We already give our kids music lessons, braces, and tutoring. Why not also give them better genes?
Despite bioethical handwringing, they pose no special risks to future generations
A case of scientifically absurd regulatory hyper-precaution
Malthusian predictions of global famines keep receding.
The agency admits that its new bioengineered food regs are "not expected to have any benefits to human health or the environment."
Tune in and participate in Reason's livestream interview tonight.
The USDA just dumped Obama administration's proposed ridiculous biotech crop regulations; the FDA should quickly follow suit.
Because Congress requires the FDA to come up with a "frankenfish" labeling scheme
Anti-designer baby bioethicists call for "an immediate global ban."
On the other hand, Google's Verily is debugging Fresno.
An extraordinary new documentary on genetically modified foods, narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, pushes back against GMO fearmongering.
Will most babies be created using in vitro gametogenesis in 40 years?
Scientifically Absurd Proposed FDA Regulations on Genetically Improved Livestock Should Be Withdrawn Immediately
"If DNA is a drug, then all life on Earth is high."
Listen to my radio interview at AirTalk discussing the Luddite aspects of the new Pew poll
Moms: Get a clue-organic wines are carcinogens.
More, better, and safer food - but only if regulators will stay out of the way.
"We are now at the dawn of the gene-editing age."
Researchers will use CRISPR gene-editing technique to explore how human embryos develop.
Activists hope that consumers will misinterpret GMO ingredient taglines as "warning" labels
Preliminary forensic analysis suggests intentional data manipulation
DIY bio for the masses
A scitech research and policy round up for January 8, 2016
A scitech research and policy roundup
George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen suggests that it might be.
"If scientists can dream of a genetic manipulation, CRISPR can now make it happen"
Anticipating the amazing innovations made possible by CRISPR
Bioethicists are again trying to stand athwart progress, yelling stop
Is it immoral to slow progress toward curing diseases and creating more environmentally benign products?
So argues Eugene Volokh, albeit with a bit more subtlety.
Preempts costly state mandatory labeling laws
Or so some hyperventilating scaremongering nitwits would have you think.
Is life better than death; health better disease; wealth better than poverty? Opinions vary.
Is progress itself an ethical obligation? Opinions vary.
Permissionless innovation works best for both scientific and moral progress.
Naturally the usual bioluddites are eager to stop progress.