SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-because-we-can-doesn't-mean-that-we-should dept.
One of CRISPR's inventors has called for controls on gene-editing technology
Regulators need to pay more attention to controlling CRISPR, the revolutionary gene-editing tool, says Jennifer Doudna.[*]
The anniversary is that of the announcement by a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, that he had created gene-edited twin girls. That was a medical felony as far as Doudna is concerned, an unnecessary experiment that violated the doctor’s rule to avoid causing harm and ignored calls not to proceed.
“I believe that moratoria are no longer strong enough countermeasures,” she writes, adding that there are “moments in the history of every disruptive technology that can make or break its public perception and acceptance.”
But the same advances mean that “the temptation to tinker with the human germline” is not going to go away, Doudna says. That language—tinkering and temptation—makes it clear she thinks designer babies are a Pandora’s box we might not want to open.
Doudna specifically calls out Russia, since a scientist there is bidding to use the technology again to make babies.
[*] Wikipedia entry on Jennifer Doudna.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @03:10PM (4 children)
I've seen multiple people harmed by doctors passing out pills without proper monitoring of the side effects. Psychiatrists are the worst.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @03:32PM
Exactly. The Hippocratic Oath is 100% dependent on cultural norms.
As an example today if a young boy today claims to be a girl a psychiatrist may, after testing, propose injecting them with chemicals to artificially postpone puberty and consider lopping off their penis as well as also injecting them with estrogen. I think that humanity is going to look back at this akin to how we now look back at the idea of treating mental illness by drilling holes into peoples' heads (lobotomies). It seems barbaric now a days but somehow we, as a society, continue to accept really really bizarre ideas especially when it comes to mental issues. Perhaps it was the same issue then -- people don't want to speak out because it seems arrogant or intolerant.
(Score: 2) by Deeo Kain on Monday November 18 2019, @06:32PM (2 children)
I do wonder what harm was it caused in that instance?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @06:53PM
Total paranoia, bed wetting, unable to work or maintain relationships, etc
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday November 18 2019, @10:39PM
Just ask MDC!
Oh...wait..............
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @03:17PM (2 children)
Let's start with two possible outcomes, one of which must be true:
1) Gene editing cannot create meaningfully improved humans.
2) Gene editing can create meaningfully improved humans.
If we assume scenario #1 then it's obvious. all you're going to get out of gene editing is franken-humans retarded in various ways. This is solved by choice since those that choose to jump in will be rapidly removed from the gene pool. Problem solved.
As for #2, I'm going to avoid the freedom argument. I think that argument is the fundamentally stronger one, but it's going to be polarizing. Instead I'm going to take the pragmatic argument which may be weaker, but is undeniable. Somebody is going to engage in human gene editing. Whether it's some nation outside of the 'western order', a billionaire 'visionary' contracting scientists for private research, or even some form of "organized crime" which is separated by a profit-seeking pharmaceutical industry in little more than the legal sense.
And this organization, already willing to operate outside the norms of western society is going to produce humans that we, by assumption, have declared to be superior to natural humans. And this group may choose to simply keep their knowledge to themselves, much like how we once felt that libraries containing the knowledge of humanity should also be restricted to just the elite few. There'd be no Gattaca because there'd be no sharing - no knowledge. They would not achieve success because of genetic discrimination, they would achieve success because they -the modified- would simply be superior. Suddenly you have e.g. China (to pick a popular bogeyman) with hundreds of millions of Chinese who are not only outside the Western order but also stronger, faster, smarter, and generally better at everything. That's not going end well for the Western order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @03:29PM (1 child)
This has already been going on, look up "the finders". They were/are some CIA-related cult that appears to have been training orphan/kidnapped and cult member's children without official identities (who grow up to be adults totally outside the system) to be drones/minions of the "gamemaster".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @07:56PM
https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/the-finders-part-01-of-01/view [fbi.gov]
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-releases-information-on-the-finders-a-secretive-group-accused-of-child-sex-abuse_3128475.html [theepochtimes.com]
(Score: 2, Troll) by Bot on Monday November 18 2019, @03:40PM (4 children)
A regulation needs enforcement which needs resources which needs a will which needs a moral framework. Academia and politics are corrupted enough to lack such a framework. The framework itself would be corrupted, given what comes out of academia, ideologically speaking.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @04:22PM (1 child)
Whenever I become concerned about government corruption/ineptness/immorality I compose a poem and feel much better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:50PM
You should craft some stand-up skits instead - entertaining and a better medium to get your message across
(Score: 2) by Deeo Kain on Monday November 18 2019, @06:35PM (1 child)
Given how much more business and finance is corrupt, who should set those rules?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday November 18 2019, @08:38PM
Business and finance are behind the corruption I was speaking about, so I don't consider them less corrupt at all. That's part of the problem.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday November 18 2019, @04:30PM (1 child)
So this public interest technology thing, it has real scope.
All kinds of things are technology, and virtually any technology could wipe out the species or worse.
This writer is saying 'Please help us public interest technologist!' like lois lane dangling from a tall building calling for superman.
Only in this case when the public interest technologist tries to fly there, it turns out they can't because there is no career path and every military in the entire world doesn't want any philosphers or ethicists looking over their shoulder while they go strangelovian.
Yes it is a real problem, one I am actively trying to do something about, while going broke and being laughed at.
This is what d2500 is about. Really, think about it.
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmRf8CnisFhv41tnHFomXmXyPKqxWbPx5K6cvFag2uaBTC [ipfs.io]
I am not kidding about this shit, we are at severe risk of all dying horrible meaningless deaths at the hands of people less intelligent than ourselves, and that is not going to change through nihilism and/or relativism.
Or worse, some cult nutjobs like epstein will get there first and try take over, resulting in one or more of the bizarre dystopias predicted by sci fi.
Think the winged people vs. the equisapien. Watch 'Sorry to Bother You.' Stuff doesn't seem far fetched anymore. Really stop accepting candy from strangers.
Trick or treat is basically a very stupid idea at this point.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:54PM
While we're at it, I'd like public interest watchdog a to z too since we know tax funded govie run watchdogs are no good right? Right?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @04:55PM
How else are our children going to compete with the robots?
AND there is a 20 year lag.
Think how much better the robots will be in 20 years when the current generation graduates.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @05:14PM (2 children)
"But the same advances mean that “the temptation to tinker with the human germline” is not going to go away, Doudna says. That language—tinkering and temptation—makes it clear she thinks designer babies are a Pandora’s box we might not want to open.
Doudna specifically calls out Russia, since a scientist there is bidding to use the technology again to make babies."
oh please! it was OK for you to create crispr but it's not OK for someone else to use it in a way you don't see fit? designer babies is pandora's box? i thought you already opened it with crispr?
so full of shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:58PM
You know your argument only makes sense if the ONLY application for crispr is to make designer babies - but unfortunately for you that is not the case.
Its like you're saying the inventor of the pencil shouldn't decry its misuse because someone wants to go full John Wick with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @10:38PM
You are so right!
I don't understand why we aren't using H-bombs and aerosolized bio-weapons/nerve agents every. single. day.
Pandora's box is open. Let's get on the stick!
Nuke 'em til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @06:05PM
Now this *parasite* whose sole "achievement" is stealing it from the people through the legal fiction of genetic patent law (and not really being first even with that BTW*) wants it be stolen from the whole humanity ("There are countries not recognizing myyy pateeent!!! Waaaahhh! Waaahh!!! Gimme!!!").
*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna#CRISPR-Cas9_genome_editing_discovery [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday November 18 2019, @06:47PM (4 children)
I've got to say that, as a science enthusiast, I often find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of arguing for holding scientists feet to the fire for the consequences of their discoveries.
The warning to not let a genie out of its bottle because you can't put it back in again is old - probably far older than the legend of Pandora. And I see far too many scientists that pursue their research without considering the long-term consequences, or worse, absolving themselves of responsibility because they just made the tool, they can't control how people use it.
I've got to say that's total B.S. Sure, maybe someone comes up with a terrible unexpected use for your technology - okay, I'll let you off the hook. But when they use it for the very things that it was designed to do, and that human nature will obviously end up pushing people to use it for? That's on your head. That's not a "risk", it's a near certainty. And if you decided that the value of your technology to the world (and yourself) was greater than the dangers of the ways it would obviously be abused? Well then I hope you can make peace with the results, because that genie is totally your responsibility, and there's no putting it back in the bottle.
And if you never even took the time to ask the question while developing it? Well then it's *still* your responsibility, but I don't wish you peace. In fact I hope the consequences of your exceptionally poor judgment torment you for the rest of your days and serve as a reminder to other scientists that living in an ivory tower may protect you from dealing with "the masses", but it doesn't protect the masses from you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @07:42PM
Tech-hate was the dumbest idea then, did not get any smarter in two centuries since.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @08:06PM
Each discovery is coming anyway,
Look at evolution, Darwin sat on it for a decade and published because Wallace was going to beat him to it.
Even that most obtuse of discoveries Relatively was close to being discovered by others like Hilbert.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday November 18 2019, @10:39PM (1 child)
It's ivory tower scientists like Jennifer Doudna who want to restrict this technology. I don't wish them peace. Fortunately, we have individuals and countries that are willing to seek progress and work around whatever Western institutions get suckered in to standing in the way.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 19 2019, @12:41AM
She's a Berkeley bitch, so she's fine with letting bums shit and piss in public for humanitarian reasons, she voted for Hillary, and she's also totally fine with beating up people who believe in free speech and participates in Antifa marches afterwards retreating to her hilltop home in Clairmont or Piedmont for a post-protest glass of wine with her fellow "I'm old but still hip" cat-lady wine-aunts.
The only people worse than academics are Berkeley academics. They will be the first to hang on the day of the rope.