3 ms·
It was not the same debate, because innoculation doesn't have as much capacity for far-reaching consequences. With regard to the notion of relying on the stabil
by vannevar 7y ago
It was not the same debate, because innoculation doesn't have as much capacity for far-reaching consequences. With regard to the notion of relying on the stability of a complex system, they tend to return to a quasi-equilibrium state, not necessarily the state they were in before being 'kicked'. And rate of change matters. Gene editing has the capacity to vastly accelerate the rate of mutation---indeed, that's it's purpose. And even if the overall nature of the genomic system remained recognizably mathematically the same, our experience of it in this accelerated state might be quite different.
- wahern 7y ago1) Inoculation resulted in known historical outbreaks that killed many people. 2) Vaccinations, not to mention treatments like antibiotics, have resulted in accelerated mutation of disease. It's a serious concern and a growing problem in ways both predicted and unpredicted. And, yes, these have occurred together. We can argue in circles all day, unless you can point out some novel effect, even hypothetical, that hasn't already been reported in the literature or debated to death. Arguing that it's "too dangerous" is fair. You just can't argue that reasonable people can't disagree on that score.
- baq 7y agowhat is this thread about again? last I checked if I get vaccinated or take some antibiotics this won't result in my children also getting them, and with gene editing that's a very likely possibility. the impact is on a wholly different level. e.g. can somebody get a patent on genes inserted into an embryo? what if the person born from this embryo then passes the gene? there's been rulings about GMO crops about these questions.