4 - Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
$t1 Iidiigan &Uail
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
}tur420 Maynard St.
. { # Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
GARY GRACA ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorialboard. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheirauthors.
Trigger happy
State legislature should not allow guns on college campuses
W hat do finals and guns have in common? Students
may soon have to worry about both - that is, if the
state legislature passes its proposed bill to allow
firearms on all college campuses. This extreme and poorly
thought out measure would increase the likelihood of gun vio-
lence at colleges throughout the state and thwart efforts to keep
students safe. Instead, colleges should take reasonable actions
to ensure student safety - and the legislature should keep guns
away from schools.
We hope that Olympia will come back."
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), commenting on Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) opposition
to the public option included in Reid's health care reform bill, as reported yesterday by MSNBC.
ELAINE MORTON
E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU
Vproos I
yniscot R i'lilm
(~,rtli~lCreA~ A' LYc
ilMohw xl.
Under current state law, a statewide ban
on guns exists in places like classrooms,
residence halls and stadiums. Many uni-
versities, including the University of
Michigan, have put their own ordinances
in place to prohibit firearms on all parts
of their campuses. But a new bill in the
state House could change this. If the law
is passed, state-protected areas like class-
rooms and residence halls would still be
gun-free zones, but Michigan colleges
would no longer be able to keep guns off
campuses entirely.
For the University, this means that peo-
ple would be allowed to carry guns every-
where from bus stops to the Diag, and the
Department of Public Safety could do lit-
tle to stop them. Police at the University
and nearby Eastern Michigan University
are opposing this new bill, largely because
they think it would increase the likelihood
of violence on campus. Department of Pub-
lic Safety Police Chief Ken Magee has called
the proposed bill a "recipe for disaster."
Proponents of this bill have argued
that colleges should not be allowed to
establish gun-free zones, and that people
should be allowed to carry firearms on
campus without facing any penalties. But
this argument doesn't make sense in the
context of a university environment. The
more guns there are, the more likely it is
that guns will be used, intentionally or
unintentionally. Students shouldn't have
to walk to class or walk through campus
at night wondering whether or not the
people around them are carrying danger-
ous weapons. And the presence of alcohol
in college life means that fights can easily
escalate into gun violence and fatal inju-
ries when firearms are present.
Some claim that letting students have
guns could prevent acts of violence like
the one that occurred at Virginia Tech in
April 2006. But the only likely scenario of
increasing the presence of guns on cam-
pus is that more danger will be created
due to accidental shootings. It is a univer-
sity's responsibility, not the students', to
implement better safety measures such as
emergency alert systems. Armed students
taking matters into their own hands will
only result in accidental deaths, even in
the unlikely event of a school shooter.
The House should reject this bill and
respect the University's efforts to create
a safe and welcoming learning environ-
ment for students, faculty and staff. Forc-
ing administrators, police, students and
others to accept guns when they clearly
aren't wanted is a big step backward for
campus safety. It would make the job of
maintaining safety on campus decidedly
harder.
Patenting body parts
As I reach the end of my time
here at the University, more
and more of my classes as an
engineer concern
the ethical dilem-
mas and responsi-
bilities of engineers
and scientists. It is " -
our moral respon-
sibility to not
restrict research
or technology that
benefits society. BEN
Patents and intel-
lectual property CALECA
rights should have
limitations when
they pertain to chemicals that affect
our health. I'm not talking about tak-
ing away the rights of pharmaceutical
researchers to patent medicine, but
rather the efforts made to patent our
own genetics.
Just lastweek, the Secretary's Advi-
sory Committee on Genetics, Health
and Society announced a draft report
recommending that genetic research-
ers be exempt from legal liability per-
taining to patented genetic material.
The issue boils down to this: Under
current U.S. legal precedent, you can
patent a naturally occurring gene in
humans if you've figured out what it
causes. That patent thereby gives you
the right to block out or demand roy-
alties from anyone who wants to cre-
ate a test for that gene for something
like health screening or research
directly related to testing the gene.
This exemption would grant other
researchers legal protection if they
wish to research tests for a patented
gene.
While I can understand the original
precedent in the 1980 case Diamond
v. Chakrabarty that states genetically
engineered life forms can be patented,
patenting human genes based on sim-
ply discovering their use is an ethi-
cal minefield. The premise offered by
some is that if you identify, for exam-
ple, a gene that causes increased risk
of cancer, you'll be able to hold onto
the patent for the right to eventually
develop a test for that gene - atest you
would hold exclusive rights over. The
logic in this idea falls apart when you
try to think about the issue with other
parts of the body. Should the first doc-
tor to figure out the function of cer-
tain human tissues or hormones do
be allowed the right to claim domin-
ion over that part of us? Should we
be able to patent the problem without
the solution, the discovery before the
invention?
The issue becomes even more con-
fusing when one considers who is
responsible for the bulk of the work in
curing or creating tests for diseases.
Is it the researcher who discovers a
gene's purpose, or the researcher who
makes a test or treatment that affects
that gene? If more work is needed to
create genetic treatments and tests,
is granting a patent for the discov-
ery of a gene's function premature?
Furthermore, is it morally acceptable
that researchers who can discover
gene purposes faster than others but
develop treatments or tests slower
than others have first rights to creat-
ing treatments and tests?
The worst outcome of not follow-
ing through on exempting liability
to genetic patents - one that one can,
only hope would be avoided by human
compassion, if nothing else - is that
patent holders may simply sit on their
research and wait to collect royal-
ties when others get impatient and
develop tests of the gene on their own.
From a business standpoint, collecting
royalties from tests developed by out-
side parties at no cost to you could be
lucrative. The third party developing
the test would probably pass the roy-
alty costs on to those seeking medical
testing.
Especially in a competitive health
care system where medical research
and treatment are, to an extent, in
competition, the monopolization of
genetictestingwill limittheextentand
impact of such research for some time.
Especially if only individual medical
groups can test or treat a certain piece
of genetic code, tests or treatments
could become less available. If you
want to patent genetic research, patent
testing methods, instead of genes that
are to be tested.
1980 genetics case
set a dangerous
precedent.
The precedent presented in the
Diamond v. Chakrabarty case was
centered on the idea that genetically
engineered genes are tools to solve a
particular problem. The spirit of that
precedent should still remain: Genes
in our body that may relate to disease
are not artificial creations, but are
part of many of us. If not for the sake
of other researchers, but for patients
and average people who could gain
frombetter health testing, a line needs
to be drawn that recognizes our genes
are not inventions. By providing an
exemption allowing researchers to
test or treat our genes for our benefit,
the government is helping research-
ers to fulfill their ethical duty to help
people.
- Ben Caleca can be reached
at calecabgumich.edu.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Jamie Block, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca,
Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam,
Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranaga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
Change in housing policy
not as drastic asfeared
TO THE DAILY:
Daily staff reporter Stephanie Steinberg was
very thorough in her reporting on the proposed
change to University Housing sign-up (For Uni-
versity Housing, a potential shake-up to the way
sign-up has been, 10/15/2009). It's important to
distinguish, however, that there will not be a
shortage of rooms for returning students. Regard-
less of the sign-up proposal, returning students
will have a great choice of rooms next year. And
we expect the process to be completely online,
which should make it much easier for residents to
make their selections.
We believe that nearly all students will be able
to return to their current halls, if they choose,
except for Couzens, which will close for renova-
tion, and Markley, which is reserved for first-year
students.
Current students will be eligible to sign up
for all the other campus communities, including
those reserved for second-year and older resi-
dents: North Quad, Stockwell Hall, Cambridge
House and Northwood III apartments. With the
opening of North Quad, University Housing will
have more single rooms and suites available than
before. Many choices exist - more than enough
to suit all returning students.
Peter Logan
University HousingSpokesman
Technology is more than
personal anecdotes
TO THE DAILY:
Upon opening Monday's edition of The Michi-
gan Daily, I stumbled across a column claiming
that today's youth lack necessary one-on-one
communication skills because of their obsession
with high-tech gadgetry (The BlackBerry Blues,
10/26/2009). The author, Leah Potkin, works
under the naive and romantic assumption that
human beings communicated more freely and
eloquently before the advent of e-mail and instant
messaging. Rather than offering any real insight
on the way technology affects our interactions,
she partakes in simple nostalgia. While she goes
on about how our generation can't even "keep
up a five-minute conversation," she ignores all
of the positive changes technology has made in
the world. In one breath, she laments the fact that
young people are continually on phones and that
communication has lost "that human touch." But
in the very next breath, she claims that because
our grandparents didn't have this technology,
"they were forced to pick up the phone and have
one-on-one conversations far more often than we
do today." How exactly can one claim that cell
phones deprive us ofhuman contact and then hold
up our grandparents talking on old dial rotary
phones as the epitome of human contact? Never
mind the fact that video conferencing, Skype and
picture messaging allow us to hear, see and share
things with family and friends that older genera-
tions had to miss out on.
To explain what is wrong with our generation,
she offers anecdotes about her own family. As a
person who grew up in the same household as a
grandparent, I can honestly say that I couldn't
disagree more with her conclusions. But maybe
that's part of the problem. Since everyone has
their own experiences with technology and fam-
ily, personal anecdotes aren't enough to support
such sweeping claims about entire generations of
people.
Taylor Stanton
Senior, School of Music, Theatre t Dance
Ann Arbor visit a pleasant
and enjoyable experience
TO THE DAILY:
As a recent graduate of Penn State University
and a resident of Erie, Penn., I decided to make
the four-hour drive to Ann Arbor this weekend to
watch my Nittany Lions. It was my first time trav-
eling to a road game, and I must say that my trip to
the University of Michigan set the bar extremely
high for my future visits to other Big Ten cam-
puses. The overall experience at your campus
was simply outstanding. I did not exactly prepare
the best for the trip, so I continually had to ask
for directions. All of your fans and students were
very helpful. The students along State Street were
very welcoming and friendly, and even invited my
friend and I inside for a bit. The downtown scene
at night was more of the same, with Michigan
fans congratulating us for finally winning in the
Big House.
Although I was very pleased to see Penn State
leave with a victory, I left Ann Arbor much more
appreciative of the campus beauty, genuine
friendliness and overall amazing atmosphere that
your student body and fan base has created. I can
only hope that anyone who travels to Happy Val-
ley anytime in the future will have just as wonder-
ful an experience.
Colby Wesner
Penn State University alum
ALEX SCHIFF I
An extreme view on family values
Dear Gary Glenn,
I am writing this in response to your letter to the edi-
tor (Daily wrong, those against gay marriage not a minor-
ity,10/08/2009). You are indeed correct to point out that 59
percent of Michigan voters approved the ban on same-sex
marriage in 2004. It is also true that supermajorities sup-
ported slavery in the American South and Adolf Hitler in
Nazi Germany. Discrimination approved by majorities is
still discrimination. The fact that a lot of people approved
the Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitu-
tion does not make it any less reprehensible and hateful in
nature. Direct democracy does not confer justice in its own
right.
Mr. Glenn, I assure you I know my civics - it is you who
seem to be mistaken on the concept of direct democracy.
The way the MPA was foistedon the people was not direct
democracy. Direct democracy allows citizens to propose,
shape and decide on the laws they are obliged to follow.
Ballot initiatives present citizens with a poorly worded,
legalese sentence that is incomprehensible to the average
person. Consequently, many end up voting in ways opposite
their intent. Here is what the amendment says:
"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our
society and for future generations of children, the union
of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only
agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for
any purpose."
While you and many others may find nothing objection-
able in this sentence, many will fail to realize its implica-
tions. By phrasing it in such a way, some will vote in favor
of the amendment without being opposed to same-sex mar-
riage. Further complicating matters, the beginning of the
sentence primes the response that opponents of same-sex
marriage seek. Inserting "to secure and preserve the bene-
fits of marriage" distorts the decision process in the voting-
booth by presupposing a correct answer, and therefore does
not reflect the pure will of the people.
Even if you discard these obvious effects, it wasn't votes
that passed this discriminatory amendment - it was money.
If this ballot initiative operated as a truly direct democracy,
the state would have solicited citizens' concerns and their
proposed solutions. Instead, it received a vote on a confus-
ing statement driven by a $1.9 million campaign against
same-sex couples' civil rights.
Mr. Glenn, you are the hypocrite. You accuse the Daily
editorial staff (of which I am a member) of being "so far left
and so intractably intolerant of those with a diversity of
opinion on this issue that they really do think anyone who
dares disagree with them ... really are just a bunch of hate-
mongers." I invite those reading this open letter to take a
look at the website of Gary Glenn's organization, the Ameri-
can Family Association (www.action.afa.net) and judge for
yourself who the "hatemongers" really are. As President of
the AFA of Michigan, you, Mr. Glenn, do not simply advo-
cate "protecting marriage." You advocate the idea that
homosexual people are immoral stains on society and their
lifestyle should be suppressed.
In your letter to the editor, you attempted, in vain, to
frame The Michigan Daily as a bunch of crazy, radical,
fringe leftists. But itis the AFA that appears most comfort-
able in its attacks the further it travels from the mainstream.
Your "Action Alerts" are so insane, they have replaced both
textsfromlastnight.com and Facebook.com as my top enter-
tainment sources during Friday classes (okay, maybe not
Facebook - but it's close). My personal favorite so far has
been your assertion that "ObamaCare" will place Planned
Parenthood clinics in every school.' Your commitment to
tolerance is crystal clear in your mile-longlist of boycotted
companies - ranging from 7-Eleven, Burger King and Clo-
rox to the Walt Disney Company, Microsoft and PepsiCo.
If anyone remains unconvinced of the identity of the
true agents of intolerance, they need only take a cursory
look at www.boycottpepsico.com, where your organization
sponsors a boycott of Pepsi products because of the com-
pany's contribution to the Human Rights Campaign, its
requirement that employees attend diversity training, its
sponsorship of Family Guy (which, according to your orga-
nization, promotes the homosexual agenda) and refusing
"to give one penny to help those trapped in this destruc-
tive and unhealthy lifestyle." The scariest part of the whole
website is that, based on your count, 354,620 people agree
with you.
I'll stick with drinking Pepsi. Do not allow the AFA
and its members to cast blame on others for being intoler-
ant when they are the ones who attempt to suppress every
opposing viewpoint.
Alex Schiff is an SA freshman.
*