29 ms·
It's a lot simpler than that: - it is immoral to genetically experiment on others (especially children) without their consent. - individuals should have the r
by cwkoss 4y ago
It's a lot simpler than that:
- it is immoral to genetically experiment on others (especially children) without their consent.
- individuals should have the right to attempt to genetically engineer themselves if they wish: if they understand and accept the risk society should not seek to stop them.
- giantg2 4y agoI might agree with that second one provided that germ line isn't affected. If it is, then their changes affect future generations. I'm also curious if there are any scenarios where this might be used on a host and an infectious agent is present in the host which shares the right cut point to create some unknown mutation. It's probably 1 in a million, if it's even possible. But it's interesting to think about.
- idiotsecant 4y agoIf you accept that damage to the future genetic health of your descendants due to an action you take is unacceptable do you agree that failing to remedy an obvious genetic flaw in yourself is equally unacceptable? Why or why not?
- giantg2 4y agoThis is a discussion about uneducated self-treatement. In such a case, I think it should be non-germ line. Correcting germ line issues could still be preformed by some trained person to avoid potentially making things worse.
- adolph 4y agoThe term often used for non-germ line is Somatic. Human mutations arise in two major settings: the germline and soma. Germline mutations occur in sperm, eggs, and their progenitor cells and are therefore heritable. Somatic mutations occur in other cell types and cannot be inherited by offspring. Somatic and germline mutations matter in health and disease. https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-020-3508-8 https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186...