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, 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.