Biotechnology

Gene-Editing Human Embryos Is Ethical

Bioethicists and scientists who say otherwise are wrong.

|

CRISPR
NIH

A bioethical firestorm erupted last week when Chinese researchers at Sun Yat-Sen University published research in the journal Protein & Cell detailing how they had tried to use the CRISPR gene-editing tool to change the genomes of 86 human embryos. The team, led by the gene-function researcher Junjiu Huang, used embryos from IVF clinics that had been double-fertilized, giving them three sets of genes instead of the usual two. Such triploid embryos cannot grow into babies.

The researchers sought to make changes in a gene that causes the sometimes fatal blood disorder beta-thalassemia. The aim is to find out just how effectively and efficiently CRISPR can make changes to genes in human embryos, with the ultimate goal of altering embryos such that any subsequently born babies will be disease-free. This is known as germ-line modification, since the corrected gene will be passed down to subsequent progeny.

The Chinese scientists essentially ignored recent calls for a moratorium on editing human reproductive cells and embryos. The month before their paper appeared, Science recommended that such research be "strongly discourage[d]" while the "societal, environmental, and ethical implications of such activity are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations." Meanwhile, Nature had editorialized that "genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable….At this early stage, scientists should agree not to modify the DNA of human reproductive cells." Some 40 countries have preemptively banned germline genetic engineering. (The United States is not among them.)

Not too surprisingly, both Science and Nature reportedly declined to publish Junjiu Huang's study on "ethical" grounds.

The research naturally provoked some bioethical handwringing. "No researcher has the moral warrant to flout the globally widespread policy agreement against altering the human germline," declared Marcy Darnovsky, the executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society. "The medical risks and social dangers of human germline modification cannot be overstated." She further urged, "We need to act immediately to strengthen the global policy agreements that put human germline modification off limits." In The Christian Science Monitor, University of Wisconsin at Madison bioethicist Alta Charo asked, "Do we really want to have the power not just to select among the choices given to us by nature, but to create entirely new choices of our own specification?"

My short answer: Yes.

In what terrible bioethical violations did the Chinese researchers engage? None. The embryos were grown to the eight-cell stage, and none of them could ever have developed into babies. No germline cells with any potential to develop into people were modified. Of the 71 embryos that survived the experiment, 54 were genetically tested. Of these, 28 embryos had the target gene "spliced." Only four contained all of the replacement genetic material, and even those were mosaics—that is, not every cell had been modified.

The researchers also found a significant number of "off-target" effects, in which the CRISPR complex had modified the wrong genes. Off-target genetic modifications could, of course, produce deleterious genetic mutations.

The poor accuracy and the high number of off-target effects in these experiments could stem from using embryos with three sets of chromosomes. "It is possible that the DNA repair mechanisms that are more likely to lead to errors have been activated in such abnormal embryos," suggested Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem cell biologist at the Crick Institute in London, in an interview with The Independent. The numerous off-target effects might also result from the fact that the Chinese researchers did not use the most up-to-date version of CRISPR editing.

Nevertheless, the Chinese experiment is exactly the kind of research that needs to be done as part of the scientific and clinical process of figuring out how and when to use CRISPR to treat disease or repair defective genes. The research has provided insights into what can go wrong and highlights the fact that this technology is not yet ready for the clinic.

In contrast with Darnovsky's pseudoethical bloviation, the Oxford bioethicists Chris Gyngell and Julian Savulescu cogently argue that there is a "moral imperative to research editing embryos." They point out that the Chinese research is "important precisely because it increases our understanding about some of the risks involved in targeting humans with current gene editing techniques." The two further assert that the earlier calls for a moratorium on such research are based on concerns that "are vague, emotive, and devoid of any real rational force. Many technologies have unpredictable effects and could potentially be used non-therapeutically. This doesn't justify censorship [by journals] of potentially life-saving research." That is entirely correct.

If using refined and effective CRISPR gene-editing techniques to cure disease or correct defective genes is moral, then it is immoral to slow progress toward achieving that goal.

NEXT: Victims of Communism Day

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Look, Ron, if Gaia had wanted children, she wouldn’t have given us MS, sickle cell, or trisomies. Disease and suffering are natural and wholesome. They’re ORGANIC.

    You can keep your fancy, full belly and your modern “conveniences” like intercontinental communications and refrigeration. I’ll do just fine with my firepit of cow dung.

    1. You’re using fire??

      BURN THE HERETIC!!!

      Um…STONE THE HERETIC!!!

      1. *calls others on cell phone to help stone the heretic*

        1. HE USE TALKING ROCK – GET HIM TOO!

      2. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
        http://www.work-cash.com

  2. No researcher has the moral warrant to flout the globally widespread policy agreement against altering the human germline

    We are all slaves to the collective will, after all.

    1. Exactly what I was thinking! We dont have the right to think for ourselves without the approval of the mob rule collective.

  3. Ron Bailey offered the world order!

    1. Much like Tulpa! Oh wait, my bad. Tulpa offered the world odor.

    2. Fist, Fist, save your strength. This commentariat swore an oath to live and die at Bailey’s command 300 years before you were born.

      1. Serious? You’re still alive, my old friend?

        1. Still! Old friend. You’ve managed to kill everyone else but like a poor marksmen you keep missing the target.

          1. Perhaps I no longer need to try, Admiral Moff.

  4. You know who else had a flexible view of medical ethics?

    1. Gattica?

    2. The two debate teams whose subject concerned “medical ethics”?

    3. Margaret Sanger?

    4. Hippocrates swore by his.

    5. Dr. Moreau?

    6. Mengele.

  5. Do we really want to have the power not just to select among the choices given to us by nature, but to create entirely new choices of our own specification?

    If only Grog had asked Grug that question when he started using fire. Just think of all the BS we could have avoided.

    1. If man was meant to fly God would have given him wings!

      1. He did. He gave man Germanwings. And look how that played out.

  6. Now none of you ugly motherfuckers have any excuse for having ugly children.

    1. So what’s your excuse?

      1. You’ve seen her pictures. HOW DARE YOU not acknowledge her beauty.

        1. Maybe you should be spending time with your baby rather than goofing off on here.

          1. How much ya bench?

          2. ONLINE COMMUNITYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

            1. This has become the whiniest fucking place.

        2. Everybody thinks their own kid is beautiful. It’s natures way of tricking you into keeping them.

          1. And having more.

          2. True, but other people tell me my daughter is beautiful. How me and my wife combined to make that is anybody’s guess.

            1. How me and my wife combined to makde that is anybody’s guess. perfectly clear.

              1. *cough* mailman *cough*

                1. I thought about it. But she’s definitely mine. Tall, smart ass, problems with authority, just a little aspy…

              2. Oh sugarfree what a classic quip. Almost as classic as the quip your mom made when I was licking chocolate and snorting lines of pixie dust off of her sagging naked body last night.

                1. If you got a problem with me, Idle Hands, maybe you should stop texting me and begging for pick pics.

                  1. I CAN”T HELP IT I HAVE A PROBLEM.

        3. Slip me a twenty and she’s the next Alison Brie.

          1. Only if you squint really hard and your facing the back of her head and her head/body is completely obscured by a column in your field of vision. I’m actually really good at pretending the girls I sleep with look like alison brie.

        4. I still can’t believe some woman slept with you.

          1. It’s Warty. What makes you think he gave her a choice?

            1. His two favorite pickup lines:
              Does this rag smell like chloroform?

              Let’s not have this rape turn into a murder!

              Thank you Jimmy Carr.

  7. Science and Nature reportedly declined to publish Junjiu Huang’s study on “ethical” grounds.

    Whatever those two Journals are totally overrated anywhere. I’d take Cell over Nature anytime.

  8. So, to be fair the researchers calling for a moratorium were doing so not because they felt is was unethical, but because they think the technology isn’t ready. I.e. it only works 80% of the time, and sometimes “hits” unintended genes. The result is that your running a risk of creating a genetic defect.

    That said, chances are high that any defects created will result in non-viable fetuses.

    Still, I put money on the CHinese doing this less because they think it’s ethical, and more because they don’t give a shit about ethics.

    1. Still, I put money on the CHinese doing this less because they think it’s ethical, and more because they don’t give a shit about ethics.

      Yup!

    2. chances are high that any defects created will result in non-viable fetuses

      Please read the Chris Gyngell and Julian Savulescu piece: the embryos never were viable, as they had three sets of chromosomes. The whole exercise was about testing the effectiveness and efficiency of CRISPR on the genomes of human embryos, not an attempt to create embryos for pregnancies to be carried to term.

      1. Oh, good point.

        I don’t see any ethical issues with experimenting on non-viable embryos, since they could never result in a human life anyway.

        1. neo & HM: You know who else pointed that out? Me. In the article. Enjoy your weekends folks!

          1. Our authors are getting rabid! What we need now is Welch snorting a few lines and posting overlong insensible sermons a la Cyborg and Dalmia finally slinging some mud and throwing a world-class shit-fit.

            1. Also, Hazel is Hazel. HM is Heroic. Although since we mostly don’t read the articles I guess it’s fair you mostly don’t read the comments.

          2. Too late for Hitler? I didn’t peek at your answer.

          3. I usually read every single word of Ronald Bailey’s articles. But in this case, I got lazy. I am sorry.

            *Hangs head in shame*

      2. not an attempt to create embryos for pregnancies to be carried to term

        Sure, but that’s the goal, right? Or at least it is safe to presume that is the goal?

        1. Not with this set of embryos. Once the technique perfected to the level of making only those changes in the DNA which are intended, of course the goal is to have children born with that ‘fixed’ DNA.

          1. Not with this set of embryos.

            Yes, I know that.

            of course the goal is to have children born with that ‘fixed’ DNA

            Exactly my point. Thanks.

  9. Their results are not promising judging from this article. Bringing up DNA repair mechanisms as an explanation for the non-target modifications doesn’t pass muster for me. That shouldn’t affect what CRISPR targets. They will need to target the CRISPR much more accurately than they do now. That might involve using modification RNA of much greater length. The other problem with CRISPR that I could see happening is changing hypermethylation and other epigenetic markers. This could have profound consequences like altering the cell type with the DNA being altered. This could lead to say liver tissue not being liver anymore. That would be bad, even without the possibility of cancer.

    1. This could lead to say liver tissue not being liver anymore. That would be bad, even without the possibility of cancer.

      Isn’t that pretty much what cancer is?

      1. No. Cancer cells are immortal, replicate more than they die, and metastasize. In the scenario I was outlining the liver cells change into say a precursor to liver cells, or a different cell type. No invasion of other tissues, but also no liver function. Bad.

    2. Well, if you’re doing it on 8-cell embryos there isn’t any liver tissue yet.

      1. I’m thinking ahead to in vivo use in adults, but you’re right. Embryonic stem cells are totally demethylated so I guess I needn’t worry about CRISPR-induced demethylation of non-target alterations either.

        1. I like to get all totally demethylated every night, but PLEASE do NOT tell the DEA!

      2. What are they, chopped liver?

  10. I’m thinking someone needs to mail this article to a bunch of “bio-ethicists”

    http://www.howtoflyahorse.com/…..d-in-days/

    1. Hi Rasilio,
      Nice link? What would Darwin think of us now, as we start to approach being able to re-design ourselves? What shall we call the new species? Homo Designed-Himself in Greek and Latin roots is, WTF?!?! ? It has been entirely too long since I was formally schooled? A Prof. of mine once tasked us with devising a new medical term (medicine, disease, operation, device) out of Greek and/or Latin roots. I came up with “Vagino-pseudo-dentectomy”, which is the removal of the old man’s false teeth from you-know-where, on his old lady!
      Anyway, “Homo Designed-Himself” is on his way, but WAY after we just simply fix diseases, first. Get your Latin and Greek disctionaries out, maybe you can be the first to compose a new name, which will stick way ahead of time! After that comes “Homo Designed-himself-to-Live-on-Mars”, then “?to live in the seas of Europa”, and “?to flit on quantum-mechanical oscillations in the interstellar clouds of gas”. After that, when this universe burns out, we will be so damned smart, we will create the next one, and supervise the youngsters therein, perhaps w/o even being detected by them? Hmmm?.

  11. No researcher has the moral warrant to flout the globally widespread policy agreement against altering the human germ line

    You have offended against the CONSENSUS!

  12. Science can never be used for evil so ethicists should just shut up.

    1. As a parent of a child with thalassemia, I would define “evil” as “attempting to blocking progress in therapies that could make my child well because of someone’s ‘yuck factor‘”

      Jus’ sayin’.

      1. I am not saying this kind of work shouldn’t be done.

        I do think it is perfectly fine and completely legitimate to discuss what bad things can be done with this kind of process were it ever perfected, as well as the good things, in addition to what ‘known unknowns’ might come of it.

        1. I agree that “jaw-jaw” is usually better than “war-war”, but when it comes to technology, biotechnology in particular, I agree with Max More’s criticisms of the precautionary principle. Indeed, such calls for “dialog” as a prerequisite before exploring a particular avenue of inquiry are most often merely delaying tactics as the intent is that the “dialog” shall be unending.

          Live limitless and adapt.

          1. I guess I am not being clear enough.

            I am perfectly fine with this kind of scientific work.

            I am perfectly fine with discussions, debates, and dialogue regarding all potential effects – good, bad and neutral.

            I am not perfectly fine with discussions, debates, and dialogue used as a tactic to delay said scientific work.

            Just don’t be surprised when something ‘unexpected’ happens that is ‘bad’, that’s all I’m saying.

  13. genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable….At this early stage, scientists should agree not to modify the DNA of human reproductive cells.”

    But if you don’t use current technology, how will you ever advance the technology? And this early stage?? Doesn’t starting something, anything, make it early stage, and how do you ever get to advanced stage if you never start? I think the idea that we can help people is great, and by blocking the means to do so, you would be very un-ethical.

    1. “You can’t expect an officer to be made an example for the rest. It’s unfair!” former APD officer Jeremy Dear’s attorney (paraphrased).

  14. Look, until all this bullshit can give me two fully functional wangs I’m not interested.

    Also I’d appreciate someone doing something about the aftermath of digestion. This having to shit all the time is really cramping my style.

    1. It’s inefficient. Instead of defecation, we should have total conversion of matter to energy.

      1. One of my dogs is a mastiff. Once a week I half-fill a full-sized kitchen garbage bag with his shit. I’d literally figuratively kill someone if they found a way to eliminate that.

        And when he gets diarrhea in the house…it takes a full roll of paper towels to clean up. Imagine that.

        1. We have five dogs, one of which is a 100 lb Lab, only two of which are “small”.

          We have to clean up a LOT of shit every week….

          Man, if I could just run my motorcycles with all that shit…

        2. Of course, with total conversion, your dog would have the energy of a small star.

          1. …which could then power Almanian!’s bikes.

            Provided they’re real bikes and not plastic Chinese TaoTaos.

            1. They’d better give us the matter-energy conversion guts first, so we can deal with the dogs.

        3. A small captive back hole in an anal suppository should do the trick just fine…

          1. Just so long as we get the conversion to energy. This isn’t just about waste disposal, man!

            1. OK, then, PL Sir, we can DO this! Between the Hawking radiation and the near-light-speed charged particles streaming north and south out of the black hole’s spin axis, from the relativistic effects, I am sure that I can capture enough spare energy from the waste products of Stupiddog the Baddod Beagle. We have gained her informed consent to the operation (we dipped her tail in ink, got her to wag enthusiastically as she snacked on Kosher bacon, and was offered more, and sure enough, she wagged, splattered, and signed). So tomorrow at oh-dark-thirty, the surgery commences in my garage? Stupiddog the Baddod Beagle-Cyborg is on her way! Leave me many waking hours to complete the delicate surgery. If you hear pained yelping from my garage, that makes you think of a poor doggy slowly having her guts swallowed by an out-of-control mini black hole, then PLEASE do not report me to the SPCA? That sound you’ll be hearing is actually her yelps of joy, as she realizes that she will never have to be spanked for pooping on our floor, ever again. It’s just that the (yelping) sound waves get distorted by the relativistic effects, see.
              – SQRLSY One, AV, AP, NP, SNFNECIC (Amateur Veterinarian, Astro-Physicist, Nuclear Physicist, and Strategic Nuclear Forces Nuke-Em Commando In Charge) ? “Peace is Our Profession; War is Just a Hobby”

  15. Also, perhaps they could use a strong influenze virus (Spanish Flu?) as a delivery vehicle for their genome-altering treatments. Use that one because it reproduces quickly in the body and is easy to spread. Then, alter the virus so that it does not cause bad things to happen in humans. Then accidentally release it on the public.

    If there’s anything that three decades of science fiction have taught me, it’s that the above scenario is fucking foolproof.

    1. Ah, Professor Snickerwackle and the Mystery of the Double-Dong Flu. A classic of its genre.

    2. Rise of the Planet of the Double-Dongs

      1. BTW you wound up being correct about the Canada Post. It took two weeks for a small box of Warhammer models to make it from B.C. to Texas. Fucking terrible.

        1. When are we going to get a decentralized mail service? Where the system just tells you where to bring the box and who to hand it to and what verification to get? UberMail would MURDER Canada Post and I would love every moment.

        2. What army did you say you play? Imperial Fists?

    3. They already made that movie, it’s called 28 Days Later. Or wait, no, it was called Resident Evil. Or…

      1. No, no – Bambi…it was Bambi. I’m pretty sure…

      2. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

      3. Or the Will Smith version of The Last man on Earth.

        1. Oh! There you went and conjured the Devil himself…..shit, shit, shit….

        2. Urge to kill…rising…

          1. One, chorus line of people, dancin’ till they make us stop…

            1. A Chorus Line II: Apocalypse Wow.

          2. What, like nobody ever made a shitty horror movie before?

  16. How many mistakes do you allow for in your “progress” before your methodology is no longer moral? Maybe Bailey should refrain frm describing this in absolute terms.

    Of course, Bailey is someone who thinks forcing vaccines on someone against their will is moral, so you have to take him with a grain of salt on ethics.

    1. How many mistakes do you allow for in your “progress” before your methodology is no longer moral?

      If people volunteer for the trials, then it’s really up to the researchers and what they can live with.

      If people didn’t volunteer, then zero.

      1. non-viable embryos aren’t people.

    2. Of course, Bailey is someone who thinks forcing vaccines on someone against their will is moral, so you have to take him with a grain of salt on ethics.

      Forcing vaccines on people via the government which literally gave people syphilis and subsequently misled other people about their receiving treatment for it. Really, the question between morally or intellectually bankrupt is up to the reader.

  17. You know who else sought ways to expand the propensity of certain genetic traits over others….

    1. Lysenko?

    2. Khan?

      1. Ghengis or Noonien Singh?

    3. Everyone who has ever had a baby that was their own, biologically?

    4. Magneto?

    5. The House of Habsburg?

    6. Jimmy the Greek?

  18. I consider humans as part of nature (like many others would agree). Given that, we have extraordinary abilities compared to other animals on the planet. We use antibiotics, perform surgeries, and all kinds of stuff to prolong the human existence and enhance the human experience. Understanding our genes through a process of trial and error where no cognitive living being is actually being harmed is not a problem to me.

    If people want to bitch about ethics, we all might as well give up all of our belongings and start living in the trees and caves. My point is that something can always be seen as ethically wrong by anyone with the ability to form an opinion.

    Our advancement in science and technology are just part of our evolution.

    1. If God didn’t want us to mess with our DNA, he wouldn’t have made us programmable.

      1. Agreed. If it can be described with math, we can fundamentally mess with it all we want!

        😀

    2. If people want to bitch about ethics, we all might as well give up all of our belongings and start living in the trees and caves. My point is that something can always be seen as ethically wrong by anyone with the ability to form an opinion.

      Yeah, we should drive the ethicists to the trees and caves. It will make them much easier to hunt for sport.

      1. Been thinking about buying a new recurve bow. Could be interesting sport.

  19. “The embryos were grown to the eight-cell stage, and none of them could ever have developed into babies. No germline cells with any potential to develop into people were modified.”

    Could you clarify? An embryo that can’t develop into a baby? WTF?

    1. Seriously, can someone help me out here?

      1. NGKC: As the article points out the embryos were double-fertilized, giving them three sets of chromosomes.

      2. Many human egg and sperm cells have extra chromosomes or missing chromosomes, which means if they are fertilized they will not develop to maturity. The embryo may die after a few days or a couple of weeks. There are some chromosomal duplications that can survive to maturity, notably the 21st chromosome, which is responsible for down syndrome, but usually it is fatal to the embryo.

        This is also the cause of most miscarriages – nothing wrong with the mother, just that the fetus wasn’t viable because of a chromosomal abnormality. If the fetus dies in the first trimester, it’s probably because of a chromosomal abnormality. A lot of stem cell research is conducted on non-viable embryos that are harvested from IVF clinics after genetic testing.

        In this case, it looks like the researchers deliberatly created non-viable embryos by injecting two sperm into the egg so that it would have three sets of every chromosome.

        1. If the fetus dies within the first trimester, it also could have been an intentional abortion.

  20. “The medical risks and social dangers of human germline modification cannot be overstated.”

    Yes they can. Social dangers is horseshit. The good Judge’s habit of rhetoric keeps popping into my head, “What if we *accidentally* engineered a race of biological super beings that wiped out the human race?” We can’t even *intentionally* kill off the flu and the gun has been far more effective at wiping out species intentionally than any more recent technology except maybe the bulldozer.

    I’d love to see the reality bending sci-fi that puts human germline modification anywhere near as dangerous as engineered viruses… and even they aren’t exceedingly scary. The social danger from germline modification is literally on the same level of worry as our impending robot overlords, IMO.

    It’s not even like living in 1905 and forecasting that the next century would have wars bigger than any imagined and tens of thousands of deaths annually from the risks and social dangers incurred from internal combustion engines. Because if you lived in 1905 and made those predictions, you’d have been right, you’d have no way to prove it and people would say you were nuts. This “technology”, today, you have even less clairvoyance than the nutjobs in 1905.

  21. “The Chinese scientists essentially ignored recent calls for a moratorium on editing human reproductive cells and embryos. ”

    I welcome our genetically enhanced Chinese overlords.

    1. Me to… Some huge segment of the rest of the world is too utterly cowardly to face the future square-on. The future belongs to those (like the Chinese) with the “cojones” that are needed to ignore the nannies and the ninnies, and march on!

  22. Gee what could possibly go wrong with Governments modifying the DNA of everybody but those in POWER?

    I mean all they have to so is figure out how to bred subservient people and all our problems will go away…

    1. So we shouldn’t develop new technologies because the government will co-opt them and put them to their own use? Like cell phones and the internet, right? Obviously, government abuse of power will be a danger as long as governments exist. What am I saying? Governments *are* an abuse of power.

    2. Gee what could possibly go wrong with Governments modifying the DNA of everybody but those in POWER?

      I mean all they have to so is figure out how to bred subservient people and all our problems will go away…

      Breeding a subservient race would take… ‘lots’ of generations and, considering you successfully bred the race into subservience, you seem to have had a pretty thorough grip on the reigns to begin with. The purpose of the genetic engineering technology is, pretty specifically, to render breeding obselete. Not to mention that there are already mechanisms for making people subservient without technology that doesn’t exist, a combination of personal ethical fortitude and intelligence has consistently overcome them.

      1. Socialism is alive and well. We’re nowhere near overcoming it.

    3. +1 Harkonen heart plug

  23. Gee what could possibly go wrong with Governments modifying the DNA of everybody but those in POWER?

    I mean all they have to so is figure out how to bred subservient people and all our problems will go away…

  24. Wonder how the gay folks are going to view this. As many of them are “progressive”, I would assume they would welcome this technology.

  25. Something about a monkey with four asses.

  26. my best friend’s aunt makes $85 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $18401 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  27. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  28. “Do we really want to have the power not just to select among the choices given to us by nature, but to create entirely new choices of our own specification?”

    My short answer: Yes.

    More to the point…
    First do no harm…

    Should we attempt gene alteration when there is a high likelihood of killing the patient of introducing even more serious defects than we are attempting to correct?

    My short answer: No!

    1. Yeah, that’s why you test on non-viable embryos. That way, you do no harm, and in fact, PREVENT harm by perfecting the technology in a controlled setting. I suspect most opponents to this approach just don’t like the idea of “playing god.”

  29. Can’t wait for the outcry when they are able to isolate, then eliminate the gay gene.

    1. That would destroy the sequin industry…

      1. But lots of folks could get back into the cake-baking industry w/o violating their free will and/or conscience! Jobs lost, jobs gained, hopefully a wash…

  30. my Aunty Brianna got a nice 6 month old Chevrolet Suburban SUV by working part-time from a laptop..
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  31. my Aunty Brianna got a nice 6 month old Chevrolet Suburban SUV by working part-time from a laptop..
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  32. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.