4 ms·

None of those seem to affect anyone else, so as long as the person experimenting on themselves is of sound mind I don't see the problem.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Exactly. As long as your experiments cannot modify the germline, knock yourself out with CRISPR self-experimentation (as long as you're comfortable with the possible consequences).
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  Absolutely not. It only takes one idiot to fuck up their body horrifically for the technology to get banned for all the non-idiots.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    You can’t ban something I can perform in my garage (not effectively at least) with a few thousand dollars in supplies.
    - jeffshek 7y ago
      Sure they can. They banned explosives (which I agree with) and you can probably do that with a few hundred dollars.
      - swiley 7y ago
        Sure they’re banned but it’s not particularly hard for amateurs to manufacture after some careful reading, The situation is similar to bans on cryptography IMO.
        oarabbus_ 7y ago
        > The situation is similar to bans on cryptography IMO. No offense, but a misleading and inaccurate analogy. It's much closer to bans on chemical precursors of drugs like MDMA or LSD. Those chemical precursors have many legitimate uses, but since some people use them to make illegal drugs, normal citizens cannot acquire them easily, or without breaking the law.
        swiley 7y ago
        I don't see how that's different. Again you can manufacture those precursors after careful reading (that's the fundamental idea behind organic synthesis.)
    - tempestn 7y ago
      They can ban the actual effective research and use cases though.
dv_dt 7y ago
Not seeming to affect anyone else seems like an insufficient condition. It should be predictably not going to affect anyone else with high reliability - and I strongly suspect this was not the case.
- hnick 7y ago
  It can also affect people indirectly, which leads to the same reasons we have laws requiring seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Not everyone wants to see someone die in a horrible way and have to clean up the mess.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Exactly. As long as your experiments cannot modify the germline, knock yourself out with CRISPR self-experimentation (as long as you're comfortable with the possible consequences).

oarabbus_ 7y ago
Absolutely not. It only takes one idiot to fuck up their body horrifically for the technology to get banned for all the non-idiots.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  You can’t ban something I can perform in my garage (not effectively at least) with a few thousand dollars in supplies.
  - jeffshek 7y ago
    Sure they can. They banned explosives (which I agree with) and you can probably do that with a few hundred dollars.
    - swiley 7y ago
      Sure they’re banned but it’s not particularly hard for amateurs to manufacture after some careful reading, The situation is similar to bans on cryptography IMO.
      - oarabbus_ 7y ago
        > The situation is similar to bans on cryptography IMO. No offense, but a misleading and inaccurate analogy. It's much closer to bans on chemical precursors of drugs like MDMA or LSD. Those chemical precursors have many legitimate uses, but since some people use them to make illegal drugs, normal citizens cannot acquire them easily, or without breaking the law.
        swiley 7y ago
        I don't see how that's different. Again you can manufacture those precursors after careful reading (that's the fundamental idea behind organic synthesis.)
  - tempestn 7y ago
    They can ban the actual effective research and use cases though.

dv_dt 7y ago

Not seeming to affect anyone else seems like an insufficient condition. It should be predictably not going to affect anyone else with high reliability - and I strongly suspect this was not the case.

hnick 7y ago
It can also affect people indirectly, which leads to the same reasons we have laws requiring seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Not everyone wants to see someone die in a horrible way and have to clean up the mess.