Slashdot Mirror
Ethicists Advise Caution In Applying CRISPR Gene Editing To Humans (washingtonpost.com)
New submitter Baron_Yam quotes a report from Washington Post (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source): Ethicists have been working overtime to figure out how to handle CRISPR, the revolutionary gene-editing technique that could potentially prevent congenital diseases but could also be used for cosmetic enhancements and lead to permanent, heritable changes in the human species. The latest iteration of this ongoing CRISPR debate is a report published Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine. The report, a series of guidelines written by 22 experts from multiple countries and a variety of academic specialties, presents a kind of flashing red light for CRISPR. The report did not recommend an absolute prohibition of gene editing on the human "germline" if such interventions can be proved safe. This would involve genetic changes to eggs, sperm or embryos that would persist in an adult and could be inherited by future generations. For some ethicists, that represents a slippery slope. At the conclusion of a gene-editing summit in Washington at the National Academy of Sciences in December 2015, scientists said that although some basic research could proceed, it would be irresponsible to use genetically modified germline cells for the purpose of establishing a pregnancy. But the new report takes a slightly more permissive, forward-thinking position, saying that, if and when such interventions are proved safe -- which could be in the near future -- and if numerous criteria are met to ensure that such gene editing is regulated and limited, it could potentially be used to treat rare, serious diseases. "We say proceed with all due caution, but we don't prohibit germline, after considerable discussion and debate," said Richard Hynes, an MIT biologist and one of the leaders of the new study. "We're talking only about fixing diseases."
damn. Star Trek again with that Gene War thing.
You do like to talk about yourself, don't you? Don't just convince people to deport you, leave voluntarily! Oh, you miss home and can't afford the fare? I get it now!
Isn't that the space allocated to deli meats, cheeses, and whatnot as it has the drawer with the little adjustable plastic vent?
What's the ETA for catgirls? ^_^
#DeleteFacebook
I'm not sure how the right of a transgender person to use a particular bathroom stands in the way of genetic engineering exactly....
TFA is just saying be careful. Umm... duh?
Go read about the horse named impressive. A prime example of not being careful.
If you're a bioethicist, you basically just have to learn one word: "Don't."
That's all they ever say when you invite one to some panel or something. If you also know how to "urge caution," you're basically guaranteed tenure.
Fire up the SS Botany Bay.
Fight Spammers!
Initially this is going to be very expensive so only rich people will be able to use it for their children. Most rich people don't have genetic mutations they will pass on, they (and everyone else), will want taller, whiter, more athletic children, lighter coloured eyes, blonde hair, etc. Next we will figure out the genes for intelligence. In 15 years the very rich will be able to give these gifts to their children. In 40 years every Olympic medal will be won by one of these children. If you thought the rich had an advantage by sending their kids to better schools just imagine what this will do to inequality. (Although maybe we can hope that in 50 years this will lead to more intelligent and more compassionate politicians)
All this technology does is reduce the number of aborted fetuses and rejected embryos for the benefit of fighting serious inherited conditions. Pro-lifers, you may now activate to defend this life saving technology at your pleasure.
attempting to close the barn door as the tornado arrives
Nature wrote a solid article on the dangers. IMO it's going to lead to some seriously damaged humans before it's closer to perfected. But IMO it will be improved until it's in common use, unless a different technique comes along. In the mean time there's little point to banning it.
Governments that fight markets never win. If Europe and the US ban this technology that just means progress will continue in other places. And there are other reasons than eliminating disease. I could argue the ethics, but that's not the point. Like it or not people are going to do it. We live in the last fully nature-made generation.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
What was that one books solution? The time machine one? Oh right, the vast horde eats the rich.
Only until we edit out their impulse control genes!
Equality is an overrated assumption.
Just as you cant put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, so too genetic engineering. You may delay it, but eventually the dam will break.
What's the ETA for catgirls? ^_^
January 21, 2017
Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta.
nuf said
"Ethicists working overtime". "Ethicists" is a fake job held by a highly educated person with no marketable skills.
...Like the technology itself. Right now, the focus is on using CRISPR to eliminate genetic diseases. Ethically there is no problem with that usage. But if a hipster fad develops for making their children really tall, we will have to call the ethicists back in for a discussion.
And 3 feet tall with a flat head, so they can give you a blowjob while at the same time offering a surface to rest your beer on, right?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You people do realize that the CRISPR genes of the type to do gene editing are present in strep pyogenes and also staph aureus? These bacteria, especially staph aureus, are found everywhere. That means that anyone can extract these genes and put them into a plasmid quite easily using technology such as PCR (which can be done with a thermometer, stove, and a cup of ice). The only difficult part is making oligonucleotide sequences -- which are dirt cheap to buy though not trivial for someone to make at home but if I really thought about it I am sure there is a way to do it with just household chemicals and a small lab.
What I am saying is, if you ban this thing it will do nothing other than prevent its good use. The bad use will still be possible -- although there are tons of much easier and more effective ways to cause harm than genetic engineering -- it's rather sad to watch people get so paranoid about something like this. I mean people it's easier to cure late stage IV cancer and diabetes than it is to do something bad with genetic engineering -- yet there are tons of much easier ways to hurt people.
TFA is just saying be careful. Umm... duh?
It is saying more than that. It is mostly hand waving blather, but mentions some specific guidelines, such as an emphasis on curing diseases rather than "enhancements". The summary is a lot worse. It uses the term "prove safe" several times, which is nonsense, since nothing can be "proved" outside of mathematics. TFA is better, and doesn't use meaningless terms like "proof" or "prove" even once.
CRISPR may be used for vain, nonessential and even suspect purposes. Its a brave new world, get over it.
I'm going to modify his genetics so he has wings. Omg so amazing!
Yeah, just what we need, more government regulation.
Unless we let corporations edit the human genome, and patent human DNA, we are the enemy of the free market. /s
Thank you Dave Raggett
The definition of "disease" has always been somewhat subjective, and I suspect it will become rather more so as technological advances continue. -PCP
It is saying a lot more than that, it is saying to limit technology to only treat major illnesses instead of actually giving people an advantage. There seems to be no reason for that.
The rest of the world advises caution too,
but could also be used for cosmetic enhancements and lead to permanent, heritable changes in the human species.
Excuse me if I'm failing to see this as a downside. Instead of repairing heritable diseases for one person, those fixes persist to their descendants as well? Sure in the short term, untested changes could lead to unknown side-effects, but that's obvious and wouldn't justify a broad ban on germline changes. Eventually/soon, germline gene editing will be cheaper than treating these diseases for even one individual, much less them and all their descendants; with socialized medicine, some countries will DEMAND gene editing, once it's cheaper. The moral panic reminds me of that surrounding in-vitro fertilization when it was novel. Remember, right now the standard practice is to do genetic testing on fetuses in the womb, and if any developmental problems are found, it's recommended the pregnancy be aborted; it's not like abortion is controversial or anything, right? To ensure I get modded to oblivion, I present this thought experiment: once inbreeding depression has been genetically eliminated, would people still consider inbreeding morally unacceptable?
Who really cares about 'cosmetic changes'? What's considered an 'enhancement' varies from culture to culture. If e.g. Japanese want to edit their genes to have wider eyelids rather than getting them surgically widened, sure why not. Is "you are tall because your parents were tall" more comforting than "you are tall because your parents wanted you to be tall"? Do we really want to revive the spectre of 'genetic purity'?
As for the rich being the only ones with access to this technology, leading to them becoming a master race that the unwashed masses can't compete with, that's nonsense. Consider how quickly the cost of genome sequencing has plummeted in the past 20 years; the same thing will happen with gene editing. Furthermore, consider how many parents in e.g. China are willing to do ANYTHING, including sacrifice their life (e.g. Foxconn suicides), for the sake of their children; many, many parents would be willing to save money for decades, so that before they died, they could afford gene editing for their children, assuring their offspring a better life. A MUCH more likely scenario is that gene editing is outright made illegal in a given country, so only the rich can leave the country to have it done elsewhere; this goes doubly for oppressive countries with restrictions on travel.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Once upon a time dissecting people was thought unholy, but renaissance physicians like Vessalius did it anyway, risking anything from excommunication to death. Medical progress has always been hampered from time to time by unfounded pseudoreligeous fears.
CRISPR is awesome progress. Germline enhancement is clearly the next step. Certainly a generation of smarter stronger humans can do better with things than we have. China will have no compunctions going towards enhancement. We should not allow squeamishness to prevent us from literally making better people. It won't be hard. The bar is not very high.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
It's all part of Evolution, right?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Now we have a new tool for population control. We need to find a way to shrink people so you can fit more of them on this planet. There is a correlation to population size and human intelligence.
"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question."
Get out of here with your midget fetish, freak.
This may be the only way to keep up with AI.
[($)]
You can try to stop it and make it friendly all you want but it is being built for its one sole purpose: domination.
The ethics priests need to take a break. Obviously any cure for any disease or condition has spin off effects that may or may not be considered negative by some people. Suppose for example we find a genetic cure for schizophrenia that persists through out generations. Obviously many people with such a condition would never be born. How the heck can anyone weigh the horrors of that illness against the potential joy or contributions that a schizophrenic might experience or create/ How about manic depression? Or how about severe mental retardation? Some people really love their handicapped children. Does that somehow imply that we should not prevent mental retardation? How the blue heck does anyone propose to carefully weigh the results of eliminating any illness? After all if we let smallpox lose on the population it would reduce traffic congestion. Who dares define what is negative or positive for the world ?
Actually you can buy pre-made kits on line that let you do CRISPR editing for $1200 in your own garage. Obviously you're selecting from a set of existing tools and it's not for editing human cells, but one of the reasons CRISPR is such a breakthrough is because of how cheap and simple it is - and it's very powerful.
Which is all total nonsense anyway.
Human evolution is favoring things now which could never hold within nature. People are born with inherited diseases and survive beyond their generation and produce offspring. You could say we've been favoring the wrong genetics for a long time now, so why not let science take a crack at this problem? We're provably doing far worse than even Darwin could have comprehended.
The only reason we have to fear creating something that can outperform us is our own feeling of inadequacy. It's not that we don't want to produce something better, it's that we don't want to produce something that's better than we are. That makes us feel uncomfortable. Get over it.
For me, the entire point of all of this technology is to figure how to deal with aging.
Aging is by-product of metabolising - like engine damage is a by-product of running a car engine.
You can deal with the results in the body, but part of that probably involves some genetic modification.
People are going on about ethics which is fine, but also loosing sight of the fact that aging is something which kills ALL of us, and fixing it something we need to do right away.
Is that you Mike?
My concern with giving advantages is exasperating the resource divide between the rich and poor by adding a capability divide, such that the rich get enhancements that help them get more rich whilst the poor pool up dysfunction and mediocracy.
Thats not to say we shouldn't edit out disease genetics, since thats just mediicine.
With all that said, genetiic enhancemennts to help people survive poverty or generally improved resiliiance is just good medicine as well, and I'll conceed that like with microsurgery (where there might be debate over whether fat trimming surgery is cosmetic or preventative) , the difference between 'enhancements' and 'prevention', might only be in the eye of the beholder
Exacerbating.
The right is more of an obstacle for this is anything. They're the one who are trying to pass a bill making children of artificial insemination illegitimate. Christ that is just cartoonishly evil.
Are they people with proper scientific training in the field who can do appropriate risk assessment? Then, please, do so and provide a list of risks, potential consequences as well as measures to minimize and mitigate potential ill effects.
Or are they basically people from some sort of so-called "social studies" and self-proclaimed "philosophers" who do nothing more than "discussing" things just based on their gut feelings and hearsay?
Branding oneself as "ethicist" sounds an awful lot like the latter -- and I couldn't care less about those peoples' opinion.
The elimination of disease, enhancement of intelligence, etc. are good and desirable things for the vast majority of people. There will be clever arguments, not all of which are entirely wrong, that this is bad or at least highly dangerous for humanity, but outright banning it is much more dangerous. Do you think that all ~200 countries in the world will not only follow suit, but will proactively enforce the law?
The Brave New World comparison is quite weak. Huxley's world didn't use genetic modification as I recall; they used embryological stimulation in an artificial womb. That was the key to their entire society--no more pregnancies, the government controlled all births. Now tell me, what do rich designer babies (with all of the usual attendant horrors of there being more blond people in the world, oh noes!) have to do with total and complete governmental control of reproduction and child rearing?
These things are not only unalike; they are opposite. People having control over their bodies and genes and children is directly opposed to the government having control (and/or denying them such control through bans.) There are plenty of real concerns here, but I fear they will be completely drowned out by nonsensical BNW and GATTACA quotes.
I fear and suspect the western world will end up intentionally abandoning this technological revolution, leaving it up to another power (perhaps the Russians or Chinese) to lead the way, very possibly in a clandestine way known only to the rich ruling elite. I must say, though, it'll be pretty amusing if the Chinese get there first and show us all just how ridiculous those "oh no, too many Nordic-looking people!" arguments are.
Actually you can buy pre-made kits on line that let you do CRISPR editing for $1200 in your own garage. Obviously you're selecting from a set of existing tools and it's not for editing human cells, but one of the reasons CRISPR is such a breakthrough is because of how cheap and simple it is - and it's very powerful.
+++ This is the very point. G*ogle "CRISPR kit" and... blamo within 5 top match : http://www.origene.com/CRISPR-.... Page "CRISPR-Cas9 Vectors" : nothing over 500$. All possible in your kitchen. What some of us don't get IMO is we are not talking about a revolution here but instead a full scale disruption. I know ([fr] https://www.franceinter.fr/emi...) some national defence office are well on the case. Already. We all know whether legal or not is irrelevant. It will be done. Don't we know ?
The best way to handle it is to only allow modifications that are available to everyone. Then the only way that the rich will legally be able to get those modifications will be to push for them to be available to everyone for free, and they will use their power and wealth to make it happen.
That doesn't solve the problem of different countries having different rules, but as most of the wealth is concentrated in the larger blocks (EU, US) and countries that generally respect international law, I'm sure something could be done. Unfortunately it might involve harsh penalties and restrictions on illegally modified children, because plenty of parents would take 5 years in jail to give their kid super powers.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The real "ethical debate" should be about whether a group of moralizing busybodies should be allowed to interfere in the reproductive choices of other people.
Of course, it is a short debate, because the answer is "no".
It's funny how many of our most contentious issues are actually about people fearing that someone else's (undeserving) kids will out-compete their own.
I would say it really doesn't matter. Having a great disparity between rich and poor is the stable state for a human government, where democracies or stable times where people have similar incomes are at best transitory points (Iran for example.)
It might just be that human destiny is like the master/slave species like the Canopians in Piers Anthony's Cluster series. Of course, going down these thought processes, we are definitely going down the same paths that the pre-Nazis did with eugenics... but if you look at the tech industry and idols like Steve Jobs that gave $0 to any charity, you will realize that you can't eat ethics, if it makes better, stronger, smarter, healthier, longer-lived kids than the people who cannot afford it, do it. That is the modern way, and the center of secular humanism.
Even if one follows a faith, some beliefs even say that people were made poor because they are being punished (either for a past life, or for sins of family members.) There is a philosophy from Persia of "kick a blind man. Why be kinder than God?" If you were given the ability to improve your genetic code, it is a blessing from God, so use it.
tl;dr, ethics have no ROI. Mod your kids.
Sounds like you need some editing yourself, if this is what you consider a thoughtful, appropriate reply.
While I don't entirely disagree with you, this is an extremely slippery slope to go down.... I would actually oppose you until we 100% (well as close as we can get) understand genetics. For as advanced as we are right now, we're just leaving the horse and buggy era, and its just too soon to be messing, wholesale, with human genetics.
CRISPR is already super cheap (in relative terms), it's extremely simple and doesn't require enormous expenditure to set up and run. economies of scale would materialise almost instantly and a minimum wage worker could afford, in a year or two, to give his kids the same advantages rich dickheads do.
It may actually become an equaliser. The lie that we're all born with the same opportunities could be whittled down some and made real by this.
C17H21NO4
Spoken like a true child of capitalism. I bet you know the price of everything, too.
Let me guess: you're from the great lakes area and have heard of the musician Pat Dailey... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
Not my favorite version of the song, but 2/3 of the way into the song .... Is the appropriate verse.
Genomics and genetic manipulation will not result in any sort of equality.
Initially the rich will have access, and control, and well, become richer and richer if they have their way. Inequality persists.
Then the technology will become 'democratized', IE cheaper, and the less rich will take advantage of it.
Finally, the much less rich will find this technology is 'given' to them to 'solve problems', mostly to do with productivity, healthcare costs, and anything annoying the regulators believe ought to be fixed.
Along the way, much black-market stuff will happen. Gender selection will be popular. Cosmetics of course.
Equality? No, that will never be a goal nor result of this genetic manipulation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"bill making children of artificial insemination illegitimate"
And husbands could, no, wait for it, WILL merely adopt these children. Nullification. That was easy.
Somehow, when a non-Leftist proposes stupid legislation, it's a criminal, offensive, morally bankrupt act. But when a Leftist proposes something equally stupid, they get a pass for caring, being correct, and generally nice people, no matter how much money and freedom THEY take in the name of whatever cause du jour they are forcing.
Eh. the tide has turned. I shouldn't be doing this.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"The best way to handle it is to only allow modifications that are available to everyone."
Ok, you give yours away first. Thanks, bye.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
We (humanity) don't even know if diseases ARE diseases from evolution's viewpoint. They may simply be an evolutionary vector, a change on the way to something else. But let's fix evolution for individual humans. And how many times have we seen this cycle? They have a serious concern. They have conferences and write papers. Then they do it anyway, because it is interesting to them.
E Proelio Veritas.
Self-motivated to labor and toil for your benefit. Not too intelligent.
Oh, wait, let me fix that for myself. Leave them the hell alone. trying to improve women is the wrong thing, wrong way. Try improving yourself, fellow men.
Then you will either find the woman you choose is somehow so much better, or that she is so much more desirable.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
These are wonders beyond what we can conceive but the next generation will be able to learn from their four fathers.
The entire debate isn't relevant anyway. Just look at the time frame involving inception to public use of 3D printers. Same will happen here. In short order this will not be a high-tech lab activity.
Given how quickly cephalopods can breed and the lack of legal impediments concerning non-humans, I think the more pressing question is "what's the ETA for fully functional tentacle monsters?"
A great man, who shall not be misunderstood to have been a good one, once said: "Quantity has a quality all its own".
A whole article about this and not a single mention of Gattaca. And you call yourselves nerds.
The best way to handle it is to only allow modifications that are available to everyone, so we can create a large market for Chinese genetic conception tourism.
People need to face facts. With a new world government mandating these laws across the globe, you cannot stop the wealthy from finding some country which will allow it. If they can afford some $500k procedure to improve their children, do you really think they cannot afford a $10k vacation to China?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Perhaps this will lead to a fix for stupid.
sequencing the human genome cost 100s of thousands of dollars a decade or so ago and it is a few hundred dollars now. I don't see why gene therapy will be expensive.
love is just extroverted narcissism
On the contrary, this has been something you could work with $5 worth of raw material, a few dozen hours of self study, and a few hundred bucks worth of diy equipment for at least a decade now. Thanks to IP and strict agreements no share terms on that $5 worth of material plus ethical concerns has remained something that in practice will require you to be associated with a multi-million dollar organization to play at all.
That is a short term problem. The rich and the poor still mate and have offspring which will be poor as often as rich.
I really learned something from your comment. It really put some meat on the bone, Yes, for the reasons you so clearly stated, whatever the Chinese do with gene tech will not be pretty or even handed. One would hope that we can move forward with more decency and with a higher ethical standard... But move forward we must. And quickly.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
And you're offering to pay the $1500-$2500 for that?
At least the liberals can pretend to believe that whatever they're doing is helping somebody regardless of whether it works or whose liberties it infringes. Can you even name one person being helped by Tennessee's proposed bill? Of course because you're not a morally bankrupt hypocrite who actually is against big government and doesn't just use it as a bumper sticker, you're not going to name whatever government agency or courthouse collects that money, right?
Worse. The objections are justified by ethics. As if it were unethical to want your children to be smarter, stronger, and better-looking.
Maybe, the changes are "dangerous" from the point of view of Biology and population health. But dragging Ethics into it is utter nonsense.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Of course, the most pernicious diseases are those congenital disorders of metabolism that cause you to develop the wrong skin/hair/eye color, or the wrong adult height or weight. At least, that's what the money will say.
The wealth distribution gap between the rich and the poor is continuously widening. What makes you think that these scientific advancements will be equally available to all members of society?
This will lead to the inequality between the classes to become entrenched on the genetic level.
The problem here -- and why these "ethicists" are pretty much irrelevant other than listening to themselves pontificate -- is that just like AI and a host of other things of similar nature, you can make all the rules and laws you want, but as the tech or product or service becomes readily available, people will do what they want with it, not what you want (or insist upon.)
Can't buy pot at the corner store? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Can't buy sex at the hotel? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Can't get an AI that is designed to do [whatever]? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Can't get a gene edit to to [whatever] at a doctor's office or a commercial lab? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Where there's demand, there's provision. No way around it. Good or bad, easy or hard -- it's going to happen.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I think we should start hearing the ethicists once they create something useful
http://agender.sourceforge.net/ get a free schedule tool
Since I'm working on adopting a child right now I can tell you that $1500-$2500 is a low estimate for initial expenses. This will cost me $25,000 before I'm done. And the expenses of raising a child beyond that.
But I'm not in Tennessee, nor am I adopting a child the result of anything other than a failed family.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I am willing to bet that gene editing will lead to more evil humans. Why? The rich that could afford and want to edit genes are going to want to give their kids the things they admire.
What they admire is easy to guess regardless of decade we are in... they'll want their kids to be like them but "better", and most rich people run businesses. They'll want height, competitive drive, greed (they won't call it greed), alpha dog attitudes, and other qualities that lead to "being a better business person". And of course genderwise, muscles on guys, curves on girls. So what are you breeding?
A whole new race of miniature psychopath CEOs that have zero empathy towards the rest of their race.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-p...
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/w...
The Wolf to Friendly dog thing is highlighted by a Russian study of wild foxes. It took a few years for the foxes to be bred into animals that look a lot like dogs... curly tails and whatnot. The genes that make the fox less mean to humans connected to genes that basically made the fox less mature and more pup like. They may have tried to breed some of that back out, but look at the TV show that goes into some detail about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Would truly superior beings be oppressive? Maybe. Perhaps what our Genetically Enhanced successors gain in intelligence they would also gain in wisdom. I think the education of such beings would be of critical importance. Public school might not be such a good idea. Cheers
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
My concern with giving advantages is exasperating the resource divide between the rich and poor by adding a capability divide, such that the rich get enhancements that help them get more rich whilst the poor pool up dysfunction and mediocracy.
I suspect at first it will only be available to the rich, but later it will become mandatory for the poor. They will be edited to be more docile, compliant, submissive, obedient.
Reminds me of the anime Gundam Seed.
Humanity figured out how to engineer genes and henceforth came the "Coordinators", pretty much a super human.
A war broke out between "Naturals" and "Coordinators" because Coordinators were seen as an abomination due to man tampering with nature.
Anyway, it's an interesting story, made me a reflect a bit on my younger years
http://softwareengineeringmca....
Let Ethicists do their own gene splicing first, then complain. Believe me, Philosophy is out. If we wipe out ourselves with gene editing, so be it! The more, the better, someone will come up with a deterrence reply or a solution. We try to regulate before knowing what is going to be regulated. You can achieve an army of clones just by having sex with different women even day, it already happened. Anyway, to see results two generations later by the end of life... unless we can make the girls grow up quicker, of course. If they can accomplish it by gene splicing, they probably deserve it. Better ENSURE standard and typical crimes like fraud, theft, misrepresentation, extortion, kidnapping be stopped before someone can claim somebody else s work in this discipline. Now, can ANYONE get me SOMEONE to turn my airplane mode OFF again so I can keep enjoying of my BT mouse and console controller for GBA/DSi ROMS? The API seems so secretive no solution in the internet can be found and NO ONE seems to be able to just code a solution, like before. A call by a stranger and your lap goes into mute, go figure...
Am I the only one who saw frankensteiner.fr in that URL?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'll bet the first use of this new technology will be to create a new bioweapon.