hands” (pbs.org).
Many people are for it because it gives infertile couples a chance to have a child of their own. It may not be the easiest process but in the end it will change peoples lives. People are against it because of the ethical and controversial issues surrounding it. There are definitely pros and cons surrounding the topic. My opinion is that IVF is a fertility treatment that should be used. While I understand the research aspect could lead to dangerous things like cloning, I think the act of creating a life for a couple who can’t conceive on their own is brilliant. I think children are important and that it is worth the risk of getting this procedure if necessary. I did not know much about this topic before my research, but now I definitely have a stronger opinion and stance on the topic.

Robots

I wanted to focus on a machine that somehow helped humans. Personally, I am not a big fan of robots or machines that do peoples work because it takes away the need for human work. So I went to Google and searched machines that help people. I then went to the iRobot website and found a few robots that actually do your chores for you. I was most intrigued by the iRobot Looj. It is advertised as the fastest and easiest way to clean your gutters. Now I know from my dad's complaints that cleaning the gutters is a grueling and tiring process. You have to pull out a ladder, climb up on the ladder and grab things out of the gutters. And you have to constantly go up and down moving the ladder because a ladder does not move itself. So generally, I would be for this product and most likely purchase it for someone who cleans their gutters. This machine can clean a 60 foot section of gutter in only 10 minutes, which is really fast. With this machine all you have to do is place your ladder in one spot and start the machine. It saves alot of time and you won't be in so much pain the next day. I would recommend this machine to anyone who is sick and tired of having to clean their gutters.
This is the website for the iRobot Looj http://store.irobot.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=3334470&cp=2804605&ab=CMS_IRBT_StoreHome_043009_cleangutters

With technology becoming more and more dominant in the world, it's no wonder that machines have a huge role in production. Many of the things we use in our everyday lives were built by machines and programs. Many movies and books have been diving into the fact of machines taking over the planet and early on that idea seemed so far away. 

   Two years ago, a Japan based robotics company created a robot known as CB2. It made world wide headlines this year because it developed human social skills by interacting with its creators. The robot was built by a team of robotic engineers, brain specialists, psychologists, and other experts. They created this robot in hopes to break a barrier between the science fiction world and ours. The scientists hope to have this android's intelligence up to a 2 year olds in the same amount of time. 

   In 1942, Isaac Asimov created a short story known as "Runaround". This story would soon become the story "I, Robot". The story comprises of rules that a robot is installed with. This are known as the THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS. By following these laws, a robot cannot harm a human. This is science fiction of course but, with the technology available to us, should a system like this be programmed into these androids that we are created? 

   Bill Joy's article "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" depicts what could happen if the technology of today becomes too "smart" tomorrow. He believes that machines and robots, like the CB2 model, will evolve into the dominant creature on earth and we will be living in a post-human world.