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. *