Yeah, but is there say... Scientific consensus that "safer" for the procedure is safer for the species? I mean, we don't really have a predefined goal, right? A

Yeah, but is there say... Scientific consensus that "safer" for the procedure is safer for the species? I mean, we don't really have a predefined goal, right? And I'd posit we're increasingly distancing ourselves from any consensus there - which to a large extent is how the domain of knowledge is circumscribed. The powers disbursing research funding want results that would ostensibly yield benefit in some system in some formulaic calculation as to where we should be going - but the human species is so far away from consensus on that. For instance lot of contemporary issues can be tracked back to the effects of population and the infrastructure and logistics necessary to maintain it. Suddenly economists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, demographers, et cetera... There's suddenly manifold complications once you stop looking at it in a vacuum and under a microscope, and thus consensus ceases. Importantly, we must consider the resolution at which policy is informed by inputs from these various intersecting fields and what should be given precedence and also important is the practicality and the means of application. Most importantly of all, I think, is that autonomy be granted to individuals and communities to conduct the experiments of life as this forwards the goal of truthseeking rather plainly. And with that the flow of ideas and experience.