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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @01:25AM
By the lack of institutional knowledge and ambitions of their children.
Perhaps this was always true, but it certainly has been true in the West at least since the early 19th century and now, thanks to the Internet, to the entire world.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:27AM
Not just knowledge and ambition, but also their parent's superstitions and prejudices. We've spent a lot of time getting over Victorian-era hang-ups about everything from sex to race. Superstitious religious views still greatly restrict efforts to expand our knowledge of medicine.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:40AM
The US is based in Puritan, read prudes and some other very strange religious beliefs. It is that which separates the US from Australia. The religious wingnuts and the very adventurous went to the US, debtors and political prisoners went to Australia.
Not that I am complaining about or comparing modern US or Australia to the historical models, just making an observation.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday July 28 2016, @01:41AM
48% said they would use gene editing to prevent diseases in their own babies, while 50% said they would not:
Darwin always wins. The only remaining question is "are on Darwin's side?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @01:56AM
"are u on Darwin's side?"
FTFU
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday July 28 2016, @01:46AM
Americans would rather be equal as slaves than have disparity as free men.
I imagine the outcome of this poll would be far different among those with will to power or genetic weaknesses like Parkinson's disease.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @01:53AM
You use the word "free" somehow synonymously with "slave to your own petty ego", I find that interesting.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday July 28 2016, @02:12AM
Having failed to enhance themselves and their children, and living in a cutthroat environment, most Americans would like others not to have an advantage over them...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:32AM
How big of an enhancement are we talking about? 10% greater intellect/strength? Yeah, you can keep it. 20%? 30%? 70%? When you start getting into nearly a different species, I think it makes the decision that much more difficult.
I wonder how the people cheerleading this feel about things like breast/penis augmentation surgeries and the like.
Sam Harris pointed out the context matters greatly. A large portion of Americans support something like bringing Down's babies and the like to normal intelligence, but extending beyond normal intelligence is met with more reticence.
I think there is an unspoken existential dread to all this in not wanting to loose your sense of identity (you even see it with lottery winners who rank winning equivalently to people who have lost a limb long-term), to where reversibility is the difference between college people doing Adderall to improve their grade and jumping headlong into the unknown.
Not to mention the experiments with breeding silver foxes makes clear we don't have a good grasp of the interplay in gene expression. If other people want to be the guinea pigs however, more power to them.
It's not only a question of what you gain, but what you loose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:09AM
I wonder how the people cheerleading this feel about things like breast/penis augmentation surgeries and the like.
Go for it. I don't care.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:26AM
Was a movie the covered a lot of these issues and one of my all time favorite scifi movies.
Here is the reality; China seems be moving forward with human genome editing and if they go for improved intelligence or strength then they will have a competitive advantage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:00AM
If they achieve improved intelligence or strength, rather. Even the Chinese can fail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:08AM
the NHS will begin giving small transfusions of artificial/synthetic blood to 20 healthy people in 2017.
Are we really skipping straight to MGS4? That's the worst one...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:12AM
I wish they would experiment on critically ill people - people who have no other hope - first.
Like leukemia victims. Or other bloodborne disease.
And do it on a research budget, so the financial strength of the "lab rat" under study does not hinder the research.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:05AM
I would gladly give The Mighty Buzzard a brain, or jmorris a heart, or Francis courage. It is not that we do not want to do such things; it is that we do not think they are possible. Or, that if they are possible, they will have terrible side effects. I mean, would I want the Mighty Buzz to have a brain if it meant that he would have to vote for Hillary Clinton? Well, maybe I would, and that is the natural consequence of having a brain, but it would seem to be ethically questionable. I mean, what would a Might Buzzard that voted liberal be? That much further from Libertarian? Not his real self? Medical technology shoving a brain down your throat, whether you want it or not? (Liberal question here: if you do not have a brain, how could you know you do not want to vote for Hillary? And if a brain is given you, is not that you, and are not the decisions you decide with your new brain actually your decisions in the first place? So what is the problem?)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:23AM
quote from summary: "[...] questions about whether such developments move beyond limits set by God, nature or reason."
limits set by God? possibly, if God existed. I have no idea, but i fail to see how we could overcome limits set by a God (otherwise they're not really limits, are they?)
limits set by nature? what the fuck? nature is not a person, it has no intent. nature does not "set" limits. there are just things that are natural (for instance it is natural to be affected by gravity), and there are phenomena that take place as a result of intentional acts of intelligent agents (for instance it is natural for a spear to kill an antillope, but it would not happen unless it was thrown in a particular way; so far humans are the only beings we know of who can do this). However, I see nothing unnatural about using a spear for hunting.
limits set by reason? again. what the fuck? why would any reasonable person limit themselves? oh, you're saying there may be bad consequences of some enhancements, and we need to take that into account before we enhance ourselves? yeah... that's not a limitation, that's just self protection, and waiting until it can be done safely.
so then... my impression is that whoever wrote this has a very specific God-related agenda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @09:38PM
God made us in His image. He gave us flaws, but He also gave us the power, wisdom, means and will to make ourselves into something better, something more. Improving our genetic makeup is God's will.
May Anonymous Coward be cursed for seven generations if I am wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @10:24AM
Asking Americans for their opinion is stupid.
Since when did it matter what Americans think? They are not in control. Think those in power over common Americans cares and will do what the people want?
The cabal in control does not care what you think. They will do what is in their best interest. They do not take chances. They run polls and let the people 'elect' leaders under the pretense that those voting have a choice to choose their future and destiny. They have the future decided and the daily 'polls' have no consequence other than to keep the masses entertained.
(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.