- Status
So people are saying it's unethical for what he did.... but his goal was to prevent HIV in the kids.... so doesn't that mean he needs to expose the kids to HIV to ensure it's a success? Wouldn't that be even more unethical than what he did?
but then again, ethics aside... Isn't this a good thing?
yeah I saw the article mainly talking about the possible effect on intelligence, but I don't see that more of a side effect that's ain't confirmed yet.
but then again, ethics aside... Isn't this a good thing?
yeah I saw the article mainly talking about the possible effect on intelligence, but I don't see that more of a side effect that's ain't confirmed yet.
Likes:
Pandagnome
The problem is not only about the unethical use of CRISPR to make designer human babies but also the unforeseen consequences of having a child immune to HIV or any life threatening diease.
Sure, you’d throw in a feast for discovering the immunity to AIDS and maybe immunity or cure for cancer too on the side by playing around with gene splicing or CRISPR. With enough time and money, Immunity to ANY life disease could be possible. What could possibly go wrong?
Now the Great DM asks, “Are you sure that messing around with human genes is a great scientific achievement?”
We all know where this is going...
Sure, you’d throw in a feast for discovering the immunity to AIDS and maybe immunity or cure for cancer too on the side by playing around with gene splicing or CRISPR. With enough time and money, Immunity to ANY life disease could be possible. What could possibly go wrong?
Well on a societal level, there would be social separation and stigma between those immune to AIDS and those who aren’t. Seriously, we tried this with slavery/caste system. The results are not pretty. There would also be criminal enterprises that run illegal or unregulated CRISPR operations. Geneticists having their licenses revoked for having botched lab work. Then you will run into the problem of having a runaway disaster scientists can’t fix. I don’t know maybe...disposing the failed test subjects that didn’t met the standards and many barrels of worms that opened up by themselves.
We all know where this is going...
Likes:
SomeUnregPunk and Pandagnome
it will never not be reckless and unethical to edit the human genome in ways that haven't been done before. we can't know it's not bad until someone decides to do the potentially bad thing. now someone has. if they don't die for non-genetic reasons, it will be either more or less reckless and unethical next time someone tries the same change.
guy who did it risked leaving people who couldn't consent disabled for an upgrade they didn't need. he did something as bad as anything as bad as that is; a lot of things are.
the kids are victims, whether there are bad side-effects or not. it's as sad as things that are as sad as it are; a lot of things are.
but we'll learn something from it.
personally, I hope it works against the disease with no other positive or negative side-effects. I don't think disease immunity would be enough for castes, but increases in general ability for the children of those who can afford it would.
I wonder if anyone is doing illegal human DNA editing research in secret. poor people are easy to get and easy to get rid of.
I'd prefer synthetic ascension. you can do it to adults. adults can consent, and also I'm an adult.
guy who did it risked leaving people who couldn't consent disabled for an upgrade they didn't need. he did something as bad as anything as bad as that is; a lot of things are.
the kids are victims, whether there are bad side-effects or not. it's as sad as things that are as sad as it are; a lot of things are.
but we'll learn something from it.
personally, I hope it works against the disease with no other positive or negative side-effects. I don't think disease immunity would be enough for castes, but increases in general ability for the children of those who can afford it would.
I wonder if anyone is doing illegal human DNA editing research in secret. poor people are easy to get and easy to get rid of.
I'd prefer synthetic ascension. you can do it to adults. adults can consent, and also I'm an adult.
Last edited:
Likes:
SomeUnregPunk and Pandagnome
Looking back at history there was a mission to find cures, improve and become stronger humans. Though many of which are seen to be unethical in today's standards. Some experiments accidently unravel a clue to something completely different to better something or cure something else that is why experiments and research continues... will there be a point where it all stops and the discovery of immortality could be unlocked hmmmm
During an Oval Office meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who’s overseeing the White House’s trade talks with China, and a delegation from Beijing, including Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, Trump said he had no use for memoranda of understanding “because they don’t mean anything.”
It led to this exchange, in which the American president’s own trade rep apparently tried to explain a basic element of the negotiations:
LIGHTHIZER: An MOU is a contract. It’s the way trade agreements are generally used. People refer to it like it’s a term sheet. It’s not a term sheet. It’s an actual contract between the two parties. A memorandum of understanding is a binding agreement between two people. And that’s what we’re talking about. It’s detailed; it covers everything in great detail. It’s just called a memorandum of understanding. That’s a legal term. It’s a contract. […]
TRUMP: By the way, I disagree. I think that a memorandum of understanding is not a contract….
It was at this point that China’s vice premier actually started laughing, apparently amazed that the American president and the top American trade negotiator couldn’t even agree on the purpose and significance of an MOU.
Trump and Lighthizer weren’t even at odds over some substantive element; they were disagreeing over the definition of a routine phrase.
And so, the U.S. trade rep, trying to brush off the embarrassment of having been incorrectly corrected by his boss in front of his Chinese rival – and assembled journalists – came up with a solution: barring use of the phrase that Trump doesn’t like:
LIGHTHIZER: From now on, we’re not using the word “memorandum of understanding” anymore. We’re going to the term “trade agreement.” All right?
LIU: Okay.
TRUMP: Right.
LIGHTHIZER: No more. We’ll never use the term again.
TRUMP: Good.
LIGHTHIZER: We’ll have the same document. It’s going to be called a “trade agreement.” We’re never going to use “MOU” again. […]
TRUMP: Good. Good. I like that much better. I like that term much better.
Last edited:
- Status