SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Editors Note: The source article for this story appears to have been extensively edited replacing 'gene line' with 'germ line'. Nevertheless, and bearing that in mind, it is an interesting article.]
Heritable human genetic modifications pose serious risks, and the therapeutic benefits are tenuous, warn Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov and colleagues.
It is thought that studies involving the use of genome-editing tools to modify the DNA of human embryos will be published shortly. There are grave concerns regarding the ethical and safety implications of this research. There is also fear of the negative impact it could have on important work involving the use of genome-editing techniques in somatic (non-reproductive) cells.
In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications. We are concerned that a public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development, namely making genetic changes that cannot be inherited.
http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111
Would you agree with this assessment? Should this technology be regulated? Once the technique is known, how can we control/monitor what scientists do with this technology?
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday March 17 2015, @05:25PM
“Men are generally more careful of the breed of their horses and dogs than of their children.” -- William Penn
I'm all for improving the human condition by positive eugenics. Unlike the kill-the-weak methods of negative eugenics, this has a great upside with little downside.
As long as the uneducated and uncultured continue to reproduce at faster rates than the educated and cultured classes, the greater good is in doubt.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @05:33PM
so you're saying that dealing with real people would be so much easier if we were dealing with different real people. i guess it just sucks when the universe refuses to be anything but what it already is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @05:40PM
> this has a great upside with little downside.
Someone hasn't seen GATTACA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @06:03PM
> muh hollywood
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @06:30PM
One thing is true: the writer for GATTACA has spent more effort thinking about this issue than gugnir has.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:38PM
Gattaca shows how there can be a problem with how society deals with genetic selection. Companies ignoring non-discriminatory laws and immense prejudice against people based on their health and genetics.
Scientific problems are often easier to deal with.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:29PM
spoken like someone with a genetic superiority complex. make yourself genetically superior so you can rule over the commoners.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 17 2015, @09:01PM
If the 'inferior' consistently beat out the 'superior', perhaps the problem is in the grading system.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @10:10PM
There is no problem with the grading system. It has worked for billions of years. If you don't reproduce, you are an inferior loser.