NIH Chief Francis Collins
“I do believe that humans are in a special way individuals and a species with a special relationship to God, and that requires of a great deal of humility about whether we are possessed of enough love and intelligence and wisdom to start manipulating our own species,” he said.
Don't ask my why the fuck he spoke exclusively with buzzfeed about this issue.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nidhisubbaraman/gene-editing-ethics?utm_term=.pjnb33MeY#.vs1wNNayX
This man is in charge of about 1/3rd of biomedical research funding in America.
Got to love "scientists"
>>8209588
Not sure why you're batiting with that silly sentence.
But, it doesn't really matter. China and UK are doing it, and if America wants to get left behind, then so be it.
>buzzfeed
>>8209748
This.
Fuck the US and its religious fundamentalism.
if you read the article you would see that he's against germline editing, not in vivo gene editing
and he's right, people have a right to be born without being genetically modified
>>8209783
>and he's right, people have a right to be born without being genetically modified
Why do they?
>>8209783
>people have a right to be born
So it's a prochoice issue I guess
>Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian"[citation needed] and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[63] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became a Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".[26]
>>8209783
>people have a right to be born without being genetically modified
according to???
>>8209788
because genetically modifying yourself should require your consent and unborn people can't consent
>>8209796
Unborn people aren't people until the genes create them.
>>8209796
You wouldn't be genetically modifying yourself; you'd be genetically modified prior to becoming a foetus or even a zygote in some cases.
>>8209783
>Boy I sure am glad my parents respected my right to be a grossly deformed, disabled genetic dud who will probably die before adulthood
Who am I quoting?
>>8209796
I'm really split on this issue. I believe that people should have a choice. But, I also believe that they shouldn't have to grow up with a x chance of having a y illness. If your child is born having cancer, and you had a chance of stopping that, by removing some genes, then aren't you by default guilty of killing your child?
>>8209803
>>8209799
>You wouldn't be genetically modifying yourself
>you'd be genetically modified
yes, you would be genetically modified, it doesn't matter if you've been conceived yet
your argument is entirely semantic
>>8209803
you could reasonably make an exception for treating diseases or preventing serious genetic defects
when it comes to more or less cosmetics, gene editing is more or les the same as circumcision, ie it should be banned
>>8209809
>walking
Clearly not who I was quoting.
>>8209812
>it doesn't matter if you've been conceived yet
Why?
>>8209816
because either you're not conceived, in which case it doesn't matter, or you are conceived, in which case you've been genetically tinkered with
>>8209572
>burgerland
no wonder
>>8209822
>In which case you've been genetically tinkered with
Why is that a problem?
>because you didn't get asked for consent
Why is that a problem?
>>8209828
>Why is that a problem?
I already said why, because it infringes upon your right to your own genome
ultimately if you want to genetically modify yourself for non-essential reasons, you should wait until you can consent to it
>>8209843
>your right to your own genome
Your right to a completely random (inb4 gene drive) process of genetic distribution?
You have the right to a lottery?
If we could remove maladaptive and deleterious genes from the genome, wouldn't we have an obligation to do so?
>>8209843
Your genome doesn't belong to you prior to you being conceived.
It's was created by your parents, and if they want to edit it before conception they can.
>>8209850
>Your right to a completely random (inb4 gene drive) process of genetic distribution?
yes
if you were an adult, would you consent to a doctor/your parents changing your genes however they saw fit? if not, why would you consent at any point before that?
>wouldn't we have an obligation to do so?
if it's essential for living/well being, otherwise no
>>8209861
>if not, why would you consent at any point before that?
Doesn't matter.
You don't get rights prior to conception. Even later in most non-retarded countries.
>>8209861
Ok, so for health and well being it's acceptable.
What about eye and hair colour?
>>8209864
>You don't get rights prior to conception
yes you do, what do you think the ban on germline editing is?
>>8209871
>yes you do
what is abortion for 100?
>>8209873
evidently different from gene editing
>>8209871
Are you seriously telling me you'd pass up the chance from evolving past a brainlet for some arbitrary moral reason?
>>8209906
No. He's already been born.
He's doesn't want OTHER people to be able to evolve past brainlet.
>>8209572
there are people in this thread who think there is any argument against extensively modifying the human genome to improve it and make objectively better people.
i have a hard time believing people can be so stupid
>>8209796
>because genetically modifying yourself should require your consent and unborn people can't consent
Being born should require your consent.
>>8209941
these retarded "ethics experts" will have control over the first AI to reach singularity. It will use their logic to never birth a new human being since it's not alive to consent. Then humanity will go extinct.
>>8209970
>implying these people would ever allow a sentient AI to exist
>>8209970
>AI
>singularity
Take it to /x/.
>>8209973
>implying you can halt technological progress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdAX0d0cDbM
>>8209932
There kinda is. I mean, we are circumcising small babies, without their consent. They grow up having dysfunctional genitals. Don't get me wrong, I believe that If we have the power to nip some illnesses in the bud, it is our duty to do it. Let's just not get fanatical about it. Religious people feel it's their duty to cut their children.
>>8209970
I know right, the same retards who wanted to ban clone research cause they are unethical while the key for a disease-free world and immortality is at hand
>>8210841
Not sure why you posted this there, but I don't condemn you for it.
>>8209851
normative statement.
