Twenty-two lawyers, ethicists, and researchers got together and published a 300 page report yesterday, where they decided that human germline editing should not be prohibited, green-lighting the development of regulations to cover how and when to apply genetic engineering.
In January, a paper published in the journal Science Translational Medicine by three researchers argued that it's time to consider using stem cells swabbed from cheeks to grow human eggs and sperm and create a human being. This is called vitro gametogenesis (IVG). It's already been done with mice.
The CRISPR Cas9 technique for gene-editing makes it possible to target a specific region of the DNA, then add, replace or remove genes. This will provide a lot of possibility to treat diseases. Genetically heritable diseases could be prevented from passing onto offspring.
Gene editing is already being used. Cells that were gene-edited were used to kill cancer cells in two children with leukemia. This is becoming more popular, to save lives. But many people want to "self-direct" their so-called "evolution" towards "enhancements" and even seek immortality in their fear of death.
There is a push for genetic modification to be permanent, and replicate through successive generations, which would permanently alter what it is to be human, for better or worse. Some justifications to do this are based on healing diseases, and some are based on deluded insecurities of not being satisfied with being human. Some people want more than "just" being human, they want to be "post-human".
All of this talk of genetic modification taking place in humans used to be relegated to science fiction in movies like Gattaca, where the accepted way of reproduction was through being grown in the lab, like in the book Brave New World. These "purer" more "evolved" humans were called VALID and could apply for any job they wanted.
Those that were "natural" born were looked down upon in society, and called IN-VALID as they were not specifically tailored and modified for extra intelligence, extra strength, extra lifespan and much else that was added and modified as not being part of the original natural genetic construct of that individual.
Gattaca is a play on the AGTC genetic bases in DNA. If you were a "natural" born and IN-VALID, then you couldn't work in anything of higher intellectual requirements beyond being a manual laborer.
We didn't have to used to think about what we thought was impossible. But now the technology is catching up with our imagination and ideas, and making what was once only possible in our minds, into a reality.
There are risks when we start to tinker with things that we don't understand the implications of down the road, in the long term. We are modifying what we are as humans.
Are we even responsible enough to be doing this? Technological evolution requires a parallel development of higher moral awareness, or else we become our own worst enemies.
Companies can even own the "rights" to specific gene-editing methods.
What happens when you receive copyrighted gene editing? Does part of you belong to them? Are you not allowed to modify it without their consent?
What if companies can even create enhanced genes and patent them? Do they then own a part of you outright? Are there going to be taxes on "modifications" to heal, or "enhancements"?
Think about the movie Repo Men, where they would go repossess artificial body parts from those who failed to keep up with their payments.
Before we even get to all of that as an actual reality, we need to employ a proper moral understanding of what we are even doing.
For now, there are still problems such as creating a mix of treated and untreated cells when gene-editing is performed. This is a common problem that occurs in mice studies. The report concludes that more research is required before a green-light is passed on germline-editing of humans. They want to minimize the risks and weigh them up against any benefits.
Risk management is something that is done with insurance companies and in society as a whole. It could be that they determine the possible risks and accept a certain margin of error like our insurance companies and governments do in setting criteria for what is safe and acceptable.
Many other companies do this as well in their cost analysis of defective parts or problematic products. They analyze how much it would cost in settlements through the court compared to how much it would cost to recall the product.
The same can be done with germline editing and the modification of humanity. If they determine the benefits outweigh the costs, and that they are within a certain acceptable statistical margin of error, then it will be sold as "safe".
The report says that the public must have a say in whether this goes forward. But this gives little comfort when we understand how public opinion can be shaped towards accepting an agenda. They say they aren't in favor of enhancing people, or creating designer babies. At least not yet... so they "say".
It's a slippery slope from using this to heal people, into using this to "enhance" people. The same cheating happens in our current lives with drugs, where people are so fixated on enhancing themselves that they take drugs to modify their body to "perform" better.
Where the treatment ends and the enhancement begins, can be blurred. Where is the cutoff?
The senior author, Robin Lovell-Badge, says:
“We may need to modify aspects of our physiology to adapt to climate change, but that’s being speculative. We’re not saying it should never be done – but not now.”
Boy oh boy! Have you been following some of my work on the global climate change ideology being used to justify taxation and fleecing the wealth of the common people? Now we have climate change as a justification for genetic modification of humanity in order to "survive"... scary stuff.
Gradualism is a tool that is employed in social engineering. If it's not accepted now, it can be latter through a gradual process of influence.
Getting people to accept the initial gene-editing for medical procedures and treating of illnesses and diseases is something that can be done more easily. They will present themselves as not pushing for further modification or enhancement of humans (and maybe even present themselves as being against it). But down the line this will come up and will be more accepted because we will have already accepted gene-editing in some capacity and will be infatuated with the benefits it's providing. Accepting more of what we see as "good" will be easy.
We can easily be lulled into tacitly accepting further deregulation and restrictions upon gene editing, eventually leading to human cloning, and other modifications like creating X-Men "mutants" with powers, or who knows what.
References:
- Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance (2017)
- US Scientists Have Cautiously Backed Permanent Gene Editing in Humans
- Human genome editing shouldn’t be used for enhancement – yet
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting , Sharing
or Reblogging
below.
me for more content to come!
Please also consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
