6
I'm boerd, tell me your opinions on gene editing, and I'll have a civilised debate with yougavel
I want to have a debate about the ethics of gene editing, so tell me your take, and I'll either argue my point, or back it up.
If you want to do this, please be serious.
Note:
I'm a bio nerd, and I plan on going into AP biology next year. I can discuss this with a passion. Just sayin' in advanced.
First, here's my take.
I think that gene editing is a fasinating technology. There are endless implications for it, but it's a risky tool, and it needs to be used responsibly.
What are YOUR thoughts on gene editing? In humans? Plants and animals? Please let me know!
If you want to do this, please be serious.
Note:
I'm a bio nerd, and I plan on going into AP biology next year. I can discuss this with a passion. Just sayin' in advanced.
First, here's my take.
I think that gene editing is a fasinating technology. There are endless implications for it, but it's a risky tool, and it needs to be used responsibly.
What are YOUR thoughts on gene editing? In humans? Plants and animals? Please let me know!
Create an account or sign in to comment.
7
Why ruin a perfectly good pair of pants? Jeans are already the pinnacle of human clothing technology, no edits required.
jean mixing is cool especially if you put two different (or more) colors together
The result used to be called particoloured and was quite the fashion rage for a couple of centuries, was brought back as macaroni [as imortalized in Yankee Doodle AKA The World Turned Upside Down], but has recently been relegated to teh sort of golf pants that "…but, hey, it looks good on you" [Rodney Dangerfield's Al Czervik from Caddyshack –1980].
As actually relevant to the discussion (and assuming jeans is a mis-spelling) it would allow one to get white guinea pigs with dark patches without resorting to the use of a Sharpie…
As actually relevant to the discussion (and assuming jeans is a mis-spelling) it would allow one to get white guinea pigs with dark patches without resorting to the use of a Sharpie…
opinions on dying jeans into another color? (I.E. red purple etc) how about bleaching them?
"…it needs to be used responsibly"
the kicker is, WHO DECIDES?
Even pre CRISPR, there were serious debates about what did and did not constitute responsible and/or ethical use; the vastly improved speed and precision of modern techniques simply exacerbates the issues.
It is also important to note the practical limitations of any attempted controls: there will always exist (legally or otherwise) facilities for doing wholly unrestricted research so any attempts at regulation need to accept that overly onerous provisions will simply drive the developement (and any profits that arise from it) either to a different legal venue or underground.
One suggestion for why Homo sap. hasn't found any extraterrestial intelligences taht has been put forth is to compare the costs (energy/resources rather than currency) of gene engineering with anything in space (even just LEO); the argument is theat since gene editing is so much cheaper (and — hypothetically — any mistake can be a species last), species tend to explore biotech (and kill themselves) before doing anything meaningful in space.
For a comicbook take: think Spiderman's great power = great responsibility dynamic…
…then look at the peeps 'running' the world.
A final question is whether defensive biotech (a generationally upgraded version of the Fort Detrick etc. biodefense effort) can stay [or even get] good enough to combat malicious (or 'merely' foolhardy) efforts. [And will the biodefense folks have any credibility after the recent fiascos.]
the kicker is, WHO DECIDES?
Even pre CRISPR, there were serious debates about what did and did not constitute responsible and/or ethical use; the vastly improved speed and precision of modern techniques simply exacerbates the issues.
It is also important to note the practical limitations of any attempted controls: there will always exist (legally or otherwise) facilities for doing wholly unrestricted research so any attempts at regulation need to accept that overly onerous provisions will simply drive the developement (and any profits that arise from it) either to a different legal venue or underground.
One suggestion for why Homo sap. hasn't found any extraterrestial intelligences taht has been put forth is to compare the costs (energy/resources rather than currency) of gene engineering with anything in space (even just LEO); the argument is theat since gene editing is so much cheaper (and — hypothetically — any mistake can be a species last), species tend to explore biotech (and kill themselves) before doing anything meaningful in space.
For a comicbook take: think Spiderman's great power = great responsibility dynamic…
…then look at the peeps 'running' the world.
A final question is whether defensive biotech (a generationally upgraded version of the Fort Detrick etc. biodefense effort) can stay [or even get] good enough to combat malicious (or 'merely' foolhardy) efforts. [And will the biodefense folks have any credibility after the recent fiascos.]
I say that the ethical guidelines need to be decided by councils of scientists and ethicists who have university level education. This arugment makes sense.
We don't want polititions deciding if designer babies are ethical, nor do we want the general public. There are going to be people who don't care about the regulations, and that won't change.
In 2016, Chinese scientist He Jiankui created twin babies where he deacitvated the CCR5 gene, making them immune to HIV. That's cool and all, but the government had no legal basis for this type of experimet, and the world wasn't ready for it. The lines for this are blurry, and we don't know much about what we're dealing with yet.
(i'd add more, but im in school rn, lol)
We don't want polititions deciding if designer babies are ethical, nor do we want the general public. There are going to be people who don't care about the regulations, and that won't change.
In 2016, Chinese scientist He Jiankui created twin babies where he deacitvated the CCR5 gene, making them immune to HIV. That's cool and all, but the government had no legal basis for this type of experimet, and the world wasn't ready for it. The lines for this are blurry, and we don't know much about what we're dealing with yet.
(i'd add more, but im in school rn, lol)
I don't share your faith in a 'council of scientists'… and based on quite a number of sci-fi stories my opinion is hardly unique.
More substantively, I've spent enough years in the hard science side of academia to know that – even presuming the coucil members are skilled in the relevant arts (which is far from a given), peossesion of good sense is by no means assured.
Vesting regulatory power in persons technically knowledgeable whould, however, be a vast improvement over politicians and/or bureacrats both of which groups tend to follow only the wetted finger…differing only in whether the weather to which it is raised is the vox popului or the almighty greenback… …that the motivation is primarily (and scondarily and teriarily) personal advancemnt/profit in members of either group may be safely assumed.
I don't see the technology being stoppable (or even amenable to meaningful regulation) on a global level: as example, consider the ineffective campaign to stop cocaine production in conjungtion with the idea of using CRISPR to insert the necessary systhesis pathways into something like cassava.
To paraphase a line from Lucifer's Hammer [IIRC, I haven't the book to hand]:
More substantively, I've spent enough years in the hard science side of academia to know that – even presuming the coucil members are skilled in the relevant arts (which is far from a given), peossesion of good sense is by no means assured.
Vesting regulatory power in persons technically knowledgeable whould, however, be a vast improvement over politicians and/or bureacrats both of which groups tend to follow only the wetted finger…differing only in whether the weather to which it is raised is the vox popului or the almighty greenback… …that the motivation is primarily (and scondarily and teriarily) personal advancemnt/profit in members of either group may be safely assumed.
I don't see the technology being stoppable (or even amenable to meaningful regulation) on a global level: as example, consider the ineffective campaign to stop cocaine production in conjungtion with the idea of using CRISPR to insert the necessary systhesis pathways into something like cassava.
To paraphase a line from Lucifer's Hammer [IIRC, I haven't the book to hand]:
"Is difficult to put mushroom cloud back into bomb casing."
