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 ikanreed on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:15PM
It certainly can be.
Social norms have no compunction to be right, but they're social norms because a lot of people believe in them. Respecting that boundary until such time as objective evidence suggests it's unnecessary is typically considered both reasonable and responsible.
Social taboos are why psychology researchers don't run camera-observational experiments in bathrooms, for example. Because it would make the participants feel violated, even if the idea of objectively seeing what percentage of people wash their hands for how long has substantial public-health interest. I'm always wary of anyone who thinks they have the profound, correct, and objective view of what is ethical, because that tends to be coupled with a material disinterest in the actual outcomes others experience.