You can't honestly expect people to observe a ban on technology, voluntary or otherwise. Just look at the music and movie industry. As soon as the technology existed to bypass DRM, people embraced it whole-heartedly. If people have a chance to rid themselves and their descendants of defective genes, they sure as hell are going to do it, regardless of whether it's legal.
Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
31–40 of 47 posts
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#32Of note, an excerpt on a related blog (excerpted from a paywalled article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1301.full ) ... Rumors are rife, presumably from anonymous peer reviewers, that scientists in China have already used CRISPR on human embryos and have submitted papers on their results. They have apparently not tried to establish any pregnancies, but the rumors alarm researchers who fear that such pap…
So, redesign them after they're born. Isn't that how this technology works - it can spread through your body and change the working DNA you have right now? Sure its more effective to change DNA while its still building the scaffolding - after you're born its too late for some things. But that leaves a lot to be done.
It is really, really, really hard to target DNA changes to a small number of specific cells reliably.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any genome edit large enough to make you look like a dog would most likely kill you, or at least render any embryos you may conceive non-viable. GENETICS IS HARD.
Simultaneously its easy. We modify bacteria, fish, dogs all the time with success. Sure you can go wrong sometimes, but you can go very right too. Add limbs to flies. Make them glow in the dark. And so on.
But there are limits to what genes can express, based on the cell's capabilities. For instance, you could make someone a wolfman by adding hair, but you couldn't have them grow leaves like the Jolly Green Giant. Our cells just don't have the kernel level support or whatever you want to call it.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#34We should carefully build up the knowledge and experience on genome editing. If we can prevent children to be born with genetic defects, we should. And I don't care if the rich and powerful get to make their kids extra smart and beautiful if that means millions of other children don't have to live with a disability.
Actually, I think that once intelligence and beauty can be "fixed", one could argue that the line between being disabled intelligence-wise (or aesthetically-wise) or not starts to shift. All those millions of children who, in your scenario, don't have to live with a disability will also be at a steep disadvantage compared to the extra smart and beautiful rich kids. If this would continue for some generations, you'll get a genetic upper and lower class. It could even mean that we create a new "super species" that's becoming less and less compatible with humans .
(Yes, I read way too much science fiction, but I think it explores some interesting scenarios we should seriously consider while debating the issue. For a very popular reference: In the Star Trek universe the Eugenic Wars explore problems of genetic enhancements; The character Doctor Bashir in DS9, for example, is an (illegally) enhanced human [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir])
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#35but aren't crops already genetically modified to give better yields etc? Whats wrong with making people smarter? Of course the safety of such procedures should thoroughly be checked but i still think this kinds of things should not be banned over moral and ethical grounds
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
one man's defect is another's feature. the old bug vs. feature debate, applies here. maybe my thinking has been horribly warped by over exposure to computing.
? At any rate, I'd prefer to decide myself what is a feature, rather than having some 'ethicist' decide for me.
Perhaps what features you select is determined by another feature that some else selected for you
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#37If you're having difficulty understanding what all the fuss is about, try watching Gattaca.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#38Let us, the average intelligence, start building even better flat screens and HE systems so in the near future we can sit back and watch the battle between AI (robotics) and MI (modified intelligence).
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#39> “We worry about people making changes without the knowledge of what those changes mean in terms of the overall genome,” Dr. Baltimore said. “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.”
Yet, we're suppose to trust that GMOs are safe for consumption?