“ELEMENTARY, MY DEAR WATSON”– The Genie is Out of the Bottle
The Socialist Nobel Prize elite are planning their annual “Nobel Week” in Stockholm—leading up to the big prize. This year the activities will include a new event: the Nobel Week Dialogue– scheduled for December 9. The subject of this dialogue will be THE GENETIC REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON SOCIETY, aimed at providing “an opportunity for discussions that cross the traditional boundaries between science and society.”Dr. James Watson is one of the participants in this dialogue. Watson was awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. He is described as having initiated the ‘Genetic Revolution.’
Watson’s presence sets the tone for this event, given his line of thinking– as follows:
“Genetics provides the ultimate answers to the chemical underpinnings of human existence. Knowing the complete human genome, we will know what it is to be human.” — James Watson, Nobel laureate.
The first question that comes to mind is—will they invite any authentic pro-life scientists to this event?
As a pro-life woman I had the experience of fighting—very much alone– to keep a so-called “personalized medicine” genetic lab from locating to the town of Ave Maria, Florida—at the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. 
The genetic lab in question (which specializes in experimenting with mice) is known as The Jackson Lab, with headquarters in Maine. The Jackson Lab is also involved in the world of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Its obscure business proposal for locating to Ave Maria was to practice “personalized medicine”— even though The Jackson Lab had no record of having engaged in such a field before.
There were people in other parts of Collier County who opposed The Jackson Lab project solely based on the taxpayer funding aspect– and the absence of a voter referendum. Other than that, they made it very clear that they did not want to become involved in “moral issues”.
While I actively supported the fight against the use of taxpayer dollars for this project—no one publicly opposed The Jackson Lab based on pro-life principles—except for me. It was a lonely and intense battle inside Ave Maria, that took more than a year of my life—but I prevailed. As such, I helped save Florida’s taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Upon examination of the upcoming Nobel Peace Dialogue event in Stockholm, I could not help but remember all of the morally-bankrupt justifications I heard from “Catholics” inside the town of Ave Maria—who passionately supported The Jackson Lab tax-payer funded project. 
In spite of all the press coverage, in Florida there were only two people who publicly opposed The Jackson Lab project in Ave Maria, on pro-life grounds: yours truly– followed (several months later) by the Bishop of the Diocese of Venice.
The pro-life world remained silent during The Jackson Lab scandal– except for the prestigious pro-life journalist, Mrs. Randy Engel– who detailed The Jackson Lab’s long history in the dark world of Eugenics.
I am not against new scientific endeavors. I am, however, very cautious about new technologies that can be actually categorized as pseudo-science, specifically when it comes to experimenting with human beings. Such technologies have, as a point of departure, the values of the scientists that are developing them. That presents a serious problem, if said scientists are atheists or agnostics. God created us in his image—and our value and dignity cannot be measured in terms of microscopic genetic analysis, by Nobel Peace laureates.
In consideration of the above, we are presented with a multitude of serious moral questions when it comes to genetic technologies. Here are just a few:
Is it right to conquer all disease—regardless of the methods, such as the destruction of another human life?
Is it right to conquer disabilities, aging and death—regardless of the methods?
Should we make life-altering decisions based on genetic risk—even when treatment may not be available in our lifetime? In other words, diagnostic programs do not guarantee therapeutic solutions.
Fiscally speaking, the Human Genome project was a massive program (financed in the United States by the National Institutes of Health and by the Department of Energy). Are we– as taxpayers, morally obligated to provide new genetic technologies for “personalized medicine / health care”? After all, we live in a world where abortion-on-demand is also considered “health care” that taxpayers are expected to support.
No doubt that Watson may have let the “genie out of the bottle” with his ‘Genetic Revolution’—leading to the Human Genome project. In fact, it also led J. Craig Venter to create “Synthia”. Venter, who has been lauded as one of the first scientists to sequence the human genome, explained during a press conference that “Synthia” is “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet, whose parent is a computer.” 
This ‘Genetic Revolution’ will continue to besiege us with serious moral questions, not least of which is– will it take the place of God in our society? I hope not.
Copyright © 2012 Marielena Montesino de Stuart. All rights reserved.
- “A Blow from a Hatchet”: Eugenics and the Catholic Perspective
(by Marielena Montesino de Stuart):
- The Ave Maria-Jackson Lab Battle—and the Erosion of What it Means to be Prolife (by Marielena Montesino de Stuart):
- The Modern PROMETHEUS Redux: The Creation of “Synthia”
(by Marielena Montesino de Stuart):