first genetically modified baby born in China Watch

Poll: Do you support genetically modified babies?
Yes (5)
22.73%
No (17)
77.27%
nonotyoutoo
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...aims-scientist

Do you support the scientist who did or not?

No he didn't apply for "ethical approval" and he just did it. But I think that's brilliant because we need more people like him to push the boundaries of science. Lack of human experimentation is holding back progress.

One of the largest jumps in human biomedical understanding came from Nazi scientists experimenting on Jews. The data was invaluable and we all benefited from it.

----

edit: one day, I hope genetic editing at birth won't merely be "acceptable", it will be unacceptable not to as other parents shudder in disgust that some other parents would let chance dictate the maximum potential of their offspring instead of making sure before they are born. governments too, i hope would frown upon randomly born babies because genetically edited babies less susceptible to disease, more productive etc, better for society and everyone.
Last edited by nonotyoutoo; 7 months ago
0
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 months ago
#2
absolutely

this is an amazing scientific breakthrough
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 months ago
#3
(Original post by nonotyoutoo)
One of the largest jumps in human biomedical understanding came from Nazi scientists experimenting on Jews. The data was invaluable and we all benefited from it.
They should hire you as a PR person, honestly, I think you'd nail the job
1
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#4
Report 7 months ago
#4
... Did you miss the whole human rights thing? Like how we shouldn’t kill people? Or be Nazis? Or experiment on people without their consent? Or do human experiments without approval and prior review?
Last edited by NYU℠; 7 months ago
1
reply
adam277
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 months ago
#5
It's IN very early stages so I support it at the moment.
But caution needs to be taken.

I think there is a good sci-fi movie that relates to this a lot Gattaca (1997)

Basically it shows that the richest in society can have genetic superbabies that have so many more advantages over the people born from poor families that can't afford to remove defective genes. So you get a societal division of genetic superhumans and the average human based on wealth alone.
OR something like that it's been a few years since I've seen that movie.
1
reply
nonotyoutoo
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#6
(Original post by NYU℠)
... Did you miss the whole human rights thing? Like how we shouldn’t kill people? Or be Nazis? Or experiment on people without their consent? Or do human experiments without approval and prior review?
I don't believe in universal human rights. There exists nothing in nature such that it accords rights to a particular kind of ape.

What we do have is a convention of a bill of rights that is ratified by various nation states, should they wish. There is no such a thing as a "right" across every nation state or culture.

I actually believe more people should be killed. Bring back capital execution and harvest the organs or experiment on the condemned. They can chose to consent, or die early.

Otherwise, I do believe people should be given the right to consent and be adequately compensated.

As for human experimentation , ethical approval are man made shackles to progress. Science must be bold.

Clearly our views are on opposite ends of the soecfrum.
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 months ago
#7
(Original post by nonotyoutoo)
One of the largest jumps in human biomedical understanding came from Nazi scientists experimenting on Jews. The data was invaluable and we all benefited from it.
That is not the most persuasive possible argument for your position.
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 months ago
#8
(Original post by NYU℠)
... Did you miss the whole human rights thing? Like how we shouldn’t kill people? Or be Nazis? Or experiment on people without their consent? Or do human experiments without approval and prior review?
The last one isn't like the others. Why do the approvers occupy any superior moral position to the experimenter? Obviously it should be illegal for scientists to murder or commit battery but that is true of non-scientists as well. Why should ordinarily legal actions be subject to professional ethicists? Is "professional ethicist" actually a valid category?
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#9
Report 7 months ago
#9
(Original post by jackcade)
The last one isn't like the others. Why do the approvers occupy any superior moral position to the experimenter? Obviously it should be illegal for scientists to murder or commit battery but that is true of non-scientists as well. Why should ordinarily legal actions be subject to professional ethicists? Is "professional ethicist" actually a valid category?
Well, first your argument is incorrect in that attributes to me a metaethical belief which I may or may not hold. Don’t attribute strawman arguments to people.

(1) I could hold the opinion that “professional ethicist” is a ‘valid category’ (whatever you mean by that), and is more likely to come to the right answer; (2) I might believe in some form of deliberative process; (3) I might believe in the bias of the experimenter and believe that an non-interested party should be doing the review; (4) I might believe in some form of majoritarianism — thus, a single person, on their own, is incapable of making such a determination; and so on.
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 months ago
#10
(Original post by NYU℠)
Well, first your argument is incorrect in that attributes to me a metaethical belief which I may or may not hold. Don’t attribute strawman arguments to people.

(1) I could hold the opinion that “professional ethicist” is a ‘valid category’ (whatever you mean by that), and is more likely to come to the right answer; (2) I might believe in some form of deliberative process; (3) I might believe in the bias of the experimenter and believe that an non-interested party should be doing the review; (4) I might believe in some form of majoritarianism — thus, a single person, on their own, is incapable of making such a determination; and so on.
Your post strongly implied that you supported a system of review of human experiments. Perhaps you do not. OK.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 months ago
#11
Not a fan - its a pandoras box.

I fear a good-willed but naive scientist will open the door hoping only to ensure every baby is born without desease, but then the implications of the technology and the possibilities of desiging babies would warp and be taken advantage of, and not be a good thing for humanity as a whole.
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#12
Report 7 months ago
#12
(Original post by nonotyoutoo)
I don't believe in universal human rights. There exists nothing in nature such that it accords rights to a particular kind of ape.

What we do have is a convention of a bill of rights that is ratified by various nation states, should they wish. There is no such a thing as a "right" across every nation state or culture.

I actually believe more people should be killed. Bring back capital execution and harvest the organs or experiment on the condemned. They can chose to consent, or die early.

Otherwise, I do believe people should be given the right to consent and be adequately compensated.

As for human experimentation , ethical approval are man made shackles to progress. Science must be bold.

As for Nazis. They're only bad because they lost. Of they'd won, the ideology would be the dominant and no one would think its bad

Clearly our views are on opposite ends of the soecfrum.
(1) There are, in fact, universal legal rights. Even if a nation did not want to adopt such basic human rights, such human rights form jus cogens international law — genocide, slavery, torture, and crimes against humanity are all jus cogens and apply regardless of the consent of the State.

(2) I think when your argument involves “the Nazis weren’t so bad” you’ve already lost.
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#13
Report 7 months ago
#13
(Original post by jackcade)
Your post strongly implied that you supported a system of review of human experiments. Perhaps you do not. OK.
Indeed I do support such a system — but your rebuttal rested on attributions of certain metaethical propositions which I have not disoclosed; and for that reason, your argument was incorrect and fallacious.

You need go before a review board for a number of procedures in medicine, especially experimental ones; you need approval to conduct research if you’re e.g. a psychologists and want to run experiments. All of this requires panel review and approval.
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 months ago
#14
(Original post by NYU℠)
Indeed I do support such a system — but your rebuttal rested on attributions of certain metaethical propositions which I have not disoclosed; and for that reason, your argument was incorrect and fallacious.

You need go before a review board for a number of procedures in medicine, especially experimental ones; you need approval to conduct research if you’re e.g. a psychologists and want to run experiments. All of this requires panel review and approval.
All of that is true. And yet I do not need approval to dump my girlfriend.
0
reply
adam277
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 months ago
#15
(Original post by NYU℠)
(2) I think when your argument involves “the Nazis weren’t so bad” you’ve already lost.
I'm massively ignorant on the history of Nazism but a blind man could see that there is definitely a 'winning' side view of history prevalent about the Nazis.in all schools. I don't want to expand on this too much as I suspect that I've already dug myself a big hole but it's not all black and white.
Sun Tzu "Know the enemy and know yourself."
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#16
Report 7 months ago
#16
(Original post by jackcade)
All of that is true. And yet I do not need approval to dump my girlfriend.
Last I checked dumping your girlfriend is not the same as performing human experiments, especially without the consent of the subject. So, your ‘arguments’ here seem to be very misguided.
1
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#17
Report 7 months ago
#17
(Original post by adam277)
I'm massively ignorant on the history of Nazism but a blind man could see that there is definitely a 'winning' side view of history prevalent about the Nazis.in all schools. I don't want to expand on this too much as I suspect that I've already dug myself a big hole but it's not all black and white.
Sun Tzu "Know the enemy and know yourself."
A blind man could also probably see that committing genocide is wrong; and experimenting on non-consenting human subjects, on the belief of their inferior status as ontological non-equals, is also wrong.
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#18
Report 7 months ago
#18
I can’t believe that we’re at a point in social history where being a Nazi isn’t so bad; or that we even have to clarify this point.
3
reply
TheTroll73
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 months ago
#19
OMG NOW BABIES ARE IMMUNE TO DISEASES

now vulnerable to an even worse then-unknown disease and/or other weird side effects

antibiotics were thought to be great at first but now bacteria are getting resistant to those (while the good ones still get eradicated)

you can't play with this stuff
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 months ago
#20
(Original post by NYU℠)
Last I checked dumping your girlfriend is not the same as performing human experiments, especially without the consent of the subject. So, your ‘arguments’ here seem to be very misguided.
Dumping my girlfriend is much more potentially harmful than a wide class of human experiments (see e.g. this blog post describing ethics bureaucracy sinking a human study that involved filling out a questionnaire).

Performing an invasive study without consent is ordinarily illegal, just as if you committed battery against me in the street. It does not need to be made somehow more illegal by the actions of a board composed of people who are neither law enforcement officers nor jurists.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (125)
19.69%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (59)
9.29%
No I am happy with my course choice (358)
56.38%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (93)
14.65%

Watched Threads

View All