Today's Poll: Should parents be allowed to have genetically modified babies?
I did not vote, as i do not have any children nor do I plan on having any... I don't feel comfortable saying "absolutely not. You cannot use this technology to help your babies."
However, I also don't feel comfortable at this time saying "fire away!" with technology that we don't know the long term effects of yet.
Work on the technology. Continue testing to see what (if any) the long ter effects are.
So many people vote yes to pushing their personal views of morality on others. When will we live and let live?
This is a touchy subject that borders on the edge of Religion, Ethics, to mention a few. I personally would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. All I will say is: Let Nature take it's natural course. Darwin was right.
Tom - you have the personal right to not touch it with a ten foot pole, but do you think you have the right to tell others whether or not they can?
I'm not accusing you anything, just trying to start a conversation.
I think the potential abuse of such technology is beyond our maturity as a species. There is no doubt in my mind that it would not take much for it to be abused. This technology should NOT be used until, we as a civilization, have grown up. And we have A LOT of growing to do...
Also, I would like to add as a legitimate possible out come with such a technology - Khan.
- double post - deleted -
absolutely right Jason. Howard once wrote on here that people want limited government as long as it supports their point of view. Personally, I think we are made the way we are made, and shouldn't fool with it. I can understand a parent not wanting to transfer some sort of condition on to their baby and maybe finding cures for some things through genetic modifications. So, I wouldn't do it, but there may be some good in it. Like you, my problem is with the "Should we allow..." part. I don't support forcing others to follow my beliefs, nor do i think trying to stop people from making mistakes, no matter how horrific, is a proper function of government or good use of my seized tax funds.
My concern is where does it stop. In theory, it's great to say as long as it's used only to avoid genetic defects, but where does that stop? If a parent decides a big nose is a genetic defect, she the parent allowed to modify the DNA of the future little Suzie so she has a perfect, petit nose? Is it any of my business? What if parents want to start breeding super athletes? Or once the technology is out there, China wants to breed perfect warriors?
Of course, if it's possible through science and technology, it will happen, as certain as once we knew how to split an atom we started in on building a bomb.
I guess I'm not understanding the "be allowed to have" part of the question. I had assumed that we already had a generation (or two) of modified people. Of course, I'm talking about the people who make up the groups I call "2:30's" and "Chin-resters".
Who are the unfortunates in these 2 groups?
Well, the "2:30's" are the ones who walk around with their heads bent on a seemingly-continuous, 60-degree slant, so that their body resembles a clock-face stuck at 2:30. Not that there's anything wrong with that posture. Heck, most of them have found that they can walk around and rest their noggins against their cell phones. So, I guess not all's lost on their uncomfortable stance.
And, the "Chin-resters"? They're the ones walking (and driving) around with their heads tilted so far foward that their chin is resting on their chest. Usually, you can distinguish them by looking for an electronic device in their hands. Now, it doesn't bother me too much, as far as them walking around inspecting other people's shoelaces (or whatever it is they're looking at). But I get kinda scared when they're driving a vehicle and inspecting their crotches (or WHATEVER they're looking at). (Now, there's an opening for some entrepreneur - Build a recumbent automobile, so the "Chin-resters" can recline and still see straight ahead).
What's that? These people aren't genetically-modified? Ya' could'a fooled me!
I voted yes, but only if it makes people taste better.
I voted yes, but only if it makes people taste better.
Worth the double post!
Tom, if we had let nature take its course, we'd have been wiped out a long time ago. Ever since humans became self aware, they've been modifying their selves and their surroundings to enhance their survival capabilities.
If we didn't modify our immune systems, disease would kill most of us before we got past our 30's. David Attenborough says that we have stopped physically evolving because of our ability to raise 99% of our offspring to adulthood. We have stopped natural selection in our species.
I say we enable the weakest members of our species to survive and to procreate, which could actually be detrimental in the long run. We will end up a species that's 100% reliant on technology to keep 100% of us alive. We'll become a species unable to cope in the natural world, and natural selection will simply wipe us out if that technology isn't sustainable.
We have learned how to prosper by eliminating natural selection, but I believe it will be our downfall at the same time. As the saying goes, you can't f*** with mother nature. She wins every time in the long run.
I thought the whole thing was so absurd I wouldn't even comment until I read Doug's first post. Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read it. I thumbed up both.
From the article:
“These techniques would change every cell in the bodies of children born as a result of their use, and these alterations would be passed down to future generations.”
Come on, snooze. That wouldn’t even fly as good science fiction.
You don’t just mix cells in a chemical Easy Bake Oven and produce a human being; even I know that. I certainly wouldn’t want to be impregnated with some experimental radical bio baby. I can imagine the class action lawsuit commercials…. “Did you or someone you know give birth to a genetic monster? You could be entitled to money damages.” Whatever happened to that cloned sheep? Where are all the cloned people that were predicted to have resulted from those radical procedures? I would have liked the opportunity to offer my opinion on who I believe should be cloned and if they’ve already done it, they’ve failed badly.
“Some are also promoting their use for age-related infertility.”
Seems to me that’s an entirely different topic, or is one of their long-term goals to make it genetically possible for the elderly to give birth? Something to look forward to, for sure!
Seriously…they can’t make one drug without 80 side effects ranging from irritating to life threatening. Maybe they should focus on improving the quality of the snake oil they’re already hawking and distributing to unsuspecting human guinea pigs rather than pretending they could benevolently create a genetic master race if only the nasty ol’ government would stay out of their way.
“The F.D.A. advisory panel says that its meeting will consider only scientific aspects of mitochondrial manipulation and that any ‘ethical and social policy issues’ are outside its scope.”
Julie, where have you been? I haven't seen a comment from you in ages!