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: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday March 17 2015, @05:40PM
lets rewrite this and expose the hidden reality and see if we still think the same way...
Should this technology be regulated? Once the technique is known, how can we control/monitor what scientists do with this technology?
Should be push this tech underground, where only the megarich will have access to it, conducted in foreign clinics totally outside any review and most likely, even reliable knowledge it is happening and where/who? Should we regulate it a bit less, but still putting scientific development under strong government control, so policy will swing with results of every election? Should we try to get a consensus and ban procedures we can get broad agreement is a bad idea and let the rest sort itself out?
Reality says once we know how to do a thing, if enough people think it is a good idea, it happens. Somewhere. But fluffy phrases like "Should this tech be regulated?" is the sort of pap that pollsters use to create a Narrative. Of course, in our modern era of worship of the State and belief in its superior wisdom, most people will agree that regulation is needed. The Low Infos and Progs think -everything- should be regulated and dictated by the State as a default position. Drill down and ask which of the more specific levels I just described they prefer and you would get a confusing mess.
In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations.
As written that sentence is indisputably correct. Because it is virtually devoid of actual content or a position, although cleverly written to imply one. Until it is actually done and the results carefully studied over multiple generations it is truly unknowable what the effects will be with anything even approaching certainty. Of course the same can be said of ANYTHING new. iPhones -COULD- have an as yet unknown fatal side effect. We don't proactively ban all new products until they have passed extensive product testing extending over multiple human generations. On the other hand we can be pretty certain that there will be obviously positive benefits if people will be spending early adopter money on a procedure that won't be covered by any insurance policy.
So should we instantly jump in and start modifying the genes of every child in an attempt to create a race of Ubermen? No. Should we try to prevent some known horrible genetic diseases? Probably. As for the rest, lets start small and see the results of that, then see what makes sense.
This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable.
This is purely opinion, but written as fact. Bad scientist. No funding for you!
Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications.
Most research can be used for evil. This is mostly worry about the PR angles though so I guess there is some rationale for it since most science is funded by the political process.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:47PM
You should accept that it will be used for non-therapeutic purposes. It will. And so what?
If someone chooses to supplement them melanin with chlorophyll, why should I care? I might thing it irresponsibly dangerous at this point, but at this point it's also extremely unlikely.
When you think about this, think also about the people who want surgery to turn their brown eyes blue. (So far it seems safe. But who knows about later.) Do you want a special law to ban this also?
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using this technique to "improve" your kids. I doubt that it will ever be common, and some people will do foolish things. So what? That's not sufficient grounds to pass a law. If in some town everyone decided to edit their kids to look identical, that still wouldn't be a reason. (Coercing people who didn't want to participate, however, should be a serious crime. Quite serious. I'm not sure that a felony is the right term, as I think the penalty should be more like confiscation of wealth and being forbidden to ever serve in a position of power again...and I'm not just talking about governmental office.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 17 2015, @08:06PM
Yeah I dunno. Genetically engineering a kid to have two heads, just because you can, seems pretty messed up. You're consigning that kid to have a miserable life in a world where 99.9% of people will choose kids with 1 head.
If you were able to engineer *yourself* to grow another head, then, sure, knock yourself out. I myself could use another set of arms.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:17PM
> You're consigning that kid to have a miserable life
Yep, consent here is a major ethical issue.
> If you were able to engineer *yourself* to grow another head, then, sure, knock yourself out.
What if a huckster was selling that service without disclosing side-effects, like inducing schizophrenia - not because they were lying but simply because they hadn't made the effort to find out? They eventually get sued into bankruptcy, but all those two-headed schizos are now permanently disabled and that bankruptcy settlement isn't even close to paying for the care they need.