Scientists: It's Time To Resolve the Ethics of Editing Human Genome 299
An anonymous reader writes: We've previously discussed a system called CRISPR-cas9, which is dramatically reducing the cost and effort required to do gene editing. In fact, the barrier to entry is now so low that a group of biologists is calling for a moratorium on using the method to modify the human genome. Writing in the journal Science (abstract), the scientists warn that we've reached the point where the ethical questions surrounding DNA alteration can be put off no longer. David Baltimore, one of the group's members, said, "You could exert control over human heredity with this technique, and that is why we are raising the issue. ... I personally think we are just not smart enough — and won't be for a very long time — to feel comfortable about the consequences of changing heredity, even in a single individual." Another group of scientists called for a similar halt to human germline modification, and the International Society for Stem Cell Research says it agrees.
fathers (Score:5, Funny)
I can see fathers objecting to their daughter's suitors on the grounds that they are GMOs. They'll start to demand labeling.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"List of upgrades includes 'magnum-sized dong.'"
Hrrrmmmm...
Re:fathers (Score:5, Insightful)
I once thought Bob Heinlein was a bit too cynical in "Friday", a world of the near future where designed humans - optimized for health, etc. - were considered subhuman ungodly creatures that were trained from birth to be subordinate to the point where Friday was trained to be a prostitute from birth. And once again, Grandfather knew his fellow Missourans well - and I must move my needle downwards again. A baby made in a back seat by two morons who can't find a condom is superior, "ethically" speaking, to a baby with maladapted genes removed.
I'm old enough to recall the moment where the "Genetic Ethics" profession was born. I believe it was when Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammalian clone that made it out of the chute alive. The "ethics" chair was created that week, and self-appointed experts at once popped up on TV to tell us what was right and what was wrong. The nature of journalists embraces the idea of the professional expert, so these carpetbaggers hopped up to take charge.
Most of the "ethicsists" are fundamental christian types or outright clergy, I'd guess from my Heinlein-trained cynical mind, as most media censors are. I do not take orders from them.
Re:fathers (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst part was that most of those self-appointed ethicists was that, just listening to them,, it should have been painfully the underlying objection was quasi-religious, No testing, no studies, no empirical evidence, just mental masturbation.
Ask anyone suffering from a chronic disease if they would like the genes involved to be edited out in their offspring - there will be plenty of motivated volunteers. After all, they have first-hand experience with what it's like with bad genes.
And yes, Heinlein was AMAZING !!!
Re: (Score:2)
Amen, brother Alec.
Re:fathers (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find most disturbing is their presumption that "they" have the right to decide for "us". Each individual should decide for themselves what is and isn't done with their genome. It is nobody else's damn business.
Re: fathers (Score:3)
I have two chronic, heritable diseases, and yes, I would like them edited out.
Re:fathers (Score:5, Interesting)
A baby made in a back seat by two morons who can't find a condom is superior, "ethically" speaking, to a baby with maladapted genes removed.
This. We've modified the human genome in most imaginable ways already, most often with no real aim, but the moment we do it intentionally and purposefully it's a big ethical problem?
Reminds me of the idiots who are categorically opposed to all geoengineering.
Re: (Score:3)
Think Saurons, think SS shock troops, think of all the 'cool' things that humans have aspired to in the past (and future).
Now, just placing ethical constraints on these sorts of experiments won't get you very far. It's not like a full blown DNA lab is beyond any villainous billionaire with a volcano (or small country with some sort of GDP).
I suspect that in our children's lifetimes (not particularly ours, the technology is still pretty primitive and new) that genetically 'enhanced' humans will start to app
Re: (Score:3)
Using CRISPR-CAS9 you can modify an adult organism just fine. It is only in science fiction where this stuff can't only be done before birth.
Also this technology has only existed for a few years. Originally CRISPR-CAS9 was ABANDONED by the creators as not workable. It took others to prove it worked at a genetic engineering competition. Now it has becoming the standard by which we judge other techniques in about a year.
This stuff is moving faster than any of these prediction makers can imagine. I also have n
Re: (Score:3)
I also have not ethical problems with genetic engineering on humans.
Do you have an ethical problem with genetically engineering an embryo and accidentally creating new problems that result in an individual crippled from birth, or doomed to a short and miserable life span?
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine that if the scientists wanted to experiment to find what genes possibly cause Alzheimers, most people with that disease would gladly step up to be in the experimental group.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is bullshit. What's being debated is whether it's right to make experiments who's consequences a person who can't consent to them has to carry. If your attempt to remove "maladapted genes" ends up causing early-onset dementia, what are you going to do?
The two morons have a right to procreate. So far, every attempt to curtail that right has resulted in material fi
Re:fathers (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the "ethicsists" are fundamental christian types or outright clergy
The people writing the letter referred to in TFA are not professional ethicists at all - they are practicing scientists, including one of the people who figured out how the system in question works. (Disclaimer: I know one of them personally and I've had a handful of interactions with another.) If any one of them is at all religious, it's news to me. I'd guess they're totally in favor of genome editing in general, especially since several of them are involved in companies that have this goal. The ethical issue is whether to leap right into modifying embryos with an unproven and potentially unsafe technology, which amounts to experimentation on unwilling human test subjects.
Re: fathers (Score:5, Insightful)
As if the chasm between haves and the have-nots wasn't wide enough already... now lucking into a wealthy family will get the "born on 3rd base" advantages amplified by an order of magnitude.
Specific consequences are impossible to predict, but I susect the kind of permanent, intergenerational inequality this would engender would not make for a more peaceful planet.
As a cancer survivor (grade 4 GBMO), I am a natural mutant with a lot at stake. But altering genes to prevent disease is not the same thing as optimizing your progeny's IQ or height.
Re: (Score:3)
CRISPR-CAS9 is CHEAP to duplicate. That is what makes it so easy to work with and why it is advancing the technology so quickly. These treatments will not just be for the wealthy, they will be for everyone. The companies working on this RIGHT NOW are not targeted at a tiny percent of people they are targeted at the bulk of the population.
Stop getting ideas from science fiction. I have not seen a single piece of science fiction yet that was even a tiny bit correct on genetic engineering. It is not expensive
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you SF collection is then pretty smal :)
Re: (Score:2)
We demand all natural chemical free son-in-laws!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no DNA!
I'm all for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Although, do not mistake me, I am all for it, were we able to remove those diseases from the world.
Re:I'm all for this (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course we can't cure all hereditary diseases at once with this. But the OP talked about Cystic Fibrosis; it's hard to think of a better candidate to use this technique on than CF. Cystic Fibrosis's genetic basis is simple and well understood. It's just one gene, which has been thoroughly studied. Editing it in germ plasm to eliminate it should not pose insurmountable obstacles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a number of diseases like this, sickle cell comes to mind as well. Watch out though sickle cell does confer +1 malaria resistance and given the warming trends...
Unethical to ban (Score:3)
The fact that hereditary edits can me made, does not imply that we can immediately cure all hereditary diseases as well.
True but fatal, genetic diseases are a good reason not to ban use of the technique so that research on using it to cure them can proceed. However I would support strong regulation to limit it to cases where there is severe disability or greatly shortened life span. Indeed I would go as far as to say than an outright ban in these cases is unethical because of the potential to cure these diseases.
There may be risks for the first to undergo any treatments developed but this has to be set against the risk o
Re: (Score:2)
Like any tech, it's not "the science" but how you use it. Who is using it and what are they using it for?
This tech can be used to cure people that have a death sentence, or whose current treatment options have odds like Russian Roullette or involve drugs too expensive for the British NIH to sanction.
A total ban sounds like Bush-like nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
I will continue to do work in this area and continue to work to improve humanity
Considering how little thought you've given to the potential downsides of such experiments, I'd guess that it's considerably more likely that you'll fuck up and produce a bunch of horribly malformed fetuses and live humans with fatal genetic problems. Fortunately, the ensuing lawsuits should put you out of business quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm all for this (Score:5, Funny)
But we don't want the DISEASES to benefit. We want to get rid of those!
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. There are many diseases that would really benefit from this.
I fear you are right, and that some diseases would benefit by our preventing other diseases. Given that our focus is usually on the "worst" diseases, on average the competition opens to more benign diseases, but there will be exceptions. And some relatively benign diseases that seems easy to cure might become a target for a genetic "quick fix" that might, unbeknownst to us, open up for other diseases.
The interaction between different diseases and genetic "flaws" is not well understood, but we know there a
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of far less benign conditions to worry about before we get to Cickle-Cell anemia and bespoke babies. There's an ample supply of quite willing guinea pigs that have few other options (and those options are pretty grim).
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of far less benign conditions to worry about before we get to Cickle-Cell anemia and bespoke babies. There's an ample supply of quite willing guinea pigs that have few other options (and those options are pretty grim).
Unfortunately, I fear that there are also a supply of quite willing and rich guinea pigs who want lesser problems fixed, or bespoke babies. Unless regulated, research tends to follow the money.
Re: (Score:3)
If we can eliminate these concerns, then the decision seems rather simple in cases like CF.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One point is that the off-target effects have a chance of messing up other parts of the genome while repairing the CFTR mutation.
That is NOT their point. They are not saying we should hold off until technology improves. They are saying that, in principle, individual people should not be allowed to own and control their genome, and that a group of super smart elites, like maybe themselves, should decide what is right and wrong and then have the power to impose that decision on everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Like every technology it will be all about how you use it.
Should the mutation that causes CF be removed from the gene pool or does having just one copy give some benefit?
Should we take control of our evolution?
What about people that want to order children that are super tall so they can play basketball? Or super smart. Or have big breasts?
What about if we can remove any genetic factor in sexual preference?
What is good use and what is a bad use? What should be allowed and what should be banned?
Fixing DF seem
Re: (Score:2)
Or EDS. Or diabetes. Or spinal bifida. Or congentital blindness. So many, many things can go away. So much agony, so many lives saved, both that of the victims and their families. And the resources we spend to research "treatment" to be sold at ruinous profit. The miracle fairy has arrived, and they want to shoot it in the head, or at least make themselves a lucrative profession of judging, for us, what we can and cannot cure, because Jesus or whatever.
There ain't no discussion we can have. We either do it
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought Star Trek's objection to this was a bit hokey - the episode where Geordi points out that the technology to save a colony of carefully genetically managed humans wouldn't have existed without his VISOR having been invented.
His VISOR was no doubt based on a huge number of components that were individually created for other purposes.
What's more of a surprise is how few enhanced humans there are around in Star Trek. The tricorder seems a clumsy and stunted way to extend the human sensorium.
Re: (Score:2)
What's more of a surprise is how few enhanced humans there are around in Star Trek.
Well, for humans it was due to our revulsion of the practice after the Eugenics Wars, but it was unusual that they ran into so few other species that had done so.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that GMOs aren't responsible for my own rare acquired genetic disorder. Looking at the underlying biochemistry and noting how pesticides and herbicides relate to that is really quite scary.
Again. It's not "the science", it's who is using the technology.
Is it some monk or college professor or is it some herbicide company that wants to be the Microsoft of corn.
Scope and scale also matters. Stuff that's being thrown into the environment like DDT is potentially much more problematic than anyth
Re: (Score:2)
The great thing about this type of genetic modification is that the anti-science left and right will get selected out of the population by, ironically, a new process of intelligent design. A century from now there might be an "Amish island" where tourists can go to look at the last of them.
Thank you, Sir. (Score:2)
I was thinking about a comment along these lines.
You've summed it up in the most succinct manner I can imagine.
Again, thank you.
Lord Baltimore, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
The cat's out of the bag (Score:2)
I don't think a resolution passed by an NGO or a couple of research groups are going to stop this. There's too much profit potential for successful edits. What would a parent pay to have a child that was free of a genetic defect? Blonde hair and blue eyes? Etc...
Re:The cat's out of the bag (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
First practice on consenting adults with nasty diseases that have a good chance to be cured using gene therapy.
Re: (Score:3)
Before you can perfect editing the genome without side effects you are going to mess things up. That is the ethical dilemma that needs to be answered who do you practice on.
Certainly! But our* corporations have a pretty crappy record of balancing ethics and profits.
* Humankind's. No country or race has any claim to superior ethical behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think a resolution passed by an NGO or a couple of research groups are going to stop this.
It isn't necessary to stop this in order to have a conversation about it.
Many people do not care, when money is involved (Score:4, Insightful)
From that point of view, we might as well open up the technology for every one to use, and let everybody handle it as he or she sees fit.
Ethics? (Score:2)
I don't wish to say that there aren't ethical questions(or, if there aren't, they could be raised); but "Scientists say that germline modificat
Dialogue (Score:2)
There's no stopping technology, and many cases, e.g. genetic disorders, where there will little desire to do so.
But starting the discussion is a good idea.
A half billion years too late, I think (Score:2)
We perform a human genome modification every time we make a baby. The results are not spectacularly successful; we've an enormous number of genetic defects.
Time to kick the dice bag away, and let humans sort it out instead of god. Modify away. No more diabetes. No more lupus. No more EDS. Let it end. Human evolution is now in our own hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it will, because of the law of unintended consequences. So then we would have to reiterate, and fix the new problem. There is no turning back, and the price for refusal to move is the continuation of horrific diseases that we could easily remove or cure.
The discovery of germs and infection directly created the human population boom that is currently destroying the ecosphere as we know it. If we still didn't wash our hands when we deliver a baby, women would still die from birthbed infections whil quite
Re: (Score:3)
As for genetic modification of crops.
It's not the modification itself that bothers me, it's the total lack of long term study requirements and no efforts to avoid cross pollination with traditional crops. Sure, maybe plants that produce their own insecticide are the bees knees and totally safe, or maybe they build up toxins in the environment like DDT did and we'll all be getting horrible cancers in thirty years. Personally, I'd just like there to be a bit more science involved then, yes Fish genes are safe, Tomato genes are safe so Fish gen
Re: (Score:3)
We screw up with EVERY medicine we make. We KILL people during the development. NOTHING we do can change that. Many of the people I know working on drug development do everything they can imagine to make sure it does not happen but it still does and with each drug we learn something new. In almost all cases the deaths are from things we could not predict ahead of time. We learn, add it to how we do things and don't make the same mistake again.
Science Fiction Fear. (Score:2)
Most of the fear around genetic manipulation falls around Science-Fiction scenarios. Which in order to make it entertaining they will often play with the worst case scenarios. Super soldiers, Freaky Person/Animal hybrids, etc. which to get such a case means a lot of experimentation, that would lead to a lot of dead or grossly Ill people. Such science on humans is already unethical, as your are giving birth to a bunch of people with a high chance of failure, and Illness.
However the goal for Genetic Manipulat
Re: (Score:3)
However the goal for Genetic Manipulation in humans, isn't making someone a super human, but an average human.
That may be your goal but I guarantee it won't be the goal of the people with the most money available to invest in this technology. Life extension or more gifted children will be their primary wants.
Don't listen to troglodytes (Score:2)
Ethics? Who cares about some rigid individualist standards that are based on logically bankrupt bearded-man-in-the-sky
Re: (Score:2)
Civilization IV had a quote... (Score:2)
Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.
But not yet please. I have two issues: First, We still don't know enough to prevent unintended consquences or complications. We could edit-out one problem and accidently edit-in another.But one day, in the not-so-distant future, perhaps another generation or two, yes - definately. We should erradicate all heritable diseases.
The second thing, I would draw the line between correcting errors/curing diseases and between creating eugenic supermen. Please no Gattica-style selection of socially prefered traits
"Heritable disease" or "survival trait" (Score:2)
Should we really eradicate all heritable disease, or post-edit the afflicted to mitigate effects?
Like for example, the often cited benefit of being heterozygous in the sickle-cell anaemia gene. You are more resistant to malaria, a definite survival trait.
My point is that if you reduce genetic variability by always using the 'best' gene variant, your species becomes more vulnerable to extinction due to a sudden environmental change.
If you come up with a lot of gene variants as a patch for a broken one, all
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we do, the "consequences" are every human being without the genetic disease, or every human being who already has the desirable trait you're inserting. It's just like rocket science - smarter people than you understand it more thoroughly than you, and every risk you can possibly conceive of they have already considered.
You people talk like this shit is like fucking magic, as if there is a metaphysical price that must be paid fo
Re: (Score:2)
Whats so wrong with ubermenchen??? If it's the parents choice coupled with a strong prohibition on government or business use of DNA should be reasonable.
There are different levels (Score:2)
1) Copying DNA from one human to another.
2) Copying DNA from a non-human into a human (or a large amount of human DNA into a non-human creature)
3) Creating our own DNA from scratch.
These three things are dramatically different. Set 1, modifying a human to be like another human - for example giving anyone that wants the gene for blue eyes, the gene for blue eyes, is almost within our grasp - technologically and ethically. I see no problem with allowing
Re: (Score:2)
1) Copying DNA from one human to another.
As long as you don't copy the DNA of a Disney princess...
Re: (Score:2)
modifying a human to be like another human - for example giving anyone that wants the gene for blue eyes, the gene for blue eyes, is almost within our grasp - technologically and ethically. I see no problem with allowing that at all.
You realize that includes selecting gender, right?
Re: (Score:2)
We have been able to select gender for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
And it has not worked out well so far.
Forking the human species? (Score:2)
I don't see any ethics problem with treating genetic diseases, which is where this tech will be applied first - though I'm sure that in both the more progressively-inclined and the most God-fearing parts of the US and Europe there will be a Natural Disease Coalition, led by the likes of Dolce and Gabbana, promoting breast cancer as the Lord's will.
The ethics will get interesting when we start to see lines of humanity modified to fit extreme environments, such as microgravity or underwater. At some point the
Re: (Score:2)
The ethics will get interesting when we start to see lines of humanity modified to fit extreme environments
Or, far more likely, to be stronger, prettier, smarter.
Re: (Score:2)
This will happen too, but in this area there will be no forced speciation. A steady drift toward choosing similarly-enhanced mates, but no specific point at which the species divides into two or more non-interbreedable groups. Instead, we will se gradual decline in the numbers of the unenhanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I always thought of Intelligent Design as a fake history to allow people of low IQ to continue to believe in magic, but maybe its time hasn't come yet, is all.
Sure, it doesn't affect me, but ZOMG "morals"!1! (Score:3)
It's time to resolve the ethics of telling other people what they can and can't do with their own DNA and reproductive choices.
And the resolution is: you can butt right the fuck out. It's none of your god damned business.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but "ethical" is all too often is synonymous with "what won't ever lead us to getting sued" and has nothing to do with greater good or even doing the right things for a group of individuals.
Reproduction is ethically very tricky (Score:2)
See, a real person is created and has to LIVE WITH and SUFFER FROM the changes you've inflicted upon them.
Think about it. Standard reproduction, you have no control over the result except what you can do with nutrition and environment. So your liability is also limited. However, if as a result of your DIRECTED genetic change, someone lives a life of suffering, well, your liability is enormous. You controlled it and caused it, therefore, you are responsible.
And it's a mind-blowing responsibility. If in
Re: (Score:2)
You already had that responsiblity. The details are lawyerly nonsense.
Cowards! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to suspect that the real reason they are arguing against mods is that suffering and dying of muscular distrophy, or cystic fibrosis, or any other horrible genetic condition, is "natural".
Those people out there that are willing to accept the risks inherent to genetic modification shouldn't be limited by cowards that are OK with people dying, as long as they don't get their own hands dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
We already subsidize the genetically modified offspring of people who are experimenting with reproduction by randomly mixing genes together. Those people are called "parents", and the results are pretty horrible. And we don't penalize people who have known genetic problems who insist on reproducting anyway. So. And idiots are making a lot of babies; in fact, they seem to make most of them, as idiots don't believe in limiting their numbers.
Leaving bad New Wave science fiction of the 50's-70's aside, we can g
Needs animal testing/experimentation, not a ban. (Score:4, Informative)
My ethical problem would be that in the short-medium term, we don't understand what we're doing and will hurt more than we heal.
So need a few more decades with animal testing.
After that? Open the floodgates. Not everyone will want the 6'2" white blonde blueeyed children. I can see a market for catpeople, dogpeople, merpeople (colonise the oceans!); I'm sure there'll be one or two who want to incarnate Cthulu; wings capable of unaided flight might be difficult.
Never worry about being the wrong skin colour as everyone will be any colour of the rainbow - or even rainbow coloured!
Nightvision - eyeshine a reality!
Solar powered - get a lot of your daily calories just by standing naked in the sun.
Turn hair-growth on and off. Never have to shave again.
People who worry about eugenics are just lacking in imagination.
There is no debate. (Score:5, Insightful)
This technology will be developed to the point where traits like intelligence, disease resistance, emotional stability, beauty, et. al. will be almost guaranteed. If it's outlawed in one nation state, wealthy people will just have it done in another. Their children will benefit. The poor will be at a financial AND genetic disadvantage.
The hand wringing ethical concerns of "scientists" will have no effect on this whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
This technology will be developed to the point where traits like intelligence, disease resistance, emotional stability, beauty, et. al. will be almost guaranteed. If it's outlawed in one nation state, wealthy people will just have it done in another. Their children will benefit. The poor will be at a financial AND genetic disadvantage. The hand wringing ethical concerns of "scientists" will have no effect on this whatsoever.
The question is not wether this will happen. It will, if it can. The question is, wi
Re: (Score:3)
Which is precisely why they'll try to outlaw it. It's the only way it will remain expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. I maintain however, that "moral validity" rarely has significant real world consequences, or is used to justify a change in economic conditions that inevitably benefit the wealthy.
Hollywood did it! (South Park reference) (Score:2)
"Sixth Day" laws. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And Gattaca [wikipedia.org], of course.
Morality Wizards (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>> As far as the human genome goes we can store it and revert back to unedited DNA any time we like
Lets assume that some therapy that tweaks DNA in a way that gets passed on is later found to be detrimental. By the time we identify and agree the need to revert, the genie would be well and truly out the bottle.
>> It is simply a matter of not allowing people to reproduce who have had unwanted consequences from edited genes.
Nice one Adolf. This is incredibly naive, You really think the victims the
Re: (Score:2)
"if we had not allowed abortions." was solved with allowing anyone to jump the borders. Almost all new jobs since year 2000 were reported to have been taken by recent immigrants of all types. Guess what that did to downtrodden minorities in the US with minimal education and skills?
What will be deemed "Non-Human" (Score:2)
If you edit a human egg and wind up producing a new &/or murderous in-nonhuman species, do you have a right to kill it?
Bad track record (Score:2)
Show me just one example where humans have messed with nature and got it completely right.
Re:FRIST (Score:4, Funny)
post!!!!111111111111
Thanks to genetically engineered faster than human reaction times.
Re: (Score:2)
But having an economic underclass of humans designed to be disposable cheap labor is fine? We don't need any specific technology to act in scandalous ways towards each other.
Re: (Score:2)
And some people are fine with beheading others that don't believe in their god. And sometimes even if they believe in the same god, but in the wrong way.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "scum." I find your comments abhorrent. How certain are you you wouldn't be selected for "removal?"
Re: (Score:2)
It literally makes perfect biological sense as a species.
There are many more aspects to humanity than biology. And I suspect your idea of "scum" has very little to do with biology as well.
Anyone who disagrees is disingenuous at best.
How very scientifically minded of you.
Ask the Pirate Bay about that (Score:2)
Ask people who try to download movies how effective American law can be. Doors are being kicked down all over the world - and after the new secretly negotiated treaty is slammed up our collective Terran ani, watching Dobie Gillis illegally will subject you prison time all over the planet. When Americans get Jesus about their notions, armored goons move in all over the world. Genetic modification will be no exception (except in cases of corporate profit, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Once we decide that editing the human genome is ethical, it will only lead to another huge controversy. Do you use vi to edit the human genome or Emacs?
Obviously, one would use the Genome Editor.
IGMC...
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later gene modifications will happen. If not legally - then underground. And especially so, when companies start testing DNA for business purposes. (Health insurance, job insurance and etc..). So why push it underground instead of facing it and perhaps reasonably regulating it?
The problem with us saying "this far, and no farther" reads to many as an invitation to go this far immediately, because the competitors will, even if original plans were less ambitious.
The only way I think we can buy a lease on responsible genetics is by having an oversight board that is controlled by neither big industry nor the local government.
Perhaps something like a UN ethics committee that does not accept appointments by governments, but selects its own members from scientific communities, with the U
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I think we can buy a lease on responsible genetics is by having an oversight board that is controlled by neither big industry nor the local government. Perhaps something like a UN ethics committee that does not accept appointments by governments, but selects its own members from scientific communities, with the UN councils only holding veto rights.
Right, because no one would ever figure out how to game a system like that. *rolls eyes*
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? When I'm 80, no one will want me for anything else. Hack away, I'll be dead soon anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
...except no genetic tinkering is required for that option. It's already readily acheivable now. It's already been implemented by industrial food makers with help from the US government (food pyramid).