MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Cheap Fast Powerful Gene-Editing Will Soon Change the World

Bioethicists are again trying to stand athwart progress, yelling stop

CRISPREditingthinklearnlive"The end of life as we know it." That's how the cover of Wired characterized CRISPR, the fantastically versatile and cheap new gene-editing technology. CRISPR works in bacteria as a kind of immune system that identifies and cuts up viral DNA when it tries to invade them. Researchers have now adapted it to edit genes and genomes virtually at will.

CRISPR can be used to edit crops and food animal genomes to improve their productivity and pest resistance. It can modify people's immune systems, letting them kill off cancer cells. It can construct micro-organisms that secrete carbon-neutral fuels. And it could let us curate wild environments by editing mosquitoes so that they cannot transmit disease and by causing invasive species to breed themselves into extinction. Two weeks ago, researchers at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts announced that they had developed an even simpler and more precise version of CRISPR.

The Wired piece promised that CRISPR will usher in a world where there is "no hunger, no pollution, no disease." Sounds perfectly terrible, doesn't it?

Critics worry that CRISPR will be used create "designer babies." In March, eighteen prominent scientists and bioethicists published an open letter in Science urging researchers to refrain for now from using CRISPR to modify human genomes. Nevertheless, Chinese scientists published research the next month in which they detailed their experiments using CRISPR to genetically modify triploid human embryos. (Such embryos could never have become babies.)

Now a British research group has applied for a license from the U.K.'s Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority to use CRISPR to edit genes in human embryos. The leftwing bioconservative Center for Genetics and Society quickly condemned this proposal, calling it "a troubling and provocative move." In December the National Academy of Sciences will be convening a summit on human gene editing, especially addressing concerns about using CRISPR to make genetic changes that can be passed along to descendants. And in a new article for EMBO Reports, a group of bioethicists warns that there is "no time to waste" to confront "the ethical challenges created by CRISPR."

CRISPR does indeed pose ethical challenges. But these bioethicists oddly think that the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and similar bureaucracies are somehow qualified to resolve them. These agencies are so in thrall to the precautionary principle that they can barely bring themselves to approve any new technologies at all. For example, the FDA has refused to approve (or reject) salmon genetically enhanced to grow fast, fish its own scientists say are safe to eat and safe for the environment. No regulators anywhere have yet approved any genetically modified animals for human consumption.

Let's take a quick look at some of the risks that these bioethicists want to regulate. What about modifying heritable traits in the human genome—that is, creating "designer babies"? One common objection is that changing the genes in a human embryo is unethical because the fetus can't give its permission. Of course, not one person has ever given his or her permission to be born, much less to be born with genes that they bear. Designer babies are in exactly the same moral relation to the parents creating them as anyone else is. As the Oxford bioethicist Julian Savulescu has sensibly pointed out, failing to employ genetic engineering can "make a future child worse off than he or she would otherwise have been. Failing to develop and use genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR harms future children."

What about curating the wild? A gene drive works by making sure that both copies of a targeted natural gene in any sexually reproducing species are replaced with the engineered version. Thus researchers could genetically engineer mosquitoes to be immune to the malaria parasite; restore the effectiveness of a pesticide by eliminating resistance genes in weeds and insect pests; or alter genomes in a pesky invasive species so that it produces only males, thus causing it to go extinct. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, have already used CRISPR to create gene drives in fruit flies as a proof of concept.

The EMBO Reports writers specifically cite the risks of releasing a gene drive that might cause the extinction of a mosquito species. Yet as the Harvard biologist George Church observed in New Scientist, even if a disease-carrying mosquito species did go extinct, "it's unlikely that it is going to kill any other animal. And every year we hesitate, 600,000 people die of malaria unnecessarily and another couple of million get sick and miss days at work. That's a pretty big price to pay."

The EMBO bioethicists also argue that there are several technologies that researchers and developers should adopt as part of any use of gene drives. For example, genetically modified creatures should be genetically tagged so that their spread in the wild can be tracked and, if something does go wrong, the creators can be held accountable. In addition, researchers should create gene drives that can reverse the effects of already released ones if it turns out to be desirable. Those are all sensible suggestions.

Too bad they aren't willing to stop there. Instead, the usual horde of would-be regulators is trying to stand athwart progress, yelling stop. The concept of permissionless innovation—the freedom to explore new technologies or entrepreneurial opportunities without seeking prior approval—is entirely alien to them. The more the precautionists manage to slow progress, the more people will continue to unnecessarily suffer from disease, debility, and death.

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.

  • Restoras||

    We offered the world order!

  • ||

    We?

  • Charles Easterly||

    You got sumpin' against Crisper Babies, Epi?

  • Michael Price||

    Of course not, he hates eating them soggy.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Restoras fled. Why? Was he afraid?

  • ||

    Excellent. Excellent.

  • Restoras||

    No, I grew fatigued and retired to my quarters with the technical manuals of reason.com/blog...

  • Suicidy||

    KHAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Restoras||

    And every year we hesitate, 600,000 people die of malaria unnecessarily and another couple of million get sick and miss days at work

    If only their was an insecticide that could kill mosquitoes...

  • Sevo||

    That wasn't illegal...

  • LynchPin1477||

    I am seeing what you are doing here.

  • ||

    But DDT is only a temporary measure. Eventually species develop immunity.

  • Sevo||

    So we only save several million people?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Not several million, several tens of millions. But yeah, fuck them, it is only temporary, like here in the US, malaria outbreaks all the time.

  • ||

    DDT hasn't killed mosquitos in decades. All of the mosquitos that were going to be killed by it were dead by the late 70s. Now it's used only as repellent, mostly in India (where it was never banned).

  • Illocust||

    It's like antibiotics. If you half ass the treatment the surviving population gets a chance to develop an immunity. If you put the pressure on full scale and don't let up, whatever surviving population is left will be small enough that other factors can wipe them out before they rebound.

    Now, I'm not sure if its possible to actually treat the USA with DDT. There is a lot of standing water in backwoods and such which would have to be identified and sprayed. You can't ignore the forest dwelling population or they will get an immunity.

  • Zeb||

    As much as I would like summers without mosquitoes, I'm not sure killing all mosquitoes would be desirable even if possible. A lot of things eat them. And in the US, we seem to have been able to get rid of malaria without eliminating all mosquitoes.

  • Illocust||

    Malaria isn't the only thing carried by mosquitos. West Nile is the other big one I can think of right off the top of my head. A lot of things do survive off mosquitos, many bird and bats mostly. Killing off the mosquito population would be devastating to them for a while, and some would probably go extinct. In the end, though, there are other bugs, and the populations would find another equilibrium. Plus, as much as I like birds. I easily consider a 1,000 bird lives for 1 human life a fair trade.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'd wager a command ecology would work as well as a command economy.

  • Illocust||

    If you're defining command ecology as any time humans change the environment around them by eliminating hostile species, then you are completely wrong. My local ecology is way better for me with all the big local large predator and herbivore species cordoned off or driven to extinction. There are going to be downsides, yes. It will drive several pretty things extinct, more than likely. It will change population sizes all around, yes. The benefits are worth it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Big local large predators? Do you live in Zimbabwe?

  • Zeb||

    Wolves and mountain lions, I guess. But they were never going to live in cities and were mostly a threat to livestock.

  • Illocust||

    I've lived out in the local country as well as the city, so yeah. Without driving them out they would have been a threat.

  • Florida Man||

    We had Panthers, now they are only in the Everglades. I often dream of breeding a super predator to release in urban areas, for the lulz.

  • Zeb||

    There have been some credible sightings of cougars/pumas/mountain lions/panthers/whatever you want to call them near where I live. I'm not too worried.

  • Zeb||

    The seen and the unseen.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If you're defining command ecology as any time humans change the environment around them by eliminating hostile species, then you are completely wrong.

    Well, good thing I'm not!

  • Illocust||

    So how are you defining it, because all I've suggested is the elimination of a species. I've given some theories for how it's elimination will shake out, but theories on what will happen isn't the same as directing what will happen (I can't even imagine how you would try to control all the populations that partially rely on mosquitos for sustenance).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    theories on what will happen isn't the same as directing what will happen

    Correct.

    Which is the whole point really.

  • ||

    I'd wager a command ecology would work as well as a command economy.

    ^This^

    The 2A guarantees my right to genetically-enhanced mosquitoes and poison ivy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That raises an interesting point, mad c. Do bioweapons count as "arms"?

  • Zunalter||

    I easily consider a 1,000 bird lives for 1 human life a fair trade.

    I like Buffalo Wild Wings too...

  • LynchPin1477||

    Apparently you have to eliminate the malaria-carrying mosquitoes long enough for the malaria-carrying humans to be cured or die. The mosquitoes pick it up from humans. But after that you can have mosquitoes with no malaria.

  • ||

    A simpler solution would be to target the malaria directly.

  • ||

    "A simpler solution would be to target the malaria directly."

    Yeah simpler...

    Has never worked but sure it is simpler.

    Lets abandon the "complex" solution for 40 years letting millions die then when people start asking to use the old "complex" solution which worked spectacularly deny it as complex and propose a "simple" solution that is undeveloped and only vaguely in your head about how to do it.

  • Zeb||

    I was wondering about exactly how that worked.

  • Number.6||

    What we need is common sense parasite control.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    That is pretty fucking funny.

  • Michael Price||

    You don't need to eliminate them, just reduce their numbers to the point where the average number of new infections from any infected person drops below 1.

    So for instance say that there are 1000 malaria infected people in an area. They get bitten by say 20 mosquitoes each in the period where the disease can spread. Those mosquitoes bite an average of 0.1 people for 2 infections per previously infected people. So the next 'generation' has 2000 infected, then 4,000 etc. This stops when many people have already developed some immunity, reduciing infections. Now let's drop the mosquito population to 1/4 of it's usual level. The original 1,000 sufferes get bit by 8 mosquitos, these bite 0.1 people each for 0.8 new infection per old one. So the next "gneration" has 800 sufferers, then 640 etc. The disease dies out progressively.

  • Michael Price||

    You don't need to eliminate them, just reduce their numbers to the point where the average number of new infections from any infected person drops below 1.

    So for instance say that there are 1000 malaria infected people in an area. They get bitten by say 20 mosquitoes each in the period where the disease can spread. Those mosquitoes bite an average of 0.1 people for 2 infections per previously infected people. So the next 'generation' has 2000 infected, then 4,000 etc. This stops when many people have already developed some immunity, reduciing infections. Now let's drop the mosquito population to 1/4 of it's usual level. The original 1,000 sufferes get bit by 8 mosquitos, these bite 0.1 people each for 0.8 new infection per old one. So the next "gneration" has 800 sufferers, then 640 etc. The disease dies out progressively.

  • Michael Price||

    You don't need to eliminate them, just reduce their numbers to the point where the average number of new infections from any infected person drops below 1.

    So for instance say that there are 1000 malaria infected people in an area. They get bitten by say 20 mosquitoes each in the period where the disease can spread. Those mosquitoes bite an average of 0.1 people for 2 infections per previously infected people. So the next 'generation' has 2000 infected, then 4,000 etc. This stops when many people have already developed some immunity, reduciing infections. Now let's drop the mosquito population to 1/4 of it's usual level. The original 1,000 sufferes get bit by 8 mosquitos, these bite 0.1 people each for 0.8 new infection per old one. So the next "gneration" has 800 sufferers, then 640 etc. The disease dies out progressively.

  • ||

    ^This. The larvae are eaten by many food fishes.

  • ||

    Prey determine predator populations not the other way around genius.

  • kbolino||

    Prey determine predator populations

    That was his point, genius.

  • Zeb||

    As usual, Corning brings valuable insights to the table.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Half of all the people who have ever lived on Earth died of malaria.

    Let's take the risk the food chain will reshuffle, okay?

  • Suicidy||

    We need to apply that kind of thinking to the progressive population.

  • ||

    "Eventually species develop immunity."

    Funny how that didn't happen where Malaria was eradicated.

  • ||

    Also funny how there are 100s of pesticides for all sorts of things where target species develop immunity yet those products are still used and are not banned,

  • Marshall Gill||

    Because this supposed immunity is a crock of shit? Did humans develop an immunity to mustard gas after WWI? Is smoking no longer dangerous if our parents and grandparents smoked? A couple of generations of asbestos exposure and I can breath the fibers?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Bzzzt wrong. Immunity to DDT is/was a real thing. Many rats are immune to rat poison. Comparing these to mustard gas and smoking is stupid.

  • ||

    ^ This.

    YOU can't breathe asbestos and expect to develop an immunity, but if we all huffed asbestos all day long for decades such that all of those who were susceptible would die off, then yes, (the remaining) humans would become immune to asbestos-related health problems.

    This is *exactly* what has happened with mosquitos and DDT.

  • ||

    It's the same thing going on with the liquid flea/tick killers you squirt on your pet's back.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes it did. DDT resistance was a real problem.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I read somewhere that the 'immunity' that anti-DDT activists speak of is at least partly a disinclination to be exposed to it, so that 'immune' mosquitoes stay away from homes treated with DDT. A small amount of DDT painted on the wlls of a house will make it safe to sleep in, which is the primary issue with the spread of malaria.

    Ecological activists, being for the most part white europeans who don't live in mosquito infested jungles, see no need to change the ban.

    Goddamned racist swine.

  • ||

    DDT has never been banned for purposes of malaria abatement, anywhere, ever. It's only ever been banned as an agricultural pesticide. And it was already losing its effectiveness when it was banned.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Bullshit. The US government exerts all kinds of pressure om third world countries that use DDT for any purpose.

  • ||

    Like which ones, exactly? A lot of them use it even now.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Circle demoted to Triangle.

  • ||

    Here's a good starting place. There's even a section on "Restrictions on Usage:"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

  • Zeb||

    The GM mosquitoes seem like a better idea for several reasons. While the benefits of DDT may make the dangers acceptable, it's still not without it's downsides and toxic effects on non-targeted creatures. If genetic engineering allows specific species to be narrowly targeted, that would be huge.

  • Restoras||

    I don't disagree. It's an interesting idea I just groan when I hear someone complain about the millions of malaria deaths over the past, what, 40 years since DDT was banned, when there isn't anything wrong with DDT to begin with.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Which is key. DDT doesn't have any dangerous side effects, that was all bullshit. It isn't even dangerous to the precious fucking fish eagle. It was all a lie created by anti-human "environmentalists".

  • Cytotoxic||

    No DDT did probably cause thinning of egg shells that was real. The supposed DDT link to cancer was not.

  • Woodys mom||

    ^ This.

  • toolkien||

    I find mosquitoes as cute as polar bears, so all this blase discussion of slaughtering them offends me.

    The banning of DDT was more likely due to wanting to keep the dusky hued population down than anything else. Let the mosquitoes help keep the surplus population down.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Unfortunately DDT does seem to cause egg problems for many birds. The good news is that you only need a tiny amount of DDT applied around your mud hut or whatever to get them to die or buzz off.

  • Ivan Pike||

    CRISPR can be used to edit crops and food animal genomes to improve their productivity and pest resistance.

    Caribou the size of moose. Awesome.

    salmon genetically enhanced to grow fast, fish its own scientists say are safe to eat and safe for the environment.

    Excellent, how do they taste?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I suspect food preferences will change as the food itself changes.

    How many people would like the taste of pork or beef or chicken that was raised 150 years ago?

  • Illocust||

    Apparently the free roaming stuff does taste better, but most people don't long for it because it's just not a regular part of our diets. We're adaptable like that.

  • ||

    Uncaged poultry does have more texture, not tougher, just more texture.

  • Charles Easterly||

    I was surprised to notice a bit of a difference. I haven't tasted pork from un-caged animals but I hear the taste and texture is markedly different (in a very noticeable and positive way).

  • ||

    For me it was not surprising at all having grown up in a rural area and having eaten many animals with whom I had known when they were alive.

  • ||

    Strike "with." Had been going in a slightly different direction wtih that sentence and decided to streamline it.

  • Zeb||

    Pork from pigs with more exercise is hugely better.

    And eggs and meat from poultry that gets outside and eats bugs and stuff is a lot more flavorful.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Yep. Chickens are supposed to forage, not eat grain. You can immediately tell by looking at the yolk.

  • Zeb||

    I'm always a little puzzled when some brand of "organic" "free range" eggs advertises and all vegetarian diet for their birds as if chickens eating grain is the ideal situation.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I think "all vegetarian diet" is consumer code for "this chicken is not a cannibal".

  • ||

    Yeah. "No mad chicken disease here."

  • Zeb||

    Is that a thing?

  • ||

    Yeah. "No mad chicken disease here."

    My understanding, using the word generously, wasn't strictly mad cow per se, but that a chicken pumped full of hormones and antibiotics to fight infection wasn't feeding on the carcasses waste product of its fellow hormone-riddled birds thereby increasing it's chances of infection and increasing the dose of medications delivered.

  • ||

    Yes, but that generally means grain-fed.

    What PM is referring to is the practice of adding ground up chicken (etc) byproducts (not sure if right word, but bones and scraps) to poultry (etc) feed.

  • ||

    Also, I think that "cannibalism" renders the chickens un-kosher since I think there's a biblical prohibition against eating the meat of carnivores (functionally defined, not taxonomically defined).

  • Ivan Pike||

    What PM is referring to is the practice of adding ground up chicken (etc) byproducts (not sure if right word, but bones and scraps) to poultry (etc) feed.

    Gross, which is why I don't any factory farmed foods.

  • Ivan Pike||

    *eat*

  • LynchPin1477||

    Probably depends on the person. Tastes are subjective and some people won't like the stronger flavor.

  • ||

    It's a texture difference with poultry. The flavor difference mainly comes from the animal's diet.

  • Ivan Pike||

    Apparently the free roaming stuff does taste better, but most people don't long for it because it's just not a regular part of our diets. We're adaptable like that.

    I was speaking mostly about those who hunt and fish for subsistence. The salmon over the last several decades have been getting smaller, so anything that would increase their size would be great. Same with caribou.

  • Foo_dd||

    beef would be the biggest difference. i don't think they were big on feed lots back then (where you fatten the cow up to twice it's normal weight, so there is more fat marbling the meat, and more to sell)

  • Zeb||

    Well, no one knows what those things tasted like 150 years ago.

  • Number.6||

    I've eaten wild, 'free range' and 'somewhat-factory-farmed' venison. I think the biggest difference was due to what the animals ate.

    The 'somewhat factory farmed' was on cut grass, 'clean carbs' like rye, etc. It was very bland compared with the free range, although I noted little difference in the texture of the meat.

  • Zeb||

    For game, it's probably mostly the diet. For livestock, I'm sure the genetics have changed a lot too over 150 years.

  • ||

    Meh. Just as there are heirloom varieties of tomatoes, etc, there are also heirloom strains of poultry.

  • ||

    Factory farmed, as used by animal welfare people, generally means raised indoors, often confined/caged/penned. The lack of the mobility makes the meat flabby and characterless.

  • Restoras||

    Maybe we could get Warty to write a squat program for them?

  • Swiss Servator||

    How about Chicken Deadlifting?

  • Restoras||

    There has to be a Gary Larson cartoon in there somewhere

  • ThomasD||

    I'm pretty sure it would have died, and decayed to dust by now.

  • Leigh||

    Ewww, that has to be some pretty rancid meat.

  • LynchPin1477||

    We just had a conversation at lunch about what new technology will really be revolutionary.

    In addition to the most obvious (sexbots), I suggested medical advances, especially in genetic therapies.

    Stop hiding in the bushes and stealing my ideas Bailey!!

  • Illocust||

    If they figure out how to eliminate mosquitoes I will personally donate to help have them released in Africa and Latin America. Some tin pot dictator will be more than happy to take credit for saving hundreds of thousands of people's lives, and they won't give a shit about the species that rely on mosquitoes for sustenance (I'm pretty sure bats would be hurt, but there are other bugs. The species would just shrink in population).
    Once released we'll have our case study and possibly it might spread far enough we'll see the benefits. Fuck the bioethicist.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm hoping they can get rid of kudzu and sumac.

  • Citizen X||

    Nothing can get rid of kudzu. When the sun goes into its final red giant expansion phase in five billion years, the Earth will be a crispy ball of semimolten rock with kudzu growing all over it.

  • Illocust||

    I'm thinking plants will be harder to spread diversity through than animals and bugs. They live so long, and they can get pollinated by something that isn't even close to them geographically.

  • Citizen X||

    On the other hand, eating kudzu cures hangovers (in guinea pigs, at least), so maybe we should hold off on trying to eradicate it.

  • DenverJ||

    The best way to cure a hangover is just not to sober up.

  • ||

    This neatly coincides with the Buffalo Theory.

  • ||

    Poison Sumac, presumably. Fun fact - sumac (the non-poisonous variety) is used as a flavoring herb in some cuisines, notably Iranian.

  • Christophe||

    It's delicious with eggs.

  • Juan Segway, Sidewalk Avenger||

    Muthafeck. i need to go back to school and get my masters.

    I knew, KNEW a degree in Genetics would be worthwhile. Just wish I hadn't thrown up my hands after I got my BS.

  • commodious spittoon||

    A degree in genetics might even secure you a spot on the orbital liferaft when the big bad begins raining down on old mother earth.

  • Citizen X||

    +7 Eves

  • Drake||

    - Hard Rain

  • kinnath||

    So does this mean we'll get an abundance of red-haired girls with narrow waists and big tits?

  • ||

    I'm intrigued by your ideas. Do you have some sort of online blog I could read?

  • ||

    You...are?

  • ||

    LOL, Nikki. Well, not for that specific application (girls), but I imagine that the technology could also produce something more to our tastes.

  • Illocust||

    I wouldn't be surprised if a rebound in the redhead population occurs because of this. Most people who marry redheads like red hair and most people with red hair like red hair. It's just a current sad reality that you currently need two people with redhead genes to get a redhead. I could see a lot of parents being willing to tweak their kids hair color to red in a way I couldn't see them doing for most appearance based genetics.

  • Rhywun||

    If only gingers didn't have that disgusting skin condition.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    freckles or eczema?

  • Illocust||

    Eczema is correlated with red hair? Are you sure?

  • Restoras||

    I though eczema was correlated with being bitchy.

  • Rhywun||

    My mom was one giant freckle with flesh spots. Thank god she didn't pass that shit to me - well, not the extreme version anyway.

  • Illocust||

    Freckles are the bomb, so Nyah :P

  • Zeb||

    I've heard that the warnings about red hair dying out were not really legitimate.

    Trouble with red hair is that it often also comes with downsides, so I think it might be a wash.

  • Number.6||

    You mean the tantrums and batshit freaky-wild makeup sex?

    Not sure that's necessarily a downside.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    What about the biting and scratching?

  • Number.6||

    I've found that's a pretty universal characteristic in my experience. maybe I'm the cause of that.

    Either way, that's what bacitracin and field dressings are for.

  • Restoras||

    I had a girlfriend recently that liked to bite during sex. I liked it.

  • Citizen X||

    Uh... dude, when people talk about dating "cougars," they don't mean actual pumas.

  • Florida Man||

    I like to bite girls pinky toes off and spit them in their face. Unfortunately you can only do this once, twice if you're lucky.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Maybe try taking smaller bites.

  • Zeb||

    There is also the sensitivity to UV light and attendant higher melanoma risk.

  • kinnath||

    We can fix that at the same time.

  • Number.6||

    That's why Warty keeps 'em in the basement.

  • Illocust||

    Who goes outside these days? No worries about UV from computer screens.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    "Who goes outside these days? "

    Anyone who has the slightest concern for their long term mental health. That's who.

  • Illocust||

    Playa, I'm joking.

  • ||

  • ||

    Thank you.

  • ||

    Someone had to say it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Thank you.

  • Illocust||

    Okay, Old Man With Candy. You're going to have to specify which part you're calling me out on.

    If you are trying to say that red heads aren't going to go extinct, you would be correct.
    If you are trying to say that red heads genes aren't going to decrease as a proportion of the genetic population, you are probably also correct.
    If you are trying to say that red heads aren't going to decrease as a proportion of the population, you are probably wrong.

    I'll give you an example to explain why. I've got red hair. If I breed with someone who isn't carrying a recessive red hair gene our children won't have red hair. The proportion of red heads in the population of our family will go down. The proportion of red hair genes will stay the same, though, as each child will get the recessive gene from me.

  • ||

    If you are trying to say that red heads aren't going to go extinct, you would be correct.
    If you are trying to say that red heads genes aren't going to decrease as a proportion of the genetic population, you are probably also correct.
    If you are trying to say that red heads aren't going to decrease as a proportion of the population, you are probably wrong.

    Yes.
    Yes.
    No.
    Before making silly pronouncements about genetics, take a course or at least read a decent text. And work through the problems.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    She clearly didn't read your link.

  • ||

    That's kind of her thing.

  • ||

    Or read it and didn't work through the basic math to understand the concept of phenotypic equilibrium.

  • Riven||

    Maybe she only read the majority of the article--like 28% of it?

  • ||

    Are you confusing "the population" with "my family"? You realize that other people outside your family, who do not have red hair, could have kids who did?

  • Illocust||

    Demonstrating with a small population size to make a point about a bigger population. Because red hair is recessive you can have people that carry the gene without actually having red hair. This means that sometimes you'll end up with two non-red heads having a red haired child, but it also means if one partner does not have the recessive gene you can't have a red haired child.

    Red hair genes started in this country fairly concentrated in the Irish immigrant population. As we interbreed with the US population as a whole, though, we're ending up with less people with red hair and more people who are carrying recessive red hair gene but don't have red hair. The genetics are still going to be there, but the number of people with red hair is going to go down. Make sense?

  • ||

    I guess it might make sense in some other version of reality, where there were no people who already had a recessive gene for red hair but did not express the gene as red hair.

    But since those people exist, and in all sorts of ethnic groups, no, it does not.

  • Illocust||

    Concentrations Nikki, the concentration of the red hair gene in the Irish immigration population was extremely high. This upped the probability of them having red hair. The concentration of the red hair gene in general American population was very low. The odds of me marrying and mating with someone with the recessive red hair gene are going to be lower as I pick from the population as a whole, than for my fresh off the boat ancestor who mostly picked from other Irish immigrants.

  • ||

    Does the word "equilibrium" have a meaning to you?

  • Illocust||

    Yep, and we haven't reached it yet. Right now we are still in the process of dispersing the red heads to the rest of the population.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "we haven't reached it yet."

    Pretty sure we have.

  • Illocust||

    Pretty sure we haven't. Redheads make up only 2 to 6 percent of the US population. If we made up only 2 percent of the population at the start of the big red head immigration it would take 7 generations for the genes to fully disperse. Assuming things like marrying within ones own community didn't exist and that everyone is just as likely to mate with everyone else.
    Now there has been seven generation since my family immigrated, but we breed extremely fast and are not a model for the rest of the nation.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So all phenotypes are dispersed perfectly uniformly across the planet? Interesting.

  • Illocust||

    Nope, they aren't dispersed evenly. That why when you introduce two populations and one has a dominant gene and the other has a recessive gene the expression of the recessive gene is going to get rarer. It'll reach an equilibrium at some point, but that takes many generations (especially when you add in human artificial barriers to breeding) and the expression of the recessive gene is going to be less than it was when you started.

  • ||

    I sooooo badly want to play strip poker with you. Young redhead who doesn't understand probability. Perfect.

  • Illocust||

    I need a teaspoon of vanilla to make a batch of cookies. I pour the entire teaspoon onto one cookie. Proportion of vanilla to cookies on the sheet is the same as if mixed the vanilla evenly with all the cookies. Concentration can be just as important as population.

  • ||

    Get back to me when your cookies start breeding.

  • Illocust||

    Proportion not population.

  • ||

    Get back to me when you have a better analogy. "Inapt" is far too mild of a term. Can anyone (nikki?) suggest a stronger one?

  • Riven||

    I don't even know why y'all are bothering.

  • ||

    If the proportion of red hair genes stays the same, the proportion of people expressing the gene stays the same. Just because you have a kid who doesn't hit the 25% chance for the red hair isn't surprising, seeing as its a one in four chance. But 25% of people with the two recessives, overall, will express red hair.

    I suggest a basic course/book in Mendelian inheritance. It would do you a world of good.

  • Illocust||

    This would only be true if the gene was originally evenly dispersed in the population. The gene was not though. It was originally heavily concentrated in one section of the population. As the gene disperses through the population as a whole the proportion is going to stay the same, but the odds of two people with the gene meeting and mating are going to go down.

    Introduce one white guy to a population of 30 black folks. Come back in ten generations. The proportion of people expressing the white gene (yes, I know there isn't a 'white' gene) are going to have gone down, but the proportion of people carrying the white gene will probably be about the same.

  • ||

    As the gene disperses through the population as a whole the proportion is going to stay the same, but the odds of two people with the gene meeting and mating are going to go down.

    Illocust, you're at once saying that more people are carrying the gene and that the odds of any two given people having it will decrease.

  • Illocust||

    You have a mosh pit. Left side of the room is in red shirts. Right side of the room is in blue shirts. They start doing their thing. In the beginning the odds of you bumping into somebody with the same color shirt as you are high. Two hours later the odds are much lower. Proportion hasn't changed, but concentration has. Make sense?

  • ||

    Within your analogy, the concentration hasn't changed. There are the same number of red shirts and blue shirts in the mosh pit at the end as there were in the beginning.

  • Illocust||

    Doesn't matter. The point of that analogy was to demonstrate concentrations, and how concentrations can affect the likelihood of something happening.

    Redheads started heavily concentrated in one area. Their odds of breeding with eachother or someone with a recessive gene was very high. Now days that's not so much the case. We've dispersed. Our odds of breeding with someone with red hair or a recessive gene has gone down. The amount of people with recessive genes is going to go up, but the amount of people that have both the recessive genes necessary to result in red hair is going to go down.

    We're only two percent of the population (six percent if your generous). The odds are way against it, but it is physically possible for every person with the red hair recessive gene in the united states to breed with someone who doesn't have it. Thus the proportion of the new generation with the red hair recessive gene would go up, but the proportion of the new generation with red hair would drop to zero. See how that works?

  • ||

    You should take Epi's advice. But don't tell him, it'll go to his head.

  • Illocust||

    Epi's under the impression that if I have two recessive genes and my mate doesn't our children have a 25% chance of having two recessive genes. It doesn't work that way though. Both me and my mate (in the case of hair) are donating one gene, so our child has a 100% chance of having one recessive gene and one non-recessive gene. If my mate had one recessive gene our child would have a 50% chance of one recessive gene and one dominant and a 50% chance of two recessive genes. If we both had one recessive gene and one dominant, our children would have a 50% chance of having one recessive gene and one dominant a 25% chance of having two dominant genes and a 25% chance of having two recessive genes.

  • Illocust||

    If you still don't understand I suggest ya'll read Mendelian inheritance ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance ). Specifically check out figure one, and note how if someone with two recessive genes like myself mates with some with two dominant genes we CANNOT have a child that displays the recessive trait short of a mutation in their genetics. Note furthermore that in the third generation the proportion of the population who expresses the recessive gene has decreased but the proportion of the population with the recessive gene has increased.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Now that the allele is more or less in WH Equilibrium, there is no way the proportion of redheads decreases.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And why OMWC should read his own links.

    that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow

    Not to mention confusing alleles with phenotype.

  • ||

    Gene flow reaches equilibrium.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Good choice avoiding the second point.

  • ||

    Because it's irrelevant.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Red heads are not a phenotype? Wow, teach me more!

  • ||

    Reading, how does that work?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Why don't you demonstrate?

  • Woodys mom||

    3 out of 6 red-head daughters baby!

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    not if the bioethicists have their way. the penalty for their crime should be death.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I've been noticing a gradual trend toward a biocentric recompilation of ethics, with less William Jennings Bryan and more Nathaniel Branden and Tara Smith in the mix. There was a time when simply inquiring into the subject sufficed to get one's entire family cast out of the Garden with a 4X4 vorpal sword aimed at sensitive regions.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't get the love for red-heads. They aren't particularly hot, and they all but fall apart after 40 probably due to their lack of either melanin or a soul.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No soul? Are you SURE you aren't talking about Democrats?

  • Suicidy||

    I advocate an abundance of red-haired girls with narrow waists and big tits. Like Karen Gillan, with double DD's.

  • DenverJ||

    I second the motion

  • Rhywun||

    I shudder to think how Warty's designer babies will turn out.

  • Citizen X||

    You're familiar with the works of Lovecraft and Giger, correct?

  • Riven||

    Intimately, I'm sure.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Or the Kennedy clan?

  • ||

    None of Warty's spawn have yet survived through the larval stage. He tends to eat them when he gets bored.

  • Citizen X||

    Their consciousnesses survive in the simulation spaces of his mind, however, experiencing and re-experiencing every possible ending that their lives could have had. When he does eventually give them new forms, they're gonna be pissed.

  • ||

    "It's forever in there. There being Warty's glans and foreskin."

  • Citizen X||

    "My God! It's full of stars!"

  • Restoras||

    Monolithic, indeed....

  • lap83||

  • ||

    Seems right to me.

  • ||

    Chinese scientists published research the next month in which they detailed their experiments using CRISPR to genetically modify triploid human embryos. (Such embryos could never have become babies.)

    Question for the fetus fanciers here: Do you think that triploid and other polyploid embryos count as having that magical Human DNA(tm)? Show your work.

  • Christophe||

    You think that's a stumper? 10 generations from now, we'll probably have some serious genetic drift due to editing. "Not your father's humans".

  • ThomasD||

    If it isn't human DNA exactly where did they get it from?

  • ||

    I am/was on board with criticizing the precautionary principle as the bludgeoning tool of spineless bureaucrats but, anymore, the criticism of the precautionary principle is becoming the bludgeoning tool of hyper-optimistic zealots to bludgeon anyone who doesn't share their optimism.

    I can't wait until those bioethicists let up on the ebryonic stem cell research and that technology can save us all too!

  • Citizen X||

    Ebonic stem cells? Racist!

  • Restoras||

    Do you want ebonics to be the next dead language?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I don't think I ever said DNA was magical. In fact I've stated my dissatisfaction with a definition of rights that is based only on DNA.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Meant for Tonio

  • ||

    Yeah, I got that. Nobody has actually said it was magical. I was taunting, and using a bit of exaggeration for comedic effect. Sacred would have been moar on-target.

    But every time I've challenged a fetus fancier to define Human DNA I've been told to consult "any biology textbook." Done that. Not there. Plus, the person using a term in debate has the duty to constructively define it.

  • Zeb||

    Some do seem to think that "it has human DNA" is a winning argument against abortion all by itself, though.

  • ||

    Which was my point, Zeb. They repeat that phrase like a charm or incantation, and refuse to say what the actually mean. Typical responses: Look in any biology text. You know what we mean. The DNA which humans have.

  • ThomasD||

    While it is possible that some reduce the argument to that simplism, I don't think that is what most who express the argument intend.

    The distinction is that you have an organism that is genetically distinct from the mother, which also happens to be a genetically human organism to boot.

  • Zeb||

    Sure. But everyone knows that already. Presenting it as a slam dunk argument against abortion is extremely silly and doesn't address at all the reasons why most people find abortion morally acceptable or tolerable.

  • ThomasD||

    1. Don't be so sure. I know plenty of people who still do not understand what DNA is or how it functions.

    2. No single argument is going to address "all" the reasons why some people find morally acceptable or tolerable (opinion polls clearly showing that most - as in a bare majority - do not.) It is an argument offered to refute the - otherwise scientifically specious, but often offered by the ostensibly "pro science" crowd - argument that a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells" or no different than an organ or other tissue within the mother.

    The fact is that plenty of people persist in denying the essential humanity and the separate biological identity of the fetus. Often because they are not comfortable with the required corollary of denying personhood or rights to that entity. They'd rather unscientifically dismiss it as something less than human. Which the DNA argument clearly refutes. Ignoring that is silly.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Th' Pope iv Rome issued a Bull declarin' thit evr'thin Richard Dawkins iver wrote is "Science Fiction." An' it's a durn sight better'n Ursula 'n thet Cthulthu feller both put t'gither iver writ.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is an argument on firmer footing than "we can kill this class of human organism with impunity because...reasons."

    It is amazing the extent to which the side whose argument is a conclusion desperately searching for a rationalization nitpicks the other side's points.

  • ThomasD||

    You know who else didn't let ethical concerns get in the way of progress?

  • Restoras||

    Your mom?

  • Citizen X||

    Restoras's mom?

  • Restoras||

    I love it. Never get's old.

  • ||

    Unlike your mom?

  • Citizen X||

    She prefers to call herself "experienced."

  • Charles Easterly||

    Gabriel Shear?

  • Number.6||

    Me?

  • ||

    Werner von Braun?

  • Woodys mom||

    Khan?

  • DenverJ||

    Lewis and Clark?

  • ||

    Obama?

  • Aresen||

    I can hardly wait until this development gets to stage 10 and the enviros start demanding that everyone be given free gene therapy as a 'basic human right'.

  • ||

    [golf clap]

  • Citizen X||

    Everyone will be required to self-modify so as to obtain at least 80% of their energy through photosynthesis, in order to cut down on the clearing of forests for farmland! Plus, we'll all be named Beverly.

  • Suicidy||

    As long as the photosynthetic process allows me to develop a wid variety of super powers, like Suprman, I'm all for it.

  • Florida Man||

    I want gills. I'm tired of gators lording their advantage in the water over me.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Your gators have gills?

  • ||

    It's Florida, man.

  • Florida Man||

    They don't, but if I do, now who's the most dangerous animal in the swamp?!?
    *punches inflatable alligator*

  • Number.6||

    "Hold my beer. Now, watch this!"

  • Restoras||

    That should be the Florida State Motto.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Wings for me. I want to be able to fly. Superman style would be even better.

  • GamerFromJump||

    You'd also need gravity modification to make them practical.

  • Riven||

    Have you not seen what happened to Costner in Water World, FM?

    They branded (not literally) him as a "Muto!!" and then they were going to take his dirt.

  • Florida Man||

    I like that movie and don't care who knows it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    With that kind of taste in movies you truly are Florida Man.

  • Riven||

    Want to know a secret?

    I also love that movie, and if I was going to pick something... I'd pick gills, too.

  • ||

    Fuck gills. You know what I want? The ability to function normally with just 10 minutes of sleep a day.

  • Riven||

    But I like sleeping... :(

  • Restoras||

    As long as I can be a Dunedain I'm good with anything else - but especially more narrow waisted, slender, b-cup red heads.

  • sarcasmic||

    but especially more narrow waisted, slender, b-cup red heads.

    Google Shaun Tia.

  • Restoras||

    Thank you for reminding me her name. I had forgotten it...*hangs head in shame and embarrassment*

  • John Montone||

    "The more the precautionists manage to slow progress, the more people will continue to unnecessarily suffer from disease, debility, and death."

    - b/c the only reason scientists study the human genome is to cure disease, debility, and death? C'mon dude this is an embarrassing argument

  • sarcasmic||

    You sure put that straw man in its place! Yowzah!

  • FreeRadical*||

    I'm actually a bit worried about this stuff. Not that I want the State to do its kill-off-any-new-idea thing.

    But, it seems like several invasive species problems were caused by humans introducing a species into an environment that lacked the limiting factors that were present in the species' original range.

    This was the case with the infamous kudzu mentioned upthread. Also, the Chinese tallow trees that most people hate in the Houston area were brought in from elsewhere. I know there are other examples.

    I think it's really hard to understand the secondary or tertiary effects of sudden large changes in populations of animals. This has to be done very carefully.

  • Restoras||

    I thought of the invasive species issue also, with respect to this, but I think in the case of many invasive species the local ecology hasn't had time to create an offset, and that's the kind of thing that could take a long time to find an equilibrium, I imagine.

  • LynchPin1477||

    As mentioned up thread, I hate kudzu (for aesthetic reasons).

    But I can still say that balance of nature (as it seems to be commonly used) is a myth. Nature is dynamic for a whole host of reasons. Human activity is one of them. The idea that we should try to return some romanticized (and largely nonexistent) "natural state" sans human influence *and keep it that way* is not just impractical -- it's fundamentally flawed.

    And it doesn't matter how careful we are. I'm sure all the central planners that have wrecked economies thought they were being careful. There is a parallel there.

    We need to accept that human activity will continue to have unforeseen effects on the rest of the world, just as the activity of everything else has unforeseen effects on the world. Genetic modification will be no different.

    So the goal shouldn't be stasis or recreating the Garden of Eden. It should be adaptation to the situation at hand.

  • Restoras||

    Well said, LynchPin

  • Number.6||

    But, until then, we'll introduce leafcutter ant-giraffe hybrids, that can eat 8 times their mass in kudzu, every 24 hours.

    They do establish colonies, but we're not quite sure yet how large those colonies might be.

  • ||

    It should be adaptation to the situation at hand.

    Realistically, with an eye towards unintended consequences.

    The more the precautionists manage to slow progress, the more people will continue to unnecessarily suffer from disease, debility, and death.

    Not that the precautionists/obstructionists are right, but this is a classic of libertarian ethos; I'm not responsible for others suffering of disease, debility, and death but once I intervene, fail or succeed (debatably), I am.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Sure. I don't mean to deny science. Not at all (it's what I do for a living). And we have learned things, and we can mitigate risks, and we should.

    But we are never going to eliminate risk 100%. We can't let that stop us from trying to make things better, else we'll stagnate technologically, culturally, individually, etc.

    Really, we should work on trying to be robust against risk, not on getting rid of it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Shhhhh! Don't we hear enough from them on every radio, teevee, birdcage liner and corporate magazine?

  • FreeRadical*||

    LynchPin, I agree that natural systems are dynamic and constantly changing.

    I've worked on dynamic models of airplanes in flight. One of the most dramatic stimuli you can introduce is the "step function" which is an instantaneous change in the environment or the airplane itself. Ideally, dynamic systems respond by starting oscillations that dampen over time, but in some cases the oscillations diverge and you get wings falling off.

    I think some of the things we're talking about are step functions. For all intents and purposes, they are instantaneous changes imposed on a dynamic biological system. When evolutionary biologists talk of "sudden" change, this is not what they are talking about. Step functions rarely (if ever) occur in nature.

    Biospheres are incredibly complex and I think we cannot predict the kinds of oscillations that will occur in response to a step input. This article was talking about fundamentally changing an entire species and setting it loose in the environment. This is a much bigger step input into the system than has been done so far.

    And I agree with your concern about central planners fucking things up. Killing off entire species sure seems like central planning to me. I can see governments suddenly taking a shine to this and deciding that they can make the environment "just right" for their citizens. I predict wild oscillations, overshoot, correction, correction again, too much damping, correction again, ad infinitum.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Exactly my point upthread.

  • FreeRadical*||

    "Command ecology" has a nice ring to it.

  • Tsubaki||

    Now we just have to keep it out of government hands.

  • Christophe||

    Thankfully the traits the state wants to encourage are mostly mental, and are likely the hardest to develop gene editing for.

  • ||

    Just what the hell would be wrong with designer babies? If this technique was ready what would be wrong with ensuring that my future children didn't have the males in my families tendency for degenerated disc? What would be wrong with making sure they don't have crappy vision like everyone in my family? What would be wrong with making sure they don't inherit my wifes families type II diabetes? Ass clowns!!!

  • Suicidy||

    And you can guarantee they won't be gay, or trannies, or pedos too. So no more gay, transsexual, pedo, Down's babies.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sounds good to me. Parents should only get what they want as long as they are not inflicting a disability on their offspring.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Sad to say, I read a DECADE or 2 or more ago (in a mainstream mag like I wanna say “Newsweek” or some such) about parents being thinking about “hey kid of mine, do NOT take your corrective psycho-active drug to act less retarded in school, go the FULL RETARDED mode (minus your meds) so that we can have you DECLARED DEFECTIVE so that we can stack up some more “Social Security Defective” checks in your name”! Yes! With-hold the meds for your child, so that you can collect Social Security “Disability” for our child!!! I kid you not!
    So… Crystal ball, do not fail me now… In a future era, I see more of the same… Weak prognostication, yes I do admit…
    STRONG prediction: in the future, bio-hackers on the back streets will bio-engineer our offspring for us (for a few dollars, while they hide their signature trade-marks, bio-hacker-wise) so that we can STACK UP A FEW HUNDRED basket cases of full-retards in our basement, and collect disability for ALL of them!

  • ThomasD||

    Progress seems all well and good, until you're the one chained to the rock and your liver is ripped out daily for eagle chow.

  • jmg09||

    They're going to create a super-villain!

    KHAN!!!!!!!!!

  • DJ1706||

    The same left-wing bioethicists who argue for infanticide and free markets in fetal tissues have a problem with "designer babies"?

  • GamerFromJump||

    What kind of fucked-up mental process does it take to consider abortion or infanticide of "defectives" the BETTER alternative to, you know, FIXING the problem?

    But, you know, they're totes not death-worshipping Luddites, nope.

  • Nosea||

    Critics worry that CRISPR will be used create "designer babies." Who seriously believes we won't?
    Perhaps not in our grandchildren's lifetime, but somewhere down the road we will. All you have to do is look at the cosmetic surgery stats and the sperm adoption banks. People have a strong desire
    to choose their imagery and biological traits. Keep your eyes peeled at an exclusive clinic in...Korea.
    Start saving your money now.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Ye-Ha, bring it on!

    I have seen no posts here whining and pants-pissing and pearl-clutching about the whole deal... What are y'all, a bunch of pro-technology libertarians, or something?

    WHERE do I go to fight a commentary war over this, WHERE do I go and piss off the Bible-Bangers and their Left-Luddite allies over this whole deal?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Shhhhh! Don't we hear enough from them on every radio, teevee, birdcage liner and corporate magazine?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The article misses the point a lttle. A world without food or fuel shortages is a world in which those who thirst desperately for power over others have lost two of their most potent choke-points. The ones smart enough to recognize the risk much be frantic.

  • biljay||

    Since gene engineering will increase life spans, thus likely increasing the population, maybe gene engineering can create miniature people. If humans were half their current size, a 1000 square foot house would be equivalent to a 2000 sq ft for the smaller person.

  • biljay||

    Ask someone who is dying of cancer if they think it would be permissible to find a cure for cancer by genetic engineering. The answer will be an emphatic yes.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    If I ever have a son, I'll make him into an Aryan Ubermensch that way.

  • Chrxtoph3r||

    GREAT! So, when a nation decides to develop a short life-span mosquito, modified to deliver biological agents that it normally could not transmit, and release them into a target area, they will have created the perfect, disposable, delivery system.

    so, let's all just assume that no one is going to do something so horrible to another group of people.

  • JPyrate||

  • Eman||

    who the hell thinks life is so perfect as it is that this could possibly be bad?

  • Arthur45||

    New technology frightens the civilian morons.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I can already hear the shrieks. Looters will, I'll wager, want the Political State to strike down with bullets anyone presuming to "Play God" inasmuch as God and Eugenics are Right-Wing (but being forced to get a marriage license and not marry kinfolk isn't). Others with more sense will dread being invaded by SWAT teams alleging patent infringement because some bee smuggled modified pollen onto the property. Satan-scolding fanatics, oversensitive to the obvious similarities between their approaches and those of German Nationalsocialism are certain to loudly come up with "reasons" to ban this just as they have "reasons" to ban birth-control, family planning and copping a buzz. Then again, maybe everything has changed--but I am willing to lay odds nonetheless.

  • pronomian||

    Can't wait to see what happens when people "design" the gay out babies.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online