3 ms·
This perspective is interesting: "Many ethicists have accepted the idea of gene therapy, changes that die with the patient, but draw a clear line at altering t
by Folcon 12y ago
This perspective is interesting:
"Many ethicists have accepted the idea of gene therapy, changes that die with the patient, but draw a clear line at altering the germline, since these will extend to future generations."
Doesn't this imply that ethically you can alter your own geneline as long as from that point on you cannot have progeny?
- themartorana 12y agoIt's a weird situation. Why wouldn't I want to edit out BRCA1/2 for myself and my downline? Who gets to say that my progeny have to live with the significant risk of dying from breast cancer? That's why this is so touchy. Who gets to draw these lines, and why? Bans on anything are rarely helpful.
- throwawayaway 12y ago> Bans on anything are rarely helpful. ban on theft seems to be working out pretty good here, thanks.
- pharke 12y agoThe intellectual property debate would beg to differ.
- throwawayaway 12y agoI think you are doing both sides of the intellectual property debate a disservice by calling it theft, don't you? copyright infringement = theft? sure, industrial espionage is theft, but that's not what you are talking about. EDIT: this is probably the best essay I've read on it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoWhat germline? The next generation is going to design their children too. This is an oxymoron.