Writing a research paper on implantation, evolution, and ethics - seeking input

edited June 2015 in Community
Hello, my name is Jen Larsen, and I am an undergraduate student writing a research paper about human evolution, implantation, and the future of the human body. My general thesis (for now) is that human evolution is no longer happening in the traditional sense, therefore we must accelerate implant research in order to provide control over the unforeseen changes that we may be causing on ourselves. 

I am going to argue that implantation is not being researched radically enough in the medical community, since it primarily targets individuals with disabilities or medical needs, and that since each individual with a need is distinctly different, there is not enough broad-based implantation work being studied to provide an overall system that can adapt to every body without specific study. Intelligent implantation systems are needed for all, and we can't get the data we need just on case-by-case basis from single, unique implantations on the disabled.

I will argue that FDA approval is too slow, doesn't allow doctor discretion when using devices, and doesn't allow (or does it? I honestly can't tell) implantation on able-bodied individuals. Since able-bodied implantation is happening anyway (cmon, look at gianormous breast implants, why are those ok but a magnet is considered weird?) , the best thing to do is accept it since it does provide valid information that the scientific community can use to advance implantation for the good of everybody.

I will also argue that preventing people from altering their body however they wish just because it seems "weird" or "gross" (words used by fellow students when I posted my research proposal) are not valid objections, because aesthetic senses of the norm are subjective. Besides, if we say one implant is "gross" because it's not natural, why do we have non-anatomically correct prosthetics such as the blades  used by leg amputees? Why is natural a requirement for the abled and functional, but not natural acceptable for the disabled? It seems arbitrary. But unfortunately, I can't just make a single paragraph saying "anyone who thinks this is seriously narrow minded and stupid" so I am having probably the most trouble finding academic sources to counter these arguments to use. This is probably indicative of a larger problem with the scientific community and society as a whole.

So I am basically looking for input from people who have experience with implantation, since I myself am such a squeamish baby that I don't even have a piercing or tattoo. I fainted when I had single ear piercings done. 

So what is your perspective?  Are my thesis and ideas are rubbish? (That would be nice to know too before I am completely finished with my paper!)

Thank you for your time in reading this and your input.

Sincerely, 

Jen Larsen
Tagged:

Comments

  • I like where you're coming from. I've often had the "why is this ok and not this ok" conversation, in regards to breast implants vs mods. I think I pushed it a bit further and referenced reassignment surgery and then asked why this was finally becoming ok (which it is) while the people who think that they have been born with one too many body parts (Apotemnophilia) still have to have a staged "accident" that allows them to remove their hand...

    I figure some of this has to do with normalized versions of self and the body, as well as acceptable modifications within the realm of standard society and sexualization. Beyond that, since most modifications have previously come from either counter culture areas or from damage repair, people tend to balk on the initial point that work needs to be done (legs lost, fingers cut, etc) and never get to the post situation, where the latter benefit is revealed. The girl with the carbon recurve legs is at the end of the day, still a cripple in many peoples eyes, despite being completely badass. People with mags can feel something no one else can, but they had to cut themselves to do it...

    Aimme Mullins TED talk nails this point pretty well. There's also that girl who got knee surgery after a tear (hockey i think, sorry i can't remember the name) and her coach noticed she was faster and asked that she undergo a second surgery on the undamaged knee to improve her performance...

  • I like most of your ideas save for the evolution one. Evolution is slow but it is still an ongoing process. Now the idea that we can direct our evolution with things like implants or more is something I quite agree with. Given the choice i'd love to see a society where you can change your body to be whatever you want it to be. 

    Not sure about the fda testing as yes it's slow but if you don't test properly you kill a lot of people potentially. Should it be faster? ideally. Is that feasable right now? no clue. 

    I like the idea of doctors being able to have some discretion with this but that opens a whole nasty can of gross. Like when doctors start prescribing homepathy crap rather than proper medicine. It'd be a low precentage but the derp is always present when you give people free reign so who knows.
  • Glims - Thanks for the TED talk reference, I will watch it!

    Chironex - The evolution bit I reference is from this amazing book co-written by a Harvard Statistician and geneticist called "Evolving ourselves". It is snappy and full of great facts to depress the crap out of everyone you know, a surefire way to kill any party. But if you like synthesizing big pictures from tons of data from lots of sources, it is wonderful to read.

    The FDA approval - they did some streamlining 2 years ago and supposedly have ways you can track their progress, but I have yet to figure out how that actually works, even though it's on their website. I do know that at the time they did the supposed streamlining, the way they want clinical trials set up in the US is extremely expensive and difficult to do compared to trials in Europe. They also rely a great deal more on non-doctor input than doctor input. (http://issues.org/27-3/p_citron/). Why is there no global input regulatory agency so all the data can be pooled from all over the world? That doesn't even make sense. It's not like we have dramatically different requirements for implants or do clinical trials much differently, and more data is always better. Hey I think i will propose that.

    Thanks for the comments! It's nice to be able to talk to someone about this stuff without hearing "gross" or "weird" because.. cmon, who has the right to say what senses are "wrong" to have or what shape of a body is "wrong?"
  • Man given the chance i'd be out of this body and into a custom built rig tomorrow. Weird is all you'll find here XD I'm curious to see how long the FDA process is now.
Sign In or Register to comment.