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: 3, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:09PM
Sometimes brutal honesty is the best policy. You sir, are a menace to the concept of self government... because you can probably vote.
If we start modifying embryos do we then force sterilization after the kiddos are viable?
So you assert we should make laws to mandate the sterilization of people because they MIGHT, SOMEDAY, be shown to have a genetic defect. So in your world how many known genetic defects that nature has put in the gene pool by random action should also merit mandatory sterilization? Anything else I might say on this topic would almost certainly invoke Godwin's Law so I'll stop here. You probably aren't actually a Nazi in waiting, just an idiot terrified of the unknown and not thinking rationally, for even a few seconds, before posting the most horrifying and dystopic vision for the future.
What happens if we don't and then, two generations later, we discover the mistake and have to kill all the modified offspring because they have become super flu incubators?
What in the bloody Hell are you blabbering incoherently about? What difference would it make if the genetic problem causing extreme 'super flu' contagion were an accidental man caused mutation or a natural one? Is it your position that if such a thing happened naturally that we would exterminate anyone identified with the 'dangerous' genetic mutation? You do seem to imply we would murder them if they were the product of genetic therapy, so unless you think we would also kill them if nature produced them as well I'm left to believe you pushing the position that any child born of any genetic therapy would never be considered as fully human, ethically, politically or legally. So, in your diseased world, do they even get citizenship, can they vote? Or or they mere property, issued a registration certificate instead of a birth certificate? Property of who? The lab that 'made' them, the people who donated their genetic information? The host mother? Bluntly, would they be disposable slaves? How many edits would be required to convert someone from a person to a product? No matter how you slice it: Pretty sick, dude. Again, try thinking of the downside of your own proposals instead of kneejerk unreasoning terror.
(Score: 2) by skullz on Tuesday March 17 2015, @09:43PM
...
Anyways, you are right about natural mutations occurring. Can't help that. But these are targeted changes trying to accomplish a specific thing and we have NO CLUE what the repercussions would be 5, 10, 50 years down the road. Your comments about how many edits before society determines someone is not a person are spot on. That is the fear.