SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A 21-member committee of bioethicists, lawyers, patient advocates, biotech entrepreneurs, and others have recommended that heritable gene editing in human embryos be allowed at some point in the future, but only after more research, and only to prevent certain diseases or disabilities:
Scientists could be allowed to make modifications in human DNA that can be passed down through subsequent generations, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine say. Such a groundbreaking step should only be considered after more research and then only be conducted under tight restrictions, the academies write in a highly anticipated report [open, DOI: 10.17226/24623] [DX] released Tuesday. Such work should be reserved to prevent serious diseases and disabilities, it says.
The academies determined that new gene-editing techniques had made it reasonable to pursue such controversial experiments down the road, though not quite yet. "It is not ready now, but it might be safe enough to try in the future," R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who co-chaired the committee, said. "And if certain conditions are met, it might be permissible to try it."
That conclusion counters a long-standing taboo on making changes in genes in human sperm, eggs or embryos because such alterations would be inherited by future generations. That taboo has been in place partly because of fears that mistakes could inadvertently create new diseases, which could then become a permanent part of the human gene pool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @01:14PM
With gene editing you are not limited to simple changes like mutations.
It's like suggesting that programmers could replace adding new code to a program be simply copying the program over and over again, until, due to random bit flips or other copying errors, code with the new functionality appears. Sure, theoretically that would work, but only if you are willing millions of years for the new functionality.
Gene editing opens up a whole new range of possibilities, for better or worse.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday February 15 2017, @01:40PM
> [...] due to random bit flips or other copying errors, code with the new functionality appears.
Something like that, I gather, is being tried:
By mimicking penguin behaviour in a testing system which seeks the safest ways to arrange code instead of shoals of fish, it becomes possible to slowly zero in on the best way for that software to be structured.
The Hull researchers working with Dr Gheraibia turned to search tools based on the collaborative foraging behaviour of penguins.
The foraging-based system helped to quickly search through the many possible ways software can be specified to home in on the most optimal solutions in terms of safety and cost.
-- http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38637006 [bbc.com]