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: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday February 15 2017, @01:45PM
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.
That's just the politically correct phrase, the real problem is its culturally the same as plastic surgery aka the rich guys wives are all going to have naturally huge honkers as opposed to now where they have surgically enhanced huge honkers. Then it impacts modern identity politics, if the strategy is divide them to rule them, and white boys are 500x less likely to be shot by cops than black boys, assuming you love your kids you'd be an idiot not to whiten then up if you're black, which drives the identity politics people into a an absolute tizzy because most of them are anti-white racists to begin with and they get all their power via racism so if America had only one skin color they would need a new divide and conquer strategy, religion perhaps.
Its like claiming in public that miscegenation needs to be discouraged because it could create new genetic diseases, whereas the folks opposed to miscegenation usually have entirely different actual concerns in private. Its not unusual in this area of discussion to have the public reason and the private reason and nothing in common between the two.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:49PM
Seems like a "What Could Possible Go Wrong" reaction is a much simpler explanation.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:56PM
Considering the stupidity of some people with massive amount of money, i expect that one of them will start a trend of having blue-skinned babies, and it will go down from there.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:10PM
I'm just barely young enough for it maybe to be considered really weird and radical that I intentionally don't have any tats or piercings and my slowly graying natural hair color is enough body modification for me. Personally I look at extreme mods and colors like protective coloration. If you wouldn't eat a caterpillar that looks like that you should probably avoid.
On one hand we have the example of Beyonce's weird outfit for the grammies. I don't watch that shit but its, um, interesting to see what some segments of society think is cool or leadership. How about Brittany when she was in meltdown mode?
On the other hand look at the God Emperors wife. Or Taylor Swift back when she sang country.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday February 15 2017, @10:09PM
"This baby has stopped breathing!"
"Nah, it's just rich."
This wouldn't work out well. I recommend instead placing a star on its belly [wikia.com]. I also recall that it stimulated the economy in the short-term, but eventually ended up further concentrating wealth.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:38PM
Uh, possibly go wrong. That's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2017, @01:57AM
White vs black? That's only the smallest tip. Furries will love this. 'Artists' will love this. Crazy people will love this. Control freaks will love this. Have a lot of stray cats running around your town? Lets require genderless cats since not everyone spays/neuters. Lets deaden the sexual nerve endings of humans so your kids will stay cutely innocent forever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2017, @03:56AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#.22The_Sneetches.22 [wikipedia.org]
The first story in the collection tells of a group of yellow creatures called Sneetches, some of whom have a green star on their bellies. At the beginning of the story, Sneetches with stars discriminate against and shun those without. An entrepreneur named Sylvester McMonkey McBean (calling himself the Fix-It-Up Chappie) appears and offers the Sneetches without stars the chance to get them with his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their special status. McBean then tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars, and the Sneetches who originally had stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special. However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next….
"...until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one... or that one was this one...
or which one was what one... or what one was who."
This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs as a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that "you can't teach a Sneetch", the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends.
"The Sneetches" was intended by Seuss as a satire of discrimination between races and cultures, and was specifically inspired by his opposition to antisemitism.[4]