SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US House of Representatives is wading into the debate over whether human embryos should be modified to introduce heritable changes. Its fiscal year 2016 spending bill for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would prohibit the agency from spending money to evaluate research or clinical applications for such products.
In an unusual twist, the bill—introduced on June 17—would also direct the FDA to create a committee that includes religious experts to review a forthcoming report from the US Institute of Medicine (IOM). The IOM's analysis, which considers the ethics of creating embryos that have three genetic parents, was commissioned by the FDA.
The House legislation comes during a time of intense debate on such matters, sparked by the announcement in April that researchers in China had edited the genomes of human embryos. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) moved quickly to remind the public that a 1996 law prevents the federal government from funding work that destroys human embryos or creates them for research purposes.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-congress-moves-to-block-human-embryo-editing/
[Source]: http://www.nature.com/news/us-congress-moves-to-block-human-embryo-editing-1.17858
We covered a related story, Three-Person Babies Could Be Possible in Two Years just over a year ago.
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:14PM
Since when does circumcision have to do with STDs? We have better hygene and medical treatments today, but historically problems like phimosis [wikipedia.org], balanoposthitis [wikipedia.org], and others were best treated with preventative measures like circumcision. I've never heard of circumcision provably leading to lower rates of STD infections.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:48PM
Not to go too far off topic, but provably is the key word there. I think the AAP is using “new math” or something, but here you go [aappublications.org].
(no karma bonus checked)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:36PM
And even if it did, violating someone's fundamental bodily rights would be unethical. The ends don't justify the means.