SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 4,726 American adults and asked them about gene editing to prevent diseases in babies, brain chip implants for improved cognition, and synthetic blood for enhanced physical abilities. A majority of Americans said they were "somewhat" or "very" worried about these three developments. 48% said they would use gene editing to prevent diseases in their own babies, while 50% said they would not:
Whatever appeal these ideas may have, they also raise fundamental questions about what it means to be human. From the earliest days of civilization, people have sought to better their condition through the use of tools, medications, surgeries and other therapies. But as new scientific and technological breakthroughs arise, so do questions about whether such developments move beyond limits set by God, nature or reason. Thus, this research is aimed in part at understanding where, if at all, the public might "draw the line" on human enhancements and the possibilities they could bring to society.
The developments are not far off from becoming a clinical reality; for example, the NHS will begin giving small transfusions of artificial/synthetic blood to 20 healthy people in 2017.
[Continues...]
Pew also collected feedback from focus group participants. Here are three of the responses:
"I just think that there's that place where you're going beyond healthy, you're going to super strength or computer [chip] thinking, [then] I think that's unnatural. So to me it would just be like the – if I just had to change a gene in my body so I wouldn't have diabetes and I wouldn't pass it on to my kids, sure, I would do that. ... But I don't ... have to go beyond that to be the super great, to get to the highest level just because I have a computer chip in my brain. I think that being healthy, productive, good quality of life is where I would draw the line."
– 50-year-old Hispanic woman in Phoenix
[...] "If it starts to sound Hitler-like, [trying to create] a perfect specimen of man and woman ... then people who are not perfect might be treated badly."
– 59-year-old white woman in Atlanta
[...] "I think God has given a doctor the talents to fix us. ... I think he has given these people the talents to do so. I don't think it is the doctors or medical gurus [trying] to play God."
– 44-year-old white mainline Protestant man in Birmingham, Ala.
Finally, you may be interested in this Jan. 2016 poll by STAT-Harvard. It found that 65% of respondents believed that "changing the genes of unborn babies to reduce their risk of developing certain serious diseases" should be illegal.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:25AM
With America so split nearly down the line 50/50 on everything, if we broke into two Americas would there suddenly be a near consensus on every question? Probably not, but it is an interesting phenomena.
Anyhow, on this I would probably also not utilize such enhancements. My concern has nothing to do with ethics - I'd happily oblige cybernetic enhancements. I already have a couple of metal rods in my back, why not start powering those baby's up and letting me have more than just a straight back? Sounds good to me. But genetics, genetic engineering and manipulation is a far less clear area. The reason is unforeseen consequences. So much of what we've tried to do in terms of biology and bio/genetic engineering seems to come back to bite us in the ass with loads of unforeseen consequences. I think this is largely due to a lack of a causal foundation behind genetics. It's still largely a correlational institution. Tweak this, see what happens - assume causality and pretend we now actually understand the 'purpose' of this genetic marker. Turns out the offspring of genetically 'enhanced' humans suffer from low fertility and faulty immune systems? Oops! Oh here we've proven that was exactly because of this gene which we've now tuned - why not have a go again?
I fully support my fellow Americans, and Earthlings, in their endeavors to improve themselves and those of their children. For my part? I'll let you be the people beta testing with your bloodline. If it works out, I'm sure my grandchildren will appreciate your bravery. If it doesn't work out? My grandchildren will appreciate your naivete.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:51PM
With America so split nearly down the line 50/50 on everything, if we broke into two Americas would there suddenly be a near consensus on every question? Probably not, but it is an interesting phenomena.
No... for 3 reasons.
1) The 50-50 split is different for different things. As an easy example, "are you a man?" would have something like a 50-50 split, "would you use gene modification on your child?" would be 50-50 (according to the article)... but I'm sure not all men think one way and all women think a different way.
2) Difference of opinion fractal all the way down. [xkcd.com] If everybody agreed that drinking water was good, then the news report would be "50% of Americans think drinking 8 glasses of water is the minimum to be health." If everybody agreed that, then it would be "50% of Americans think drinking 6 glasses of water before noon is best."
3) Not everything is 50-50. There are a lot of 70%-30%, or even 95%-5% items. You just don't notice them. For example, opinion polls on how well the US Congress is doing.