> They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many ethicists believe should never be taken.<p>In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for artificially selecting for them then there should be no ethical quandaries beyond "but, that's cheating!" There are no scorekeepers of the universe, nobody's going to give us karmic demerits for finding a shortcut. The only risks are scientific, like the obvious potential loss of diversity of the gene pool as we converge on certain universal traits.<p>From another perspective, what if we could identify genes which bring the value of a trait below the baseline? For example, imagine we could identify the gene which would cause someone's teeth to be so bad as to require braces to correct later in life, but it would still be a largely superficial genetic change largely related to "beauty". Should some people be made to suffer or "earn" straight teeth while others are born with it? Why should this be true of any traits?
With apologies for the somewhat flip turn of phrase, <i>if we outlaw human genome editing, then only outlaws will edit the human genome</i>.<p>States in general do not have a good track record at preventing things that can take place in a small room, with inexpensive equipment and few personnel.<p>Consider the kinds of equipment, and its associated cost, needed for genome editing -- and compare to that required for development of nuclear weapons. The collected might of the western world has occasional challenges in preventing development of nuclear weapons; it's not clear to me how anyone expects to be able to enforce a "ban" on editing the human genome. And for a glimpse of what an unenforceable ban looks like, look at the drug war.<p>The whole thing is empty posturing. Genome editing is coming, like it or not. Bans won't prevent it; they'll just prevent open discussion on how and where it's being used.
A tool so dangerous and powerful that scientists consider it worthy of banning is a tool that governments will continue to work on regardless of the general scientific community's feelings. So the only question remains is if we want this tool to be understood and used by all or only those in power.
I really think this is simply a tactic to consolidate market position, by creating a monopoly and artificial scarcity, by raising the barriers to entry on what is otherwise apparently not very defensible tech. "Don't use it until it's safe", is a fairly effective way to stave off competition in medical research and biology in many places. Added to this, is the idea of anticipating and smoothing any regulatory humps by gaining consensus before launch, allowing growth to be faster when it actually does launch.<p>These are both smooth moves if that's the intent, though I don't think it's sufficient if the tech is really so indefensible.<p>I think another important consideration is long-term branding. Because the tech is not defensible, there's going to be a whole bunch of competitors, so how can we differentiate ourselves? "We're the ones who did this safest, and we've been about safety from day one."<p>That's going to be a pretty compelling narrative for human gene therapy suppliers.<p>It's encouraging to see strategic smarts in science at an early stage in a bio venture that could end up having a very large impact on medicine. So that's really cool, my hat's off to them for these plays. I think the new biotech therapies will need huge monopolies with the resources and motivation to push with the highest standards. After all, for developing biotech, do you really want to be buying your medical future, from a garage startup? Or from a massive name?<p>So I think it's smart they're clothing themselves in the apparel of major names from day one: caution and safety. It's also exciting to think that right now could be the start of some huge biotech firms of the future, companies that will literally be 10x bigger than the energy companies of today.
I worked in a next-gen DNA sequencing lab (as a sysadmin), and learned a lot while I was there. One of the primary things I took away from it was that the human genome is it's various interactions with other organisms (microbiome) is incredibly complex and difficult to understand in an interrelated way. I would say don't ban it, but rather put regulations that require extremely extensive oversight and testing.<p>It's the same reason I criticize GMO products (worked with big agriculture geneticists before going into bioinformatics), namely that the testing periods are so short and lack oversight is so nonexistent that it is the unforeseen consequences that make me <i>very</i> wary of GMO foods.<p>We need to just be able to admit when a technology is very dangerous, and instead of hiding it away, open it up to as many eyes as possible, and fund the testing as much as possible. The key point for me though is the time factor. Testing over extended periods of time (1,5,10,20 years) is a must for such dangerous scientific advancements.<p>Luckily sequencing and modification are becoming cheaper and more reliable by the year, to the point that I am pretty sure that your local doctors office is going to have a sequencer before 2020.<p>I can't wait till my non-compete is up in a few months and I can get more involved.
The headline is misleading (NYTimes fault not OP's) the scientists are asking their fellow scientists not to use certain techniques on humans until the implications are more fully understood. Unfortunately that isn't quite as sensational of a headline.
There was a call around here to ban AI research too. Maybe the reason we don't do new things is that we are too afraid. I blame lazy and unimaginative sci-fi plots among other things.<p>Genetics could improve the inequality situation too, but that would require challenging elements of our economic system which is off the table.
I think it's strange how fear drives people to believe science fiction is real, but hope makes them laugh at the impossibility.<p>We're willing to ban a technology because we fear how it could be used? How is there no discussion about how this could aid the fight against cancer?<p>I doubt there are any actual scientist driving this ban (a phd in ethics doesn't make you a scientist in my book).
Banning these methods won't stop the wealthy from using them. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. GATTACA here we come.<p>edit: grammar
Humans modifying themselves is scary. Very scary.<p>One way it is scary is it creates a new form of genocide. Rather than murdering oppressed groups, we will simply disable the genes that make them part of that group, erasing diversity.<p>A world with only white, straight, cisgender, neurotypical, conventionally attractive etc. people is not one I want to live in.
Why is arbitrarily changing human genome something that biologist worry about, but changing the genome of other creatures and foods that are later consumed is not something that biologists worry about?
"Standard men and women; in uniform batches. The whole of a small factory staffed with the products of a single bokanovskified egg."<p>"..standard Gammas, unvarying Deltas, uniform Epsilons. Millions of identical twins. The principle of mass production at last applied to biology."<p><a href="http://www.huxley.net/bnw/" rel="nofollow">http://www.huxley.net/bnw/</a>
I'm not sure what the problem is. Can't they just be kept 50 metres apart to avoid cross pollination, the same as Monsanto's regulations to prevent cross pollination of their GM crops? :P
It seems this is a perfect example of a problem you don't want to spend too much time / energy trying to make sure other people don't do it. In my estimation you'd want to throw tons of money / resources at getting ahead of the issue to understand more about what's about to happen whether we like it or not.