Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Argue the US Ban on Human Gene Editing Will Leave It Behind (vice.com)
Alex Pearlman, reporting for Motherboard: As the biotech revolution accelerates globally, the U.S. could be getting left behind on key technological advances: namely, human genetic modification. A Congressional ban on human germline modification has "drawn new lines in the sand" on gene editing legislation, argues a paper published today in Science by Harvard law and bioethics professor I. Glenn Cohen and leading biologist Eli Adashi of Brown University. They say that without a course correction, "the United States is ceding its leadership in this arena to other nations." Germline gene modification is the act of making heritable changes to early stage human embryos or sex cells that can be passed down to the next generation, and it will be banned in the US. This is different from somatic gene editing, which is editing cells of humans that have already been born. The ban, added by the House of Representatives as a rider to the fiscal year 2016 budget, could have far-reaching implications if it continues to be annually renewed, according to the authors. It "undermines ongoing conversations on the possibility of human germline modification" and also affects "ongoing efforts by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to review the prevention of mitochondrial DNA diseases," including some kinds of hearing and vision impairments, among other serious illnesses that tend to develop in young children.
A: Human gene editing could lead us to a dark place, let's not do that.
B: This will cause us to be left behind in the science of human gene editing!
A: Yes, well, that was rather the point, wasn't it?
Obviously this was the intent. I'd personally be willing to take a few risks to get the cure for cancer, but if Europe takes the risks we still get the cure for cancer - just not the profits from it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Seem surprisingly willing to push Frankenpeople.
Oh well the U.S. also pioneered eugenics but was left in the dust by European nations and that worked out well.
If the adjustments are "simple" fixes like curing a disease by correcting a mutation or two, I see no problem with it.
But if it's about making a "super race" by fiddling with body type or the brain, then I say let other countries be the guinea pigs and learn the hard road lessons of fiddling.
We can gradually adopt practices that prove themselves over time.
However, I can image a scenario where a given set of tweaks makes say 95% of the subjects faster, smarter, and/or more disciplined, etc., but 5% have nasty side-effects. Such countries may conclude the trade-off is worth it and have an overall better GDP even if some suffer because of it.
That creates a conundrum: how do you compete with a country ready to throw a percentage of their population under the bus to get aggregate gains, especially if they become a military risk to us.
Table-ized A.I.
I've always wanted to learn German. I didn't know I could learn it through gene modification technology.
Among actual scientists, GMOs are a considered a beneficial technology and legislation to oppose GMOs is ignorant and detrimental to society. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I've always wanted to learn German. I didn't know I could learn it through gene modification technology.
Well, when they cross Homo Sapiens and the Suidae family of even-toed ungulates they will speak Pig Latin.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Not to mention that while everybody freaks out over Roundup, it's pretty darned benign compared to some of the herbicides it replaced. It disrupts a biological process in plants that does not exist in humans, has low acute and chronic toxicity and breaks down in soil pretty well. There's a reason it's popular, and contrary to what the checker at Whole Foods might tell people, it's not because Monsanto Men in Black show up and threaten farmers who don't use it.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
So what is wrong with labeling them? We label vitamins. We label prescriptions. We label water bottles. Why is labeling GMOs so terrible?
We used to consider that important, we used to brain drain other countries. Now look at us.. stuck in a spiral of trickle down economics. Nobody wants to do anything grand or do any kind of leadership in any field. We're more happy collecting less taxes.
He/she may be suffering from a Mitochondrial disease...
There's nothing wrong with labeling per se. It's just that labeling mandates are basically a scam to allow this to happen:
Scientists: This stuff is safe.
Organic industry: If it's safe, why not label it?
[labels go in]
Organic industry: If it's safe, why are there MANDATORY LABELS? BOOGA BOOGA! Buy organic!
The problem of people wanting to find GMO free food is easily solved by voluntary labels put on by companies that want to cater to people with food hang-ups. It works for Kosher, and there's already a "Non-GMO Project Verified" label that's perfectly happy to scam you out of your cash by putting its stamp on salt and bottled water.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"