![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsUK scientists given go-ahead to genetically modify human embryos
"British scientists have been given the green light to genetically modify human embryos, for the first time in the nation's history."
Naturally, a lot of people are bound to have their knickers in a twist because of this development - be it for ethical/sensible, religious/dogmatic, or emotional/irrational reasons, or just because they fear change, and are afraid that tinkering with a thing as intricate as the human genome could lead to larger damages that exceed the potential gains.
On the other hand, test tube babies and in vitro fertilization did cause a big stir as well, and calls that women would be turned into baby factories, and Louise Brown would be some sort of mutant, much like the cloning of Dolly the sheep (also happened in the UK, by the way) - but neither event has brought an end to civilization as we know it.
Technology advancement can be a wonderful thing to combat illness if done properly. Many diseases that were incurable in the past can be managed today due to bone marrow cells and also stem cell injections. They can now input cells that can "train" other cells in the body to stimulate the immune system; etc. Of course, in the case of gene manipulation, the proper fail-safes should be put in place first, to make sure this advancement would not be used for ill intent (and we'd have to define what "ill intent" actually means - in specific terms, if possible).
It has become clear for a while that indeed, genetic research is the new wave of cutting-edge scientific exploration, and has the potential to be able to help us eliminate birth defects and increase lifespan, but also, more controversially, choose gender and culturally desirable traits. Tricky area, ethics-wise, right? Which is why at first everyone will be shocked and complain on the basis of ethics - but if history is any guide as in the case of the test tube baby process, this has good prospects of becoming as "normal" as implanted embryos and surrogate deliveries. In any case, that seems to already be the inevitable future, and it looks irreversible in the long run.
That said, thinking about the larger picture is well warranted here, including the main risks. For example, there's the concern that eliminating these problems may not be a perfect science and that trial and error, on a case by case basis, the research could lead to a huge increase in both pre-natal abortions and infanticide as they monkey around trying to get the perfect baby. That's a short- to mid-term risk, yes. Science could be messy work at times.
In the longer term though, it's about time that we use the technology that is available to us to learn, and convince people who fear it that the effort to further the progress (and potentially increase the survival chances) of the human species is well worth the effort - of course, the only proper way of convincing them being to show tangible, positive, long-term results. And that takes time. So, expect a lot of opposition, at least initially.
At this point, most of the focus seems to be centered around the possibility that this technology could and will be used for "designer babies" - and I have no doubt some will use it for that purpose. However, others might ask, why should all the good that can come of it be forfeited because of this? The countries and organizations that will use it for "less than ethical" purposes are not going to be stopped by laws and regulations that the more ethical parties put in place anyway, so why should we not benefit from the good, despite these bad apples?
In any case, we're about to have yet another case where science fiction becomes science reality. You might've noticed by now that I'm all for it, as long as there are incredibly strict rules governing it. Fixing genetic errors (deformities, inherent diseases etc) should unquestionably be allowed. On the other hand, we don't want to come to a point in the future where people would be heard yelling "KHAAAAAANNNN!"
Cue the Bible-trumping moralists and their preachy sermons now.
"British scientists have been given the green light to genetically modify human embryos, for the first time in the nation's history."
Naturally, a lot of people are bound to have their knickers in a twist because of this development - be it for ethical/sensible, religious/dogmatic, or emotional/irrational reasons, or just because they fear change, and are afraid that tinkering with a thing as intricate as the human genome could lead to larger damages that exceed the potential gains.
On the other hand, test tube babies and in vitro fertilization did cause a big stir as well, and calls that women would be turned into baby factories, and Louise Brown would be some sort of mutant, much like the cloning of Dolly the sheep (also happened in the UK, by the way) - but neither event has brought an end to civilization as we know it.
Technology advancement can be a wonderful thing to combat illness if done properly. Many diseases that were incurable in the past can be managed today due to bone marrow cells and also stem cell injections. They can now input cells that can "train" other cells in the body to stimulate the immune system; etc. Of course, in the case of gene manipulation, the proper fail-safes should be put in place first, to make sure this advancement would not be used for ill intent (and we'd have to define what "ill intent" actually means - in specific terms, if possible).
It has become clear for a while that indeed, genetic research is the new wave of cutting-edge scientific exploration, and has the potential to be able to help us eliminate birth defects and increase lifespan, but also, more controversially, choose gender and culturally desirable traits. Tricky area, ethics-wise, right? Which is why at first everyone will be shocked and complain on the basis of ethics - but if history is any guide as in the case of the test tube baby process, this has good prospects of becoming as "normal" as implanted embryos and surrogate deliveries. In any case, that seems to already be the inevitable future, and it looks irreversible in the long run.
That said, thinking about the larger picture is well warranted here, including the main risks. For example, there's the concern that eliminating these problems may not be a perfect science and that trial and error, on a case by case basis, the research could lead to a huge increase in both pre-natal abortions and infanticide as they monkey around trying to get the perfect baby. That's a short- to mid-term risk, yes. Science could be messy work at times.
In the longer term though, it's about time that we use the technology that is available to us to learn, and convince people who fear it that the effort to further the progress (and potentially increase the survival chances) of the human species is well worth the effort - of course, the only proper way of convincing them being to show tangible, positive, long-term results. And that takes time. So, expect a lot of opposition, at least initially.
At this point, most of the focus seems to be centered around the possibility that this technology could and will be used for "designer babies" - and I have no doubt some will use it for that purpose. However, others might ask, why should all the good that can come of it be forfeited because of this? The countries and organizations that will use it for "less than ethical" purposes are not going to be stopped by laws and regulations that the more ethical parties put in place anyway, so why should we not benefit from the good, despite these bad apples?
In any case, we're about to have yet another case where science fiction becomes science reality. You might've noticed by now that I'm all for it, as long as there are incredibly strict rules governing it. Fixing genetic errors (deformities, inherent diseases etc) should unquestionably be allowed. On the other hand, we don't want to come to a point in the future where people would be heard yelling "KHAAAAAANNNN!"
Cue the Bible-trumping moralists and their preachy sermons now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/16 12:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/2/16 14:00 (UTC)/rant
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/16 14:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/2/16 19:20 (UTC)As for supersoldiers and class divisions etc, I am skeptical. Aside from disease resistance, the particular human genome involved is such a tiny factor in the relative success of a civilization, because of its flexibility - and because of the way civilization and breeding work at cross-purposes. E.g. Gengis Khan's genes aren't in a huge swath of the human race because he was a handsome, healthy, happy genius, they're everywhere because he was a rapacious tyrant with a particularly effective set of tools at his disposal.
So as I see it, this will be a technology used primarily to eliminate human disease from otherwise viable genomes, e.g. "make her just like me but without the astigmatism" and no one will care. And secondarily, it will be used by the eccentric and wealthy for fashion and personal amusement, and generate some amazing lawsuits when it goes sideways and the parents confront the fact that they can't just euthanize their creation like a crippled show pony. >:)
(no subject)
Date: 4/2/16 03:43 (UTC)I don't see how this would work. There are strict rules outlawing abortions to determine the sex of a child. These are routinely ignored in societies that place a huge value on stability even though an abundance of unmarried men is thought to produce instability. I don't see those same governments rigorously enforcing regulations to prevent something that will produce a super-brainy workforce. Of course, manipulating intelligence is something that will probably prove difficult, but then if you told someone fifty years ago that everyone could have a device in their pocket that would let them have a video conversation with someone half a world away for almost free, they'd have had a hard time believing you as well.
I don't expect we can stop this. Besides, evolution has been nature's way of enforcing planned obsolescence for a billion years, we're just improving on it. We just better hope that a charity gene will be mandatory in the Homo Sapiens 2.0 Bill Of Materials.
(no subject)
Date: 4/2/16 07:02 (UTC)Like I said,
The countries and organizations that will use it for "less than ethical" purposes are not going to be stopped by laws and regulations that the more ethical parties put in place anyway, so why should we not benefit from the good, despite these bad apples?
(no subject)
Date: 4/2/16 08:55 (UTC)Or just an endless procession of mixed blessings?
(no subject)
Date: 4/2/16 09:22 (UTC)That has seldom stopped humankind from pushing further with the pursuit of new scientific discovery.
(no subject)
Date: 4/2/16 10:20 (UTC)Besides, what's unethical about making the next generation of kids smarter if you can? We've been doing this for at least a century using nutrition and education, why not let science continue the trend?
(no subject)
Date: 4/2/16 11:03 (UTC)what's unethical about making the next generation of kids smarter if you can?
Indeed.