Advertisement

Stuart Carlson for November 30, 2018

39 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Motivemagus  about 2 years ago

    No doubt this is going to be tricky. But we could also solve a LOT of problems…

     •  Reply
  2. superposition  about 2 years ago

    Fear of the unknown — the imaginary horribles — seem to be our greatest fears while (e.g) verifiable evidence of historically abrupt climate change, does not frighten those who should recognize is as our greatest preventable danger. And for some unfathomable reason, rules and regulations (which could prevent unethical practices) are included in the list of greatest fears.

     •  Reply
  3. fritzoid Premium Member about 2 years ago

    I’m old enough to remember when in vitro fertilization – Louise Brown, the “Test Tube Baby” – was considered by some to be an abomination. Time will tell whether genetic editing causes more problems that it solves or vice versa, but both research and practice aren’t going to stop anytime soon.

     •  Reply
  4. Night-Gaunt49  about 2 years ago

    Moving too fast with it, not doing the due diligence on something so over arching important, too soon too fast without proper safeguards can do much mischief.

     •  Reply
  5. martens  about 2 years ago

    We have a long way to go before we can ethically do this in humans. We know so little about how the genome is constructed or what the various pieces of it do. The Crispr technique is an amazing tool, but at this point in our hands it is only a tool for research, not for clinical use. There are too many unknown interactions and the probability of an undesired result is still too high. Remember the initial disasters with gene therapy. We now have some reliable uses for it under certain restricted conditions, but it has not turned out to be a magic wand therapeutically that was first imagined.

     •  Reply
  6. opsono  about 2 years ago

    Every act of sex that results in a birth is genetic editing.

     •  Reply
  7. Spun_G  about 2 years ago

    I only wish to remind folks that Nature itself performs genetic editing, only through other means. I include not just Darwin, but also the fact that inevitable hard X-rays and cosmic rays from outside our atmosphere can cut DNA in completely random locations. The mutation rate in Nature has never been zero…

     •  Reply
  8. Bryan Farht  about 2 years ago

    We live in a capitalist world and there is no ethics in capitalism, so do not expect the impossible. One tweet from the president says enough, doesn’t it?

     •  Reply
  9. JohnHarry Premium Member about 2 years ago

    Perhaps we could find the Trump gene and extinguish it.

     •  Reply
  10. Motivemagus  about 2 years ago

    Upon reflection, there ought to be ways to put into place reasonable restrictions on human genetic alteration, assuming legislators have the spine to implement them.

    For example, almost anything regarding the brain is WAY to complicated to mess with at this point. However, there are some that may be relatively simple.

    Minimal criteria should probably include:

    1. Clear and unambiguous negative impact on the person’s physical life status, say anything that would require surgery (“blue baby” issues, major physical problems, etc.).

    2. Simple gene mechanisms, meaning that if you tweak it, you know what happens as a consequence.

    Those two criteria would probably eliminate many ethically tricky actions right there, since it would be the elimination of the negative instead of the promotion of a debatable positive. Where we get questionable is the degree to which people make changes to suit cultural preferences – including eliminating things perceived as negative, which is why I referred to the physical status above.

    Just some thoughts…

     •  Reply
  11. ishannon5289  about 2 years ago

    My biggest concern is that we will eliminate things that might not really be hindrances.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Stuart Carlson

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement