Slashdot Mirror
UK Researcher Applies For Permission To Edit Embryo Genomes
sciencehabit writes with the news that developmental biologist Kathy Niakan, of the Francis Crick Institute in London, has applied for permission from the UK's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to edit the genes of human embryos.
Niakan, says the article, "investigates the genes that are active at the earliest stages of human development, before it implants in the womb. Work with embryonic stem cells from mice and humans has suggested that some of the key genes active in this preimplantation period are different in humans and in mice. Niakan hopes to use genome editing to tweak some of the key genes thought to be involved and study the effects they have on human development."
If approved, Niakan's work would only involve embryos in a lab, not implanted for gestation.
> Niakan's work would only involve embryos in a lab, not implanted for gestation
Why would I care?
Republicans don't have as much sway in the UK as you seem to think.
it's not "progress" altogether they hate, it's the science close to the "sacred nature" of humans.
they very well understand the word "genome" when talking about GMO...
If I'd meant you to tinker I'd have released you under the BSD license.
--
Yours,
God.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Human embryos are not magic. You can learn a lot from fiddling with them that can then be applied to improve the lives of people.
Why is it that people think having a set of ethical guidelines that establishes an understanding that humans have a value, simply because they are human, met with the opposition that a person holding such a set of guidelines is 'anti-science'?
By the logic presented, most 'Pro-science' must believe that we should be able to pick up the homeless and experiment on them, like Mengle, without complaint.
Just because a human is very young, does not mean they should be considered disposable.
I think you're getting your bogeymen confused. GMO opponents tend to be the bogeypeople on the left.
It's more that they want to uphold the monopoly on human genome manipulation that their imaginary buddy has.
Yes, that's wrong on many levels.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The same sacred nature they can't give two shits about if there's oil to be frack'd?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The same sacred nature they can't give two shits about if there's oil to be frack'd?
It is important to remember that the Christian faith grants its adherents dominion over all things not explicitly reserved for God. That, no doubt, is part of its popularity. It's nice to feel in control of things. Sadly, it also grants carte blanche over all the earth.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The other side where it's a mouse with human intelligence would be even more problematic. What do you do with it? Do you let it go to school and have rights?
That depends. I didn't see the second Stuart Little movie. But perhaps Ted 2, Short Circuit 2, and Alvin and the Chipmunks might be helpful.
GMO scaremongers are on the left. Embryo fetishists are on the right. This is a rare situation in which they have some common ground.
I think the "Rats of Nihm" is probably more realistic
National Institute of Hental Mealth?
although equal in intelligence they definitely were not equal in societal standing.
One option is to let the rodents reproduce and then make the human the outsider. For that see Gulliver's Travels by Swift. The human protagonist shipwrecks on an island populated by roughly 15 cm tall humanoids but comes to appreciate their (quite socialist) culture. But a more direct parallel to the suggested situation might be his interaction with the giants of Brobdingnag. A girl brings him home and carries him around in what amounts to a dollhouse, but he eventually proves himself worthy of an audience with their king.
I also found the world depicted in the Maze Cycle fascinating. (It consists of Who Moved My Cheese by Johnson, Who Cut the Cheese by Jarlsberg, Who Cut the Cheese by Brown, Who Stole My Cheese by Hochberg, and I Moved Your Cheese by Malhotra.) But are they a sequel to Gulliver's Travels or to Mrs. Brisby and the Rats of NIMH? At this point, I'm guessing both. Imagine a world in which Lilliputians coexist with laboratory mice whose genes have been spliced.
I do actually have moral objections against manipulating human genome. But I dare say it's probably for other reasons than religious. Actually, I object on grounds of a sociological concern.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.