4 ms·

First firearms were rather primitive as well. The English famously kept on to bow and arrow until the 16th century or so. I am sure that complexity of genome a

First firearms were rather primitive as well. The English famously kept on to bow and arrow until the 16th century or so. I am sure that complexity of genome and epigenome is huge and that we are just at the beginning of the journey. But unlike Lysenkoism, I believe that the underlying principles are sound. But I disagree with the idea that you can easily measure value of science by its costs, especially short term. Look no further than Katalin Kariko, one of the most important people in mRNA. They demoted her at UPenn in 1997 because they considered her research not valuable... and yes, it actually took 20 years for it to bear fruit.

woodruffw 4y ago
> But unlike Lysenkoism, I believe that the underlying principles are sound. Is this an expert opinion, or a lay opinion? Eugenics is one of those fields where there’s a split distribution: experts are generally less confident in the scientific value of eugenics research than the public is. No domain is infallible, and science is by its nature unsettleable. But the fact that a particular academic department was unfair to a particular academic is not especially strong evidence that the scientific community is wrong, as a whole, about eugenics.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  One of the problem is the constant use of the word "eugenics". Whatever will emerge as a result of current and future biological research, is not going to resemble old school eugenics from times when even the DNA wasn't understood. You have a lot of results that are used in practice already today. Embryos in IVF are genetically screened to weed out serious issues, and so are often developing foetuses in natural pregnancies. Certain countries have genetic counseling to reduce frequency of locally important diseases such as Tay-Sachs. Aren't these methods of preventing human suffering valuable?

woodruffw 4y ago

> But unlike Lysenkoism, I believe that the underlying principles are sound. Is this an expert opinion, or a lay opinion? Eugenics is one of those fields where there’s a split distribution: experts are generally less confident in the scientific value of eugenics research than the public is. No domain is infallible, and science is by its nature unsettleable. But the fact that a particular academic department was unfair to a particular academic is not especially strong evidence that the scientific community is wrong, as a whole, about eugenics.

inglor_cz 4y ago
One of the problem is the constant use of the word "eugenics". Whatever will emerge as a result of current and future biological research, is not going to resemble old school eugenics from times when even the DNA wasn't understood. You have a lot of results that are used in practice already today. Embryos in IVF are genetically screened to weed out serious issues, and so are often developing foetuses in natural pregnancies. Certain countries have genetic counseling to reduce frequency of locally important diseases such as Tay-Sachs. Aren't these methods of preventing human suffering valuable?