DNA editing techniques have been available for decades and are crucial tools for understanding gene functions and molecular pathways. Recently, genome editing has stepped back into the limelight because of newer technologies that can quickly and efficiently modify genomes by introducing or genetically correcting mutations in human cells and animal models. These tools include Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs), Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the most recent player to join the ranks, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic repeats (CRISPR) (here, here). In a short time span, CRISPR/Cas9 has completely revolutionized the understanding of protein function, disease modeling, and potential therapeutic applications.

BACKGROUND on CRISPR/Cas9

The CRISPR/Cas9 system functions similarly to ZFNs and TALENs, it also takes advantage of a cells DNA repair machinery to delete (knock-out) or add in (knock-in) sequences of DNA. However, CRISPR/Cas9 offers several advantages: it is easier to target a specific gene of interest since designing the required CRISPR component is simple and efficient, whereas generating ZFNs and TALENs is more time consuming; it is often more proficient in generating the desired recombination results; and it is exponentially more cost effective, so almost any laboratory in the world can use it. CRISPR/Cas9 has been shown to work in several model organisms, and consequently researchers are keen to apply this technology for modifying genetic mutations in humans with uncured diseases as well as in human embryos, which arouses many scientific and ethical considerations.

Human embryonic gene editing

Genome editing technologies have come a long way and have already advanced towards mammalian models and clinical trials in humans. Recently, genetic modification of human embryos using CRISPR/Cas9 technology was achieved by the Huang laboratory in China in April 2015. They genetically modified un-viable embryos obtained from an in vitro fertilization clinic. These embryos were fertilized with two different sources of sperm, thus impairing their development. In this study, the Huang group repaired a mutation in the human -globin gene (HBB) that causes the blood disorder -thalassaemia. The CRISPR/Cas9 system and a donor DNA sequence containing the normal, healthy version of the HBB were injected into 86 embryos. A total of four embryos successfully integrated the corrected version of the HBB at the appropriate site. However, the authors reported a high number of off-target effects, meaning that CRISPR/Cas9 modified other locations in the genome; a non-ideal situation that could cause the disruption of other essential gene functions. The study demonstrated two important findings: genetic engineering is possible in human embryos and the CRISPR/Cas9 system requires essential improvements before it can be used in future studies on human embryos. More importantly, these results force scientists to question the future and the implications of such a powerful technology. Should we accept genetic engineering of human embryos? If yes, when and in what capacity should we accept it?

Current guidelines and regulation

Scientists in the United States are addressing the need for regulation of human embryonic gene editing. On April 29th, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) director, Dr. Francis Collins, released a statement emphasizing the bureaus policy against funding research involving genome editing of human embryos and the ethical concerns regarding this technology. However, the policy does not necessarily cover privately funded projects.

Safety regarding genetic engineering is a major concern and Huangs publication highlights this point. However, this publication forces the community to address whether scientists should use non-viable or discarded embryos to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the CRISPR/Cas9 system. The CRISPR/Cas9 system was developed for human genome targeting in 2012 and since then has seen rapid improvements. If it is decided that unviable embryos can be used for this type of research, the next step for US lawmakers is to evaluate new guidelines for the funding and safety of genetic engineering in these embryos.

Ethical concerns

While the interest and use of CRISPR/Cas9 has exploded since its discovery in 2012, prominent scientists in the field have already initiated conversations regarding the ethical implications that arise when modifying the human genome. Preventing genetic diseases by human genetic engineering is inevitable. The slippery slope is when/if we start to use it for cosmetic changes such as eye color or for improving a desired athletic trait. A perfect example is surgery, which we have performed for hundred years for disease purposes and is now widely used as a cosmetic tool. Opening the doors for genetic engineering of human embryos could with time lead to manipulate genetics for desirable traits, raising the fear of creating a eugenic driven human population.

Who are we to manipulate nature? However, for all those who suffer from genetic diseases the answer is not so simples; if we can safely prevent severe genetic diseases and create healthy humans, why not manipulate nature? Have we not already done this in other animal populations? At this time the long term effects of genome editing remain unknown, raising additional questions. As the field progresses, with appropriate regulations and guidelines it will eventually co-exist alongside other major controversial topics including nuclear power and genetically modified organisms. Since ethics are different across the world, creating international guidelines will be a challenge, but a necessity. Strict regulations are in place for nuclear power, the same should be possible for genetic engineering of human embryos. To outlaw genetic engineering entirely will be potentially declining a place at the discussion table, as the further utilization of CRISPR/Cas9 technology is unlikely to be abandoned.

This fall The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine, together with CRISPR/Cas9 discoverers Dr. Jennifer Doudna, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, and other leading scientist within the field are organizing an international summit to consider all aspects (both ethical and scientific) of human genetic engineering to develop standard guidelines and policies for practicing human genome editing. The NIH already has guidelines in place, and will potentially add more as a result of this summit. It is expected that other countries will have varying guidelines for human genomic engineering. Also, to avoid fear and misunderstanding, scientists will need to convey human genome editing in a responsible manner to the general human population. This summit is a step in the right direction encouraging caution and regulations. Hence, there is now a need for a timely but thoughtful set of guidelines for the general scientific community as well as for the broader human community.

Go here to see the original:

Ethical Implications of Human Genetic Engineering | SAGE

QUESTION: What are the benefits of human genetic engineering?

ANSWER:

The benefits of human genetic engineering can be found in the headlines nearly every day. With the successful cloning of mammals and the completion of the Human Genome Project, scientists all over the world are aggressively researching the many different facets of human genetic engineering. These continuing breakthroughs have allowed science to more deeply understand DNA and its role in medicine, pharmacology, reproductive technology, and countless other fields.

The most promising benefit of human genetic engineering is gene therapy. Gene therapy is the medical treatment of a disease by repairing or replacing defective genes or introducing therapeutic genes to fight the disease. Over the past ten years, certain autoimmune diseases and heart disease have been treated with gene therapy. Many diseases, such as Huntington's disease, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), and cystic fibrosis are caused by a defective gene. The hope is that soon, through genetic engineering, a cure can be found for these diseases by either inserting a corrected gene, modifying the defective gene, or even performing genetic surgery. Eventually the hope is to completely eliminate certain genetic diseases as well as treat non-genetic diseases with an appropriate gene therapy.

Currently, many pregnant women elect to have their fetuses screened for genetic defects. The results of these screenings can allow the parents and their physician to prepare for the arrival of a child who may have special needs before, during, and after delivery. One possible future benefit of human genetic engineering is that, with gene therapy, a fetus w/ a genetic defect could be treated and even cured before it is born. There is also current research into gene therapy for embryos before they are implanted into the mother through in-vitro fertilization.

Another benefit of genetic engineering is the creation pharmaceutical products that are superior to their predecessors. These new pharmaceuticals are created through cloning certain genes. Currently on the market are bio-engineered insulin (which was previously obtained from sheep or cows) and human growth hormone (which in the past was obtained from cadavers) as well as bio-engineered hormones and blood clotting factors. The hope in the future is to be able to create plants or fruits that contain a certain drug by manipulating their genes in the laboratory.

The field of human genetic engineering is growing and changing at a tremendous pace. With these changes come several benefits and risks. These benefits and risks must be weighed in light of their moral, spiritual, legal, and ethical perspectives. The potential power of human genetic engineering comes with great responsibility.

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Continued here:

Benefits of Human Genetic Engineering - Popular Issues

The human body is not perfect. Some are created with inherent faults and others break down before their time. Science has the potential to make good these problems by altering how humans are made. This is genetic engineering, and this article looks at the pros and cons of the technology in humans

This is part one of a two-part series. Here I will look at a definition of genetic engineering and the pros of human genetic engineering. In part two the cons and the ethics of human genetic engineering are discussed.

Before weighing up the pros and cons of genetic engineering in humans, it's worth taking the time to understand just what is meant by the idea. Simply put, it's a way of manipulating our genes in such a way as to make our bodies better. This alteration of a genome could take place in the sperm and egg cells. This is known as germline gene therapy and would alter the traits that a child is born with. The changes would be inheritable and passed down through the generations. It is currently illegal in many countries.

The other way to change our genome is to swap our bad genes for good ones - in cells other than the sex cells. This is known as somatic cell gene therapy. This is where a functioning gene could be fired into our bodies on a viral vector to carry out the functions that a faulty gene is unable to. This technology is permitted, though it has enjoyed a very limited success rate so far (largely because it is technically very difficult). Nonetheless, it still holds out a great deal of promise.

There are many potential advantages to being able to alter the cells in our bodies genetically.

To make disease a thing of the past

Most people on the planet die of disease or have family members that do. Very few of us will just pop up to bed one night and gently close our eyes for the last time. Our genomes are not as robust as we would like them to be and genetic mutations either directly cause a disease such as Cystic fibrosis, or they contribute to it greatly i.e. Alzheimer's. Or in the case of some conditions such as the heart disease Cardiomyopathy, genetic mutations can make our bodies more susceptible to attack from viruses or our own immune system. If the full benefits of gene therapy are ever realised we can replace the dud genes with correctly functioning copies.

To extend life spans

Having enjoyed life, most of us want to cling on to it for as long as possible. The genetic engineering of humans has the potential to greatly increase our life spans. Some estimates reckon that 100-150 years could be the norm. Of course gene therapy for a fatal condition will increase the lifespan of the patient but we're also talking about genetic modifications of healthy people to give them a longer life. Once we fully understand the genetics of ageing it may be possible to slow down or reverse some of the cellular mechanisms that lead to our decline - for example by preventing telomeres at the ends of chromosomes from shortening. Telomere shortening is known to contribute to cell senescence.

Better pharmaceuticals

The knowledge gained by working out genetic solutions for the above could help with the design of better pharmaceutical products that are able to target specifically genetic mutations in each individual.

So What's the Downside?

As deliriously exciting as some people believe genetic engineering to be - there are several downsides and ethical dilemmas. Click the link to read the cons.

This two part series explores some of the pros and cons of human genetic engineering.

Continued here:

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering in Humans

The human body is not perfect. Some are created with inherent faults and others break down before their time. Science has the potential to make good these problems by altering how humans are made. This is genetic engineering, and this article looks at the pros and cons of the technology in humans

This is part one of a two-part series. Here I will look at a definition of genetic engineering and the pros of human genetic engineering. In part two the cons and the ethics of human genetic engineering are discussed.

Before weighing up the pros and cons of genetic engineering in humans, it's worth taking the time to understand just what is meant by the idea. Simply put, it's a way of manipulating our genes in such a way as to make our bodies better. This alteration of a genome could take place in the sperm and egg cells. This is known as germline gene therapy and would alter the traits that a child is born with. The changes would be inheritable and passed down through the generations. It is currently illegal in many countries.

The other way to change our genome is to swap our bad genes for good ones - in cells other than the sex cells. This is known as somatic cell gene therapy. This is where a functioning gene could be fired into our bodies on a viral vector to carry out the functions that a faulty gene is unable to. This technology is permitted, though it has enjoyed a very limited success rate so far (largely because it is technically very difficult). Nonetheless, it still holds out a great deal of promise.

To make disease a thing of the past

Most people on the planet die of disease or have family members that do. Very few of us will just pop up to bed one night and gently close our eyes for the last time. Our genomes are not as robust as we would like them to be and genetic mutations either directly cause a disease such as Cystic fibrosis, or they contribute to it greatly i.e. Alzheimer's. Or in the case of some conditions such as the heart disease Cardiomyopathy, genetic mutations can make our bodies more susceptible to attack from viruses or our own immune system. If the full benefits of gene therapy are ever realised we can replace the dud genes with correctly functioning copies.

To extend life spans

Having enjoyed life, most of us want to cling on to it for as long as possible. The genetic engineering of humans has the potential to greatly increase our life spans. Some estimates reckon that 100-150 years could be the norm. Of course gene therapy for a fatal condition will increase the lifespan of the patient but we're also talking about genetic modifications of healthy people to give them a longer life. Once we fully understand the genetics of ageing it may be possible to slow down or reverse some of the cellular mechanisms that lead to our decline - for example by preventing telomeres at the ends of chromosomes from shortening. Telomere shortening is known to contribute to cell senescence.

Better pharmaceuticals

The knowledge gained by working out genetic solutions for the above could help with the design of better pharmaceutical products that are able to target specifically genetic mutations in each individual.

So What's the Downside?

As deliriously exciting as some people believe genetic engineering to be - there are several downsides and ethical dilemmas. Click the link to read the cons.

This two part series explores some of the pros and cons of human genetic engineering.

More here:

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering in Humans - Bright Hub

Section 15 of NOVAs program, Cracking the Code of Life, utilizes popular film and television scenarios to relate to its audience the potential possibilities of future genetic modification of humans. In a scene from GATTACA, the doctor explains the process of choosing simply the best of the two parents DNA to create their child in a petri dish. According to Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and current director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), that technology is right in front of us or almost in front of us.

[http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1EdlIO/www.wickedreport.com/genetic-errors/]

The advancement of research in genetic modification raises ethical concerns of how this information technology will be used in the future. Who will regulate which genes are modified and which are not? If law prohibits genetic modification except in cases of modifying mutations that cause diseases, how will the law regulator, presumably the government, define a disease? What will be the standards for disease severity? Will the law provide genetic modification for mutated genes like BRCA but not for blindness or alcoholism? How will they decide which diseases are more important or more severe than others?

Society as a whole can generally agree that using genetic modification to help prevent incurable diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Tay Sachs disease, is highly favorable. Potential prevention of these diseases could save thousands of people pain, suffering, anxiety, and, on a more superficial level, millions of dollars. The line begins to blur when society examines the possibility of using this genetic modification technology not only to prevent disease, but to make their children genetically different to enhance their performance.

If society decides that anyone who can afford genetic modification can take advantage of its benefits, will parents begin to alter the characteristics of their future children? Program host Robert Krulwich asks, what parent wouldnt want to introduce a child that would at least be where all the other kids could be?

All parents want their children to have the best possible start to life and have the best advantages that they can provide. I wonder how far some parents would go to secure the best genetic start for their children. If genetic modification becomes a public option, it will probably only be available to those who can afford it. Because of the inevitability of its high cost, the only people who would be able to afford to create genetically perfect children would be those in the highest percentile of wealth. Therefore, if only a certain group with a specific socio-economic status could even have access to this science, the gap between social classes will increase not only because of a disparity of wealth, but also because of a disparity in gene perfection. The definition of elite will encompass human perfection through genetic modification.

The First Genetically Modified Human Embryo

Defying nature to build super-humans is not a real concern until science has proven that this is possible, and currently this technology is not perfected. Science should be allowed to progress and discoveries should not be hindered or stopped. However, it is important for society to decide now how they will deal with the ultimate results of future scientific research.

By: Elizabeth S.

Like Loading...

Related

~ by elizabethstinson on January 31, 2010.

Posted in Ethics of science, Genetic engineering, Science and humanitiesTags: Ethics of Genetics, Gattaca, Genetic engineering, genetic modification, Nova Cracking the Code of Life

Link:

Societal Consequences of Human Genetic Engineering ...

A Slippery Slope? Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering

To say that genetic engineering has attracted some controversy would be an understatement. There are many cries that scientists are 'playing God' and that it will lead to a two-tier society - the genetically haves and the have-nots. But is this any different to the cries of horror and fears of Frankenstein's monster that greeted Louise Brown, the first child to be born by IVF treatment? There was great uproar in the late 1970's but IVF is now a common, if expensive, fertility treatment. And there aren't any monsters stalking the Earth.

Having said that, genetic engineering does hold the potential that parents could (if the technology worked) assemble their kids genetically, to be smarter, to be more athletic or have a particular hair or eye colour. Though it's rather fanciful to suggest that intelligence could be improved by the substitution of a gene, it may be found that there are several genes that are more commonly expressed in the genomes of intelligent people than those with more limited intellectual capacity. And parents might want to engineer an embryo to house a greater number of these genes. It is this genetic engineering of humans that so frightens people, that we could somehow design the human race. Though some people point out other potential benefits. What if it turned out that there were sets of genes that were commonly expressed in criminals - could we tackle crime by weeding out those genes?

The technology is nowhere near there yet, but a tiny number of parents undergoing IVF have selected their embryos to be free from genetic mutations that have blighted generations of their family. In the UK in January 2009 a mother gave birth to a girl whose embryo had been selected to be free from a genetic form of breast cancer. Some see this as a slippery slope towards a eugenic future, others view it as a valuable use of genetic engineering to prevent disease from striking someone down.

Society will decide how it uses this technology, and it is for governments to weigh up the pros and cons of genetic engineering in humans to see what may be carried out and what should be illegal. They will be prompted by public understanding, desire and concern. It therefore behoves all of us to understand what scientists are trying to accomplish and what they are not trying to do. We must all become better informed, to equip ourselves with more information and to know the difference between science fiction and science fact.

See more here:

Human Genetic Engineering Cons: Why This Branch of Science ...

David King

The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable. The Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering, has been set up in response to this threat.

Currently, genetic engineering is only applied to non-reproductive cells (this is known as 'gene therapy') in order to treat diseases in a single patient, rather than in all their descendants. Gene therapy is still very unsuccessful, and we are often told that the prospect of reproductive genetic engineering is remote. In fact, the basic technologies for human genetic engineering (HGE) have been available for some time and at present are being refined and improved in a number of ways. We should not make the same mistake that was made with cloning, and assume that the issue is one for the far future.

In the first instance, the likely justifications of HGE will be medical. One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson's proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently' altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body. Another scientist, James Grifo of New York University is transferring cell nuclei from the eggs of older to younger women, using similar techniques to those used in cloning. He aims to overcome certain fertility problems, but the result would be babies with three genetic parents, arguably a form of HGE. In addition to the two normal parents, these babies will have mitochondria (gene-containing subcellular bodies which control energy production in cells) from the younger woman.

Anderson is a declared advocate of HGE for medical purposes, and was a speaker at a symposium last year at UCLA, at which advocates of HGE set out their stall. At the symposium, which was attended by nearly 1,000 people, James Watson, of DNA discovery fame, advocated the use of HGE not merely for medical purposes, but for 'enhancement': 'And the other thing, because no one really has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it?'

In his recent book, Re-Making Eden (1998), Princeton biologist, Lee Silver celebrates the coming future of human 'enhancement', in which the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of our children all become artifacts of genetic engineering, literally selected from a catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs of these technologies will limit their full use to only a small 'elite', so that over time society will segregate into the "GenRich" and the "Naturals":

"The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the American population - all carry synthetic genes... that were created in the laboratory ...All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as labourers, and their children go to public schools... If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue ... the GenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."

Silver, another speaker at the UCLA symposium, believes that these trends should not and cannot be stopped, because to do so would infringe on liberty.

Most scientists say that what is preventing them from embarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itself generate new mutations, which will be passed on to future generations. Official scientific and ethical bodies tend to rely on this as the basis for forbidding attempts at HGE, rather than any principled opposition to the idea.

In my view, we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by this argument. Experience with genetically engineered crops, for example, shows that we are unlikely ever to arrive at a situation when we can be sure that the risks are zero. Instead, when scientists are ready to proceed, we will be told that the risks are 'acceptable', compared to the benefits. Meanwhile, there will be people telling us loudly that since they are taking the risks with their children, we have no right to interfere.

One of the flaws in the argument of those who support the possibility of HGE for medical purposes is that there seem to be very few good examples where it is the only solution to the medical problem of genetic disease. The main advantage of HGE is said to be the elimination of disease genes from a family. Yet in nearly all cases, existing technologies of prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing of embryos allow the avoidance of actual disease. There are only a few very rare cases where HGE is the only option.

Furthermore, there is always another solution for those couples who are certain to produce a genetically disabled child and cannot, or do not want to deal with this possibility. They can choose not to have children, to adopt a child, or to use donor eggs or sperm. Parenthood is not the only way to create fulfilment through close, intimate and long lasting relationships with children. The question we have to ask is whether we should develop the technology for HGE, in order to satisfy a very small number of people.

Although the arguments for the first uses of HGE will be medical, in fact the main market for the technology will be 'enhancement'. Once it was available, how would it be possible to ensure that HGE was used for purely medical purposes? The same problem applies to prenatal genetic screening and to somatic gene therapy, and not only are there no accepted criteria for deciding what constitutes a medical condition, but in a free market society there seems to be no convincing mechanism for arriving at such decision. The best answer that conventional medical ethics seems to have is to `leave it up to the parents', ie. to market forces.

Existing trends leave little doubt about what to expect. Sophisticated medical technology and medical personnel are already employed in increasingly fashionable cosmetic surgery. Another example is the use of genetically engineered human growth hormone (HGH), developed to remedy the medical condition of growth hormone deficiency. Because of aggressive marketing by its manufacturers, HGH is routinely prescribed in the USA to normal short children with no hormone deficiency. If these pressures already exist, how much stronger will they be for a technology with as great a power to manipulate human life as HGE?

Germ line manipulation opens up, for the first time in human history, the possibility of consciously designing human beings, in a myriad of different ways. I am not generally happy about using the concept of playing God, but it is difficult to avoid in this case. The advocates of genetic engineering point out that humans constantly 'play God', in a sense, by interfering with nature. Yet the environmental crisis has forced us to realise that many of the ways we already do this are not wise, destroy the environment and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, HGE is not just a continuation of existing trends. Once we begin to consciously design ourselves, we will have entered a completely new era of human history, in which human subjects, rather than being accepted as they are will become just another kind of object, shaped according to parental whims and market forces.

In essence, the vision of the advocates of HGE is a sanitised version of the old eugenics doctrines, updated for the 1990s. Instead of 'elimination of the unfit', HGE is presented as a tool to end, once and for all, the suffering associated with genetic diseases. And in place of 'improving the race', the 1990s emphasis is on freedom of choice, where 'reproductive rights' become consumer rights to choose the characteristics of your child. No doubt the resulting eugenic society would be a little less brutal than those of earlier this century. On the other hand the capabilities of geneticists are much greater now than they were then. Unrestrained, HGE is perfectly capable of producing Lee Silver's dystopia.

In most cases, the public's function with respect to science is to consume its products, or to pay to clean up the mess. But with HGE, there is still time to prevent it, before it becomes reality. We need an international ban on HGE and cloning. There is a good chance this can be achieved, since both are already illegal in many countries. Of course it may be impossible to prevent a scientist, somewhere, from attempting to clone or genetically engineer humans. But there is a great difference between a society which would jail such a scientist and one which would permit HGE to become widespread and respectable. If we fail to act now, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Go here to read the rest:

Human Genetics Alert - The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering

By KIMBERLY HOUGHTON Union Leader Correspondent August 14. 2017 11:06PM

This sequence of images shows the development of embryos after being injected with a biological kit to edit their DNA, removing a genetic mutation known to cause hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.(Oregon Health & Science University)

Bryan Luikart, an associate professor of molecular and systems biology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College.

It is pretty amazing. It is a super-exciting time to be a scientist right now, said Bryan Luikart, an associate professor of molecular and systems biology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College.

The study, which was published in the journal Nature, was detailed in a New York Times report. According to the article, Oregon researchers reported they repaired dozens of human embryos, fixing a mutation that causes a common heart condition that can lead to sudden death later in life.

The way they have dodged some ethical considerations is that they didnt go on to have that embryo grow into a person, said Luikart, explaining that if the embryos with the repaired mutation did have the opportunity to develop, they would be free of the heart condition.

At the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Luikart and his colleagues have already been using this concept with mouse embryos, focusing specifically on autism.

Researchers are using the gene-editing method called CRISPR-Cas9 in hopes of trying to more fully understand autism, which he said is the most critical step in eventually finding a cure.

I think the CRISPR is a tremendous breakthrough. The question really is where and when do you want to use it, Luikart said. I have no ethical concerns using it as a tool to better understand biology.

The new milestone, an example of human genetic engineering, does carry ethical concerns that Luikart said will trigger some debates. He acknowledged that while the advancement of gene-editing technology could eventually stop unwanted hereditary conditions, it also allows for creating babies with smarter, stronger or more attractive traits.

The ability to do that is now within our grasp more than it has ever been, he said.

More importantly, the breakthrough could ultimately eliminate diseases, Luikart said. As the technology advances, he said, genetic diseases that are passed down to children may be corrected before the child receives them.

He used another example of a brain tumor, which often returns after it is surgically removed. Now, once the brain tumor is removed, there is the possibility of placing something in the space to edit and fix the mutation that causes the brain tumor in the first place if physicians are able to find the right cell to edit, Luikart said.

People are definitely thinking along those lines, or cutting the HIV genome, said Luikart, who predicts that those advancements will occur in mice within the next decade, and the ability to do that in humans is definitely there.

The big question is whether that can occur without some sort of side effect that was not predicted, he said.

Columbia University Medical Center posted an article earlier this year warning that CRISPR gene editing can cause hundreds of unintended mutations, based on a study published recently in Nature Methods.

This past May, MilliporeSigma announced it has developed a new genome editing tool that makes CRISPR more efficient, flexible and specific, giving researchers more experimental options and faster results that can accelerate drug development and access to new therapies, according to a release.

CRISPR genome editing technology is advancing treatment options for some of the toughest medical conditions faced today, including chronic illnesses and cancers for which there are limited or no treatment options, states the release, adding the applications of CRISPR are far ranging from identifying genes associated with cancer to reversing mutations that cause blindness.

It is pretty big news, Luikart said.

khoughton@newstote.com

Health Hanover

Continue reading here:

New Hampshire biologist reacts to gene-editing discovery - The Union Leader

Names of a lot of scientists come to notice whenever there are talks about Human Genetic Engineering Facts. Two scientists namely Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer discovered a technique for cloning using DNA. These two have contributed a lot in Human Genetic Engineering studies. This stage was the discovery of science for historians. It was also the beginning of advanced sciences.

Two other popular scientists involved in studying Human Genetic Engineering Facts were Cohen and Boyer. They made proper use of enzymes with the purpose of cutting bacteria plasmid in slices.

A different DNA strand was required for placing these slices. DNA strands can be obtained from that particular bacteria plasmid. Cohen and Boyer, together with their efforts, proved that it is quite possible to manipulate or mix the genes. DNA mapping has made it easier for the scientists to do the genes manipulation.

Human Genetic Engineering Facts have emerged a lot in this area of work. With the emergence of these facts it became possible for scientists to develop insulin that can be used in the treatment of patients that suffer from diabetes. The technique can also be used for creating insulin that can be given to patients suffering from ailments in their kidney.

The invention of genetic therapy also involves the use of this technique. White blood cells present in humans can be altered genetically. This is the situation in people that have defects in the immune system. Altered blood cells can easily be reinserted for improvements in the immune system.

Agricultural benefits of Human Genetic Engineering

Crops can be modified with the help of genetic engineering. This is an important advantage or factor contributing in the vast scope of Human Genetic Engineering Facts . Gene therapy will alter or change the genes, and this will keep the vegetable and fruits resistant from any kind of disease. Human Genetic Engineering Facts have inspired many scientists. Farmers have also been impressed with the effect that it lays on the growth of fruits and vegetables. Many additional benefits are there for using gene therapy in agricultural activities. It will increase the production by making minimum investment.

Many otherHuman Genetic Engineering Facts are there that can leave positive impact on agricultural development. This can be done in order to fulfill the demand of food items. It will also result in reducing the use of insecticides, and fertilizers at the same time convenient. All these factors will contribute together for reducing the amount of pollution caused from the fertilizers. It will also increase the level of health among people.

Other benefits

Human Genetic Engineering Facts can also lead to generate breeds that will bring diversity among the animals that have been modified genetically. It will keep animals away from any kind of danger. Gene therapy will increase the strength of the animals to a great extent. This will also enable them to cope with the ever changing environment. Animals that have genetically altered genes will stay away from deadly diseases.

Human Genetic Engineering Facts

1.86 (37.22%) 388 votes

Read the original here:

Human Genetic Engineering Facts

Human Nature on Collision Course with Genetic Engineering

Human genetic engineering could be the next major battleground for the global conservation movement, according to a series of reports in the latest issue of World Watch magazine, published by the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization. While previous struggles have involved protecting ecosystems and human societies from the unpredicted consequences of new technologies, this fight over high-risk applications of human genetic engineering is a struggle over who will decide what it means to be human.

Many countries have already banned reproductive cloning, and the U.N. is working on a global treaty to ban it, but even more powerful and much more dangerous are the related technologies to modify the genes we pass on to our children, says Ed Ayres, Editor of World Watch magazine. The contributors to this special issue call on the U.N. and national governments to ban the technology known as inheritable genetic modification.

Many uses of human genetic technology could be beneficial to society, but as political scientist Francis Fukuyama writes in the magazine, our understanding of the relationship between our genes and whatever improvements we might seek for our children (and their descendants) is dangerously deficient. Fukuyama warns that the victim of a failed experiment will not be an ecosystem, but a human child whose parents, seeking to give her greater intelligence, will saddle her with a greater propensity for cancer, or prolonged debility in old age, or some other completely unanticipated side effect that may emerge only after the experimenters have passed from the scene.

Human genetic engineering has ramifications that reach far beyond the life of a single child. Several contributors highlight the disastrous results of the last serious effort to engineer genetic perfection. In the early part of the 20th century, scientists and politicians in the United States relied on the alleged science of eugenics to justify the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of people who were judged to be feebleminded, mentally defective, or epileptics. Hitler passed his own sterilization law soon after taking office in 1933, heading down the path toward the Holocaust. The U.S. biotechnology industry-which dominates the global industry-has become an increasingly powerful economic and political force, with revenues growing fivefold between 1989 ($5 billion) and 2000 ($25 billion). Aided by the equally rapid revolution in computing, laboratories that once took two months to sequence 150 nucleotides can now process over 30 million in a day, and at a small fraction of the earlier cost. The number of patents pending for human DNA sequences has gone from 4,000 in 1991, to 500,000 in 1998, to several million today.

We are publishing this special issue because we dont want to lose the opportunity to decide openly and democratically how this rapidly developing technology is used, says Ayres. This isnt a fight about saving whales, or the last rain forests, or even the health of people living today. The question is whether we can save ourselves from ourselves, to know and respect what we do not know, and to put the breaks on potentially dangerous forms of human genetic engineering.

Excerpts from the authors of the Beyond Cloning issue of World Watch

About World Watch magazine: This bimonthly magazine is published by the Worldwatch Institute, an independent research organization, based in Washington, DC. Launched in 1988, the magazine has won the Alternative Press Award for investigative journalism, the Project Censored Award, and a number of Utne Reader awards. Recent editions have featured articles on the imminent disappearance of more than half of the worlds languages, airport sprawl, and the rapid growth of organic farming. Please visit: http://www.worldwatch.org/mag/.

The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization that works for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society, in which the needs of all people are met without threatening the health of the natural environment or the well-being of future generations. By providing compelling, accessible, and fact-based analysis of critical global issues, Worldwatch informs people around the world about the complex interactions between people, nature, and economies. Worldwatch focuses on the underlying causes of and practical solutions to the worlds problems, in order to inspire people to demand new policies, investment patterns, and lifestyle choices. For more information, visit: http://www.worldwatch.org.

Disclaimer: Please note that the statement by eight leaders of environmental NGOs, which appears on page 25 of the magazine, represents the views of the individuals quoted, not necessarily of the organizations they lead.

Original post:

Human Nature on Collision Course with Genetic Engineering ...

(PHOTO)

Los Angeles Times (TNS)

The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, Aug. 4:

-

In a process that can be likened to the creation of GMO crops, scientists have edited genes in human embryos in order to eliminate a mutation that causes thickening of the heart wall. The embryos were created solely for the scientists study and will not be implanted. Nonetheless, the research offers hope that in years ahead, science could prevent many serious genetic diseases at the stage in which people are a microscopic cluster of cells in a petri dish. Whats more, because those edited genes would be carried forth into new generations, the disease might eventually be eliminated altogether.

Is this a glorious new frontier or a troubling situation? Unequivocally, the answer is yes to both.

The research results by an international team of U.S., Chinese and South Korean scientists were enormously exciting medically. Beyond the technical achievement involved, the teams work hastened the arrival of a revolutionary form of treatment: removing genes that can lead inexorably to suffering and premature death.

Public policy and the field of bioethics have not caught up with the science of genetic intervention.

But there is also a great deal we still dont know about how minor issues might become major ones as people pass on edited DNA to their offspring, and as people who have had some genes altered reproduce with people who have had other genes altered. Weve seen how selectively breeding to produce one trait can unexpectedly produce other, less desirable outcomes. Remember how growers were able to create tomatoes that were more uniformly red, but in the process, they turned off the gene that gave tomatoes flavor?

Another major issue is the ethics of adjusting humans genetically to fit a favored outcome. Today its heritable disease, but what might be seen as undesirable traits in the future that people might want to eliminate? Short stature? Introverted personality? Klutziness?

To be sure, its not as though everyone is likely to line up for gene-edited offspring rather than just having babies, at least for the foreseeable future. The procedure can be performed only on in vitro embryos and requires precision timing.

But even with this early study, problematic issues already are evident. Gene editing isnt the only method to protect against certain hereditary conditions such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which was edited out in this study. Children stand a 50 percent chance of inheriting the condition; if a couple produces several embryos through in vitro fertilization, half of those already would theoretically be free of the mutation, and those are the ones that would be selected for implantation. Gene editing made the process more efficient, but it did not offer hope where there was none, Jennifer Doudna, a molecular and cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, observed.

In fact, six months ago, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine recommended that scientists involved in germline editing that is, making changes that would be passed down to future generations should limit their work to diseases for which there are no other reasonable treatments. The most recent embryo study began before that recommendation was delivered.

Thats emblematic of the real problem: Public policy and the field of bioethics have not caught up with the science of genetic intervention. Yes, federal money cant be spent on research involving human embryos even when they are still at the stage of a clump of undifferentiated cells. FDA approval would be needed for any actual human therapies, which would be years off.

Still, the technology is advancing more rapidly than societys discussions about human genetic engineering, the specter of eugenics and even the seemingly mundane topics of who will own the patents on customized genes and who will have access to gene editing once it is approved.

The answers arent easy, but the discussions have to take place and decisions need to be made, probably through an international convention that includes governments, researchers, physicians and consumer advocates. Taking the research to the next level should mean experimentation with animals rather than humans. They should then be followed for generations to see whether unexpected health issues arise. Gene editing on humans should be introduced one step at a time, starting with the most disastrous diseases and conditions that cannot be tackled in any other way, then tracked long term to ensure safety.

We all would love to eliminate disabling deformities, painful conditions that shorten lives or genetic mutations that predispose us to various fatal diseases. Although science has a long way to go before such miracles are achieved, research is moving fast. Its paramount that we get human gene editing right rather than just getting it soon.

-

)2017 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

-

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194):

Topics: t000026911,g000065558,g000362661,g000066164

AP-WF-08-04-17 0109GMT

Published Aug. 5, 2017, midnight

More here:

The ethics of creating GMO humans | The Spokesman-Review - The Spokesman-Review

Many Human Genetic Engineering Cons are there that can stop a person from getting through the entire gene therapy. It is a process in which there is a modification or change in the genes of a human. The aim or objective of using Human Genetic Engineering is to choose newborn phenotype or to change or alter the existing phenotype of an adult or an already grown child. Human Genetic Engineering has shown a lot of promise for curing cystic fibrosis. It is a kind of genetic disease that exist in humans. It will increase the level of immunity in people. Increased immunity will make them resistant to several severe diseases.

There is also a speculation that Human Genetic Engineering can be used in other area of work. It can be used for making changes in the physical appearances. Metabolism may notice some improvements. Human Genetic Engineering Cons can be seen on the mental abilities of a human.

However, it can make certain improvements in the intelligence level. Human Genetic Engineering has made a lot of contributions in the field of advanced medical sciences. There is not much data about Human Genetic Engineering Cons . One can easily think of it as a successful invention in the field of medical science.

Gene therapy can be used for curing several deadly diseases. Many diseases are there that have no cure, so this is a helpful invention in this field. It can lead to various health benefits. Genetic engineering can also lead to population free from any diseases. However, some Human Genetic Engineering Cons are also there that can trouble human beings.

This is because of the complications involved in human genes. A person has multiple physical attributes that differ from each other, so chances are there that these attributes get controlled by only one gene sequence. This helps the scientists to make changes or alteration in only one gene at a time and the remaining multiple sequences of genes will automatically be altered.

Scientists involved in this alteration process also noticed that whenever a DNA strand gets a new gene, then it becomes difficult for the DNA strand to make a decision about where the new gene will be settled. It is one of the factors that contribute to Human Genetic Engineering Cons. With the help of genetic engineering scientists will find no difficulty at the time of altering a part of DNA in a human. This will keep them resistant or away from any genetic disease or effects. These effects might be there on the reproductive cells of a person.

For an instance, it these reproductive cells are there on parents that their children will automatically acquire the effects of genetics. Such Human Genetic Engineering Cons can cause few genetic diseases on humans. Chances of errors are always there in making use of genetic engineering for human cloning, agriculture, and in any other related field. Entire human generation can lead to mutation if these Human Genetic Engineering Cons do get removed at their earliest.

Human Genetic Engineering Cons

1.39 (27.87%) 6001 votes

More:

Human Genetic Engineering Cons

A business owner, a school superintendent and a lawyer walk into a bar . Sounds like the beginning of a lame joke, right? Well, it was definitely a joke even worse than the kind of joke that might illicit an eye roll from spouse or friends. Ninety-two years ago this week, one of the greatest legal farces in history commenced in the small town of Dayton, Tenn. It all started at a drug store lunch counter as many things do in a small town when a manager at a local company met with the school superintendent and a local attorney. The story goes that the businessman, George Rappleyea of the Cumberland Coal and Iron Company, hatched a plan designed to bring much needed publicity to Dayton. So, you must wondering, what kind of publicity campaign did they devise? They, of course, decided to bring suit against a 24-year-old substitute teacher named John T. Scopes, for unwittingly teaching evolution in science class.

Pit fundamentalist Christians against modernist ones. Place science and the Bible itself on trial. Drive a wedge between conservative people of faith and the scientific community. Create a cloud of doubt and fear about scientific claims, and instead of encouraging people to study and wrestle with the claims themselves, encourage a spirit of bitter resentment and dismissal. Create a media driven campaign to discredit scientists, thereby discrediting science in general. Make sure all this is started and largely funded by a leader in the fossil fuels industry. Make sure the ACLU (among others) is on the side of the liberal, anti-God movement.

Now, instead of the Scopes Monkey Trial, think global warming and climate change. Its the same playbook, folks. As people of faith we should be able to recognize and name a farce when we see one, and stand up for truth in the face of propaganda meant to drive a wedge between good people of faith. Care for creation may well be the most pressing ethical and theological issue of our time, and the church cannot allow disinformation and indoctrination to rule the day.

We live in a time of seemingly unprecedented political division, and many organizations and movements decry the changes in our culture, and the progress we are making. Harry Emerson Fosdick said in his famous sermon, Shall the Fundamentalists Win, The new knowledge and the old faith cannot be left antagonistic or even disparate, as though a man on Saturday could use one set of regulative ideas for his life and on Sunday could change gears to another altogether. We must be able to think our modern life clear through in Christian terms, and to do that we also must be able to think our Christian faith clear through in modern terms. Think that sounds tough in modern times? How about postmodern times?

Many of the same challenges that existed in the last century persist today. Pastors in churches across the country face the challenge of placing faith in the contemporary context a context marked by sweeping and rapid change. One peer-reviewed article I recently read cites that the only cross-segment of American society that has grown in its distrust of science since the late 1970s is Protestant Evangelicals. Let that sink in for a minute. Think about how that fact impacts our political climate. Think about how that fact impacts our planetary climate. Simply astounding.

Interesting, is it not, that the rise of evangelical distrust in science itself coincides with the rise of the so-called Moral Majority and the culture wars of the 1980s and 90s?

Its been nearly a hundred years since The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, but for many, science (or the Bible depending on your perspective) remain on trial. As Christians, we (perhaps) still struggle to speak of faith and science in ways that dont alienate or divide people in our churches. In 1925, the conversation was about the future of education and about the nature of religion, focusing largely on the history of humanity. Today the conversation between science and faith revolves around the future of the planet, the ethics of human genetic engineering, human sexuality, and the nature of religion itself, focusing largely on the future of humanity.

The conversations between science and faith will never go away. As scientific knowledge exponentially proliferates at unprecedented rates, those of us in faith communities need to strongly consider how we are called to respond to the discoveries and claims of the scientific community. I fear many are still living in 1925.

Related story:Millennials not OK with conventional science vs. religion debates, experts say

Related opinion:Genius hesitates, both in science and religion | Scott Dickison

OPINION: Views expressed in Baptist News Global columns and commentaries are solely those of the authors.

Link:

The Scopes Monkey Trial and global warming: Same playbook, different football - Baptist News Global

David King

The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable. The Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering, has been set up in response to this threat.

Currently, genetic engineering is only applied to non-reproductive cells (this is known as 'gene therapy') in order to treat diseases in a single patient, rather than in all their descendants. Gene therapy is still very unsuccessful, and we are often told that the prospect of reproductive genetic engineering is remote. In fact, the basic technologies for human genetic engineering (HGE) have been available for some time and at present are being refined and improved in a number of ways. We should not make the same mistake that was made with cloning, and assume that the issue is one for the far future.

In the first instance, the likely justifications of HGE will be medical. One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson's proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently' altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body. Another scientist, James Grifo of New York University is transferring cell nuclei from the eggs of older to younger women, using similar techniques to those used in cloning. He aims to overcome certain fertility problems, but the result would be babies with three genetic parents, arguably a form of HGE. In addition to the two normal parents, these babies will have mitochondria (gene-containing subcellular bodies which control energy production in cells) from the younger woman.

Anderson is a declared advocate of HGE for medical purposes, and was a speaker at a symposium last year at UCLA, at which advocates of HGE set out their stall. At the symposium, which was attended by nearly 1,000 people, James Watson, of DNA discovery fame, advocated the use of HGE not merely for medical purposes, but for 'enhancement': 'And the other thing, because no one really has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it?'

In his recent book, Re-Making Eden (1998), Princeton biologist, Lee Silver celebrates the coming future of human 'enhancement', in which the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of our children all become artifacts of genetic engineering, literally selected from a catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs of these technologies will limit their full use to only a small 'elite', so that over time society will segregate into the "GenRich" and the "Naturals":

"The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the American population - all carry synthetic genes... that were created in the laboratory ...All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as labourers, and their children go to public schools... If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue ... the GenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."

Silver, another speaker at the UCLA symposium, believes that these trends should not and cannot be stopped, because to do so would infringe on liberty.

Most scientists say that what is preventing them from embarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itself generate new mutations, which will be passed on to future generations. Official scientific and ethical bodies tend to rely on this as the basis for forbidding attempts at HGE, rather than any principled opposition to the idea.

In my view, we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by this argument. Experience with genetically engineered crops, for example, shows that we are unlikely ever to arrive at a situation when we can be sure that the risks are zero. Instead, when scientists are ready to proceed, we will be told that the risks are 'acceptable', compared to the benefits. Meanwhile, there will be people telling us loudly that since they are taking the risks with their children, we have no right to interfere.

One of the flaws in the argument of those who support the possibility of HGE for medical purposes is that there seem to be very few good examples where it is the only solution to the medical problem of genetic disease. The main advantage of HGE is said to be the elimination of disease genes from a family. Yet in nearly all cases, existing technologies of prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing of embryos allow the avoidance of actual disease. There are only a few very rare cases where HGE is the only option.

Furthermore, there is always another solution for those couples who are certain to produce a genetically disabled child and cannot, or do not want to deal with this possibility. They can choose not to have children, to adopt a child, or to use donor eggs or sperm. Parenthood is not the only way to create fulfilment through close, intimate and long lasting relationships with children. The question we have to ask is whether we should develop the technology for HGE, in order to satisfy a very small number of people.

Although the arguments for the first uses of HGE will be medical, in fact the main market for the technology will be 'enhancement'. Once it was available, how would it be possible to ensure that HGE was used for purely medical purposes? The same problem applies to prenatal genetic screening and to somatic gene therapy, and not only are there no accepted criteria for deciding what constitutes a medical condition, but in a free market society there seems to be no convincing mechanism for arriving at such decision. The best answer that conventional medical ethics seems to have is to `leave it up to the parents', ie. to market forces.

Existing trends leave little doubt about what to expect. Sophisticated medical technology and medical personnel are already employed in increasingly fashionable cosmetic surgery. Another example is the use of genetically engineered human growth hormone (HGH), developed to remedy the medical condition of growth hormone deficiency. Because of aggressive marketing by its manufacturers, HGH is routinely prescribed in the USA to normal short children with no hormone deficiency. If these pressures already exist, how much stronger will they be for a technology with as great a power to manipulate human life as HGE?

Germ line manipulation opens up, for the first time in human history, the possibility of consciously designing human beings, in a myriad of different ways. I am not generally happy about using the concept of playing God, but it is difficult to avoid in this case. The advocates of genetic engineering point out that humans constantly 'play God', in a sense, by interfering with nature. Yet the environmental crisis has forced us to realise that many of the ways we already do this are not wise, destroy the environment and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, HGE is not just a continuation of existing trends. Once we begin to consciously design ourselves, we will have entered a completely new era of human history, in which human subjects, rather than being accepted as they are will become just another kind of object, shaped according to parental whims and market forces.

In essence, the vision of the advocates of HGE is a sanitised version of the old eugenics doctrines, updated for the 1990s. Instead of 'elimination of the unfit', HGE is presented as a tool to end, once and for all, the suffering associated with genetic diseases. And in place of 'improving the race', the 1990s emphasis is on freedom of choice, where 'reproductive rights' become consumer rights to choose the characteristics of your child. No doubt the resulting eugenic society would be a little less brutal than those of earlier this century. On the other hand the capabilities of geneticists are much greater now than they were then. Unrestrained, HGE is perfectly capable of producing Lee Silver's dystopia.

In most cases, the public's function with respect to science is to consume its products, or to pay to clean up the mess. But with HGE, there is still time to prevent it, before it becomes reality. We need an international ban on HGE and cloning. There is a good chance this can be achieved, since both are already illegal in many countries. Of course it may be impossible to prevent a scientist, somewhere, from attempting to clone or genetically engineer humans. But there is a great difference between a society which would jail such a scientist and one which would permit HGE to become widespread and respectable. If we fail to act now, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Read this article:

The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering - hgalert.org

On A Friday Forum earlier this year, Illinois U.S. Representatives Bill Foster and Randy Hultgren talked about their hopes and concerns for the new Congress as it began its work. For this week's Friday Forum,WNIJ's Guy Stephens asked the two for an update on how things are going in Congress.

Randy Hultgren and Bill Foster have both served several terms in the U.S. House. Hultgren, a Republican considered one of the most conservative members of Congress, took the old 14th District from Foster in 2010. When new lines were drawn in 2012, Hultgren won election in the new 14th, while Foster, who calls himself a centrist Democrat, won the seat in the new 11th District. Both won re-election last year.

Its been a tumultuous several months in Washington, but Hultgren felt that Congress, at least, has earned a fairly good grade. He gave it a B. Why?

"Theres some really good things happening," he said, but it could be better -- with some help.

"We need to be doing our work, certainly, in the House, but also need the Senate to step up and do some of the important things. Theyve been very focused early on in this session on appointments and I know that took a lot of time.

Hultgren based his positive assessment, in part, on Congresss productivity. Just look at the numbers through this week, he said. Theres more going on than youd guess from the headlines. He finds that encouraging.

Weve passed 158 bills through the House, and thats the highest, really, in recent history," he said. "The average at this point would be right around a little over 91 bills, and 37 of them have actually gone on to become law, through the Senate and signed by the President. So in spite of all of the busy-ness and noise and challenges and bumps, were still getting our work done. Were still moving forward on some important issues.

But Hultgren said he thinks there is a limited window of opportunity to pursue those big issues, and the challenge is for the White House and Congress to stay focused. Otherwise, the people may give his party a much lower grade than his in the 2018 elections.

Foster had a very different view. He didnt disagree that a lot has been done. Whether thats a positive, he said, it depends.

Well," he said,"youd have different grades in different subjects. For instance, in health care, I would give Congress a D-.

Foster said thats because he thinks Republicans should have gone in another direction than they did with the GOP health care bill, which he said was often referred to during the debate by opponents as a "wealthcare bill."

"The starting point and the ending point of that was a tax cut for the wealthy of most of a trillion dollars," he said. "And when thats your starting point, you then have to balance the books. You have to take away most of a trillion dollars of healthcare from someone in the United States.

Foster said likewise, the effort to repeal and replace the financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank, which passed on a party-line vote, has provisions that could have dire consequences for both individuals and the economy.

Foster said those concerns also apply to proposals on tax reform and infrastructure spending, which he says have so far been disappointing, but where there remains the possibility of bipartisan action.

Hultgren emphasized that most of the issues and bills that he and his colleagues are working on arent the big polarizing ones like health care or tax reform. But theyre still important. He listed his service on the financial services committee, as co-chairman of the Tom LantosHuman Rights Commission that deals with problems such as religious persecution and human trafficking, work on improving access to Perkins Loans that provide individuals money for education, a bill to protect veterans whose credit has been adversely affected by reimbursement delays when using the Veterans Choice Program, and work to strengthen the Federal Home Loan Bank.

Hultgren said those efforts are often -- in fact, mostly -- bipartisan. Foster, too, said it has been possible to work across the aisle on some things. One he pointed to thats transcended party politics is the opioid crisis. He said the problem is widespread and has, on average, affected Republican districts harder than Democratic ones.

"Its something where, if youre going to do some good, you have to spend money," he said. "And so, even people who believe they were elected to cut the size of government are often willing to spend some amount of taxpayer money on things like dealing with the heroin epidemic.

Foster said that was evident in the bipartisan pushback that reversed proposed cuts to addiction programs in the administrations preliminary budget.

He said progress also can happen on things that dont seem so dire in fact, maybe just the opposite.

Ive often found its easier to get bipartisan agreement when youre talking about the long-distant future," he said."If youre talking about next years budget, it immediately gets very partisan."

He cites as an example human genetic engineering -- think designer babies --which seems the stuff of science fiction, but which Foster said is closer to being a reality than you think. He was able to get the chairman of his committee, a Republican with whom he says he rarely agrees, to arrange a hearing on the topic.

Although hes in the majority, Hultgren said he too realizes that getting a bill not just through the House but the Senate as well and signed into law means reaching out to the other side. He said he often strives to do so, even as he tries to move quickly on his own and his partys agenda.

But Foster remains concerned about how that process happens in the House these days. He said hed like to return to how things used to work in Congress -- whats known as regular order. He explained by giving as an example what used to happen to an appropriations bill.

It would come up under whats called an open rule, where any member of Congress would get to propose an amendment," he said. "We couldnt just arbitrarily add large amounts of money to a program, but we could, for example, move money from one bucket to another bucket within the same bill."

This, Foster said, was a very positive way for members of both parties to get involved in coming to a better place, and he thought it was a very healthy thing for the institution.

"But," he said, "it is not loved by those who are in charge of the U.S. House. They want -- them and their staff -- to write just write all the final deals.

As a result, he said, members of Congress often are asked only for an up-or-down vote on big omnibus bills put before them.

On top of that, Foster said the turmoil -- as well as the policies -- of the Trump Administration has him worried and complicates efforts in Congress to do something constructive for the country. But he said hell continue to do his bit to affect change for the better.

Hultgren doesnt necessarily disagree about the effects of the turmoil on the process. Still, he said, in spite of that, he reminds people once again that its not all partisan battling and stalemate in Washington.

I would say eighty percent of the things we work on or more are absolutely bipartisan things," he said. "So, well continue to get things done and continue to struggle and find ways to get things done on the other twenty percent or so that we absolutely do disagree on.

But he thinks that, for more of that to happen, both representatives including him -- and their constituents need to work harder at being well-informed, to recognize other points of view, and not take every bit of information that comes their way from a particular source as gospel truth.

To listen to not just Fox News, but to tune in to MSNBC once in a while, or CNN, or vice versa," he said. "Or to still get a newspaper and look through that, or if you can get some different websites where you can get some information."

He adds that public radio continues to be a great place to hear a range of perspectives and for going a little bit more in depth on issues than, say, the cable news shows.

If everyone did that, he said, then the system and Congress would have a better chance to work more like it should.

See the original post:

Two Representatives Offer A Look At How Congress Is Doing - WNIJ and WNIU

Anime fans in the U.S. who grew up watching Gundam Wing on Cartoon Networks Toonami block will love the darker, more mature take on the mecha subgenre of anime theyll find with Netflixs Knights of Sidonia.

Whereas series like Power Rangers, Voltron, and various Gundam iterations are lighthearted in their tone and small in their stakes, Knights of Sidonia is a dark post-apocalyptic story of mecha vs. kaiju that feels an awful lot like Battlestar Galactica meets Pacific Rim and its not afraid to depict some truly grisly deaths.

In Knights of Sidonia, the year is 3394 and the half-million remaining humans live aboard a massive arc named Sidonia as it hurdles through space. As the series begins, Sidonia has already spent 1,000 years fleeing from the gauna, the monstrous shapeshifting alien race that destroyed Earth. A select few Knights pilot Gardes, Sidonias name for giant mechs.

The protagonist Nagate Tanikaze grew up hidden underground with his grandfather, training daily in a Garde simulation. He emerges from hiding to join a society he never knew, and he eventually becomes one of humanitys greatest defenders. Its a job he trained his entire life for, and through his eyes, the viewer slowly learns truly how desperate existence is on Sidonia.

Special humans piloting giant mecha is a tried-and-true premise for an anime that could very easily be a bore here, but rather than just throw mecha pilots into an endless war with flashy fight scenes, Knights of Sidonia deftly explores the practical implications of its setting.

What would humanity really look like after a thousand years aboard a massive space arc? What technologies or innovations would be invented for the sake of survival? How dangerous and gritty would their lives be? Knights of Sidonia has a lot to say about these questions and so much more.

Much like the recently released Blame! anime film, Knights of Sidonia is adapted from a manga by Tsutomu Nihei and produced by Polygon Pictures. Both anime feature a very similar dystopian sci-fi design aesthetic with 3D character animations (at times its even implied that both series exists in the same universe). Whereas many sci-fi anime can come across colorful and refined, both these series make a point of presenting worlds with a uniquely weathered look that conveys how grim and desperate these dystopias really are.

Sure, both Blame! and Knights of Sidonia present high-tech settings in the worlds of tomorrow, but after millennia, even our future could become the distant past. High-tech gadgets are transformed into ancient relics by the passage of time. Even Sidonia itself is of brutish, practical design, built right into a massive asteroid.

In Sidonias society, innovations like human cloning, asexual reproduction, and human genetic engineering are commonplace, along with an adaptation that allows most humans to gain nutrients via photosynthesis rather than actually eating. And one of the shows most interesting characters is Izana Shinatose, who is actually a nonbinary third gender. She has androgynous features and, like all third genders, her body can shift into either male or female when she finds a mate.

These adaptations do not arise out of creative or inspired feats of innovation; they arise out of necessity in a resource-starved and highly volatile existence. Much of it is very cool, but as a whole the series does a great job of communicating how bleak life is on Sidonia.

Starvation might be a concern, but the real threat comes from the gauna, which are faceless, emotionless, formless blobs that are nearly impossible to kill. Because theyre so grotesquely inhuman, theyre that much more of an absolute terror.

Not only are the fight scenes in Knights of Sidonia truly horrifying even with Gardes, humanity is hopelessly outmatched and the frequent deaths are truly gruesome but the despair permeates throughout and beyond the militarized portion of society.

Humanity is totally screwed. If you dont die from a gauna attack of some kind, then youll probably just die of starvation at some point. In this, Knights of Sidonia is a lot like Attack on Titan in space.

Knights of Sidonia is easily one of the best anime available on Netflix right now, and you cant watch it anywhere else. Sure, its overwhelmingly dark and gritty, but at least theres a fun and hilariously cute momma bear that takes care of Nagate:

Because what would an anime be without some bizarre comic relief?

See more here:

'Knights of Sidonia' is the Pinnacle of Gritty Mecha Anime - Inverse

(RC$IR)gESj&Y#*kh]eOg]R[RR"nhxblU|b ?okH>L'^J6"uYf>dC2Td)CI/SO=$ 0)4t}?!SYu TVarppp~.|bB'_1U!9d57FhgvyZd00,$c?#4AR_w5j7_0e/L^=[KUNwd'W. rX2laXgYTw2"U,V` jh~&6w%=HqccH@~HA-Yr '677":tbkOo{gy"_ ,X` *0:8RqUwG $N:8DT'ypK[[WNa$,2kf?j'Ovrp/IR =g9ix*3i:Pye(~I*CI9nCSu"Ke63I`X,0cIst"8u[*SW1%+V_ikKDFxbW0y%U=Z]YYRRu"LOtvoo24.8/xI 1wI+I!jCsBRlc!QPW6Oz}UW_W*F!vN?L7e$N>0=n@_DU*g1)cTfE0Q8ZEE8}"k~>. e -=pbb_|?}Kc}`2pUwbDj(=5}l;K-pMAHDSpcy]`Jp-kE/9sfiBf22.^UsN^Cx90t+'~.7*#)_9pDqY|OXdL 24:^X$O.^T%$^23fH7,E'-t`#Pq3wiiYcL?^Q)R%b_wukeyyyXC}}'xIUg8D>Yh^ Cc1r 'I*{bY>=MJZ[TEEK)x!oQ-8s34xV-=Z1ASy:1! CC&rpnjc:::x!3j6Ocn"H!S7;e )]vT"?;f7utR^ |M"tzgac#LUPW}"=mb-%h7I qShyF[lL~#t[C&iWbI/Y$1flI#e(4w$UR0F@yJi}g4,-S3kmqVhy1Ph n xLUV7O$3@Rbe(> [[HL1>`(KFPKHfSyT@_'%6MV3%V@ax?^/lVPIJ Yuo avLpC|b[*,vIU!"cwxq.amHq;xPfN:(T*ti2|";b%(2,_M~0Wx{G~6qO=Z3c!*-3+y!AA3oE#yAdZx`]2&EOVe=VzUeMLU{v1OwY~(-;hW>b&g9s&y?O ,j2robO;o~Tah2 .sF ,kpG}w!y_>fZ|iX-Fi5MJcilsC;9s&7PY!#66DO$!RPr Gk&G'L}lY2a&pnRiMRO CCzCu_*mT$%b6WWb#CRHg*F od:2?3mXE4HF/zfACMHef{x-0[=wTz&N?M1>05W:XyGrVoye[ k[hS Qhh C34+3-.r0ZA ?p /t^HCr=HXm|,E=2=1?U:r4LVe Fr(YGig-3.so6^5@ [at,=;N:0E-9U`|+X/m?AqR3F1{}od(q+a#r'),B+#6_bOu0Dchql*dOR)JH2Ha@A F1xg m)j= o[yI;#s*9gx4+6-Rp9L";Jwv7/]^!Y-BSwh$-~ !`(!rURmg4X2]Qbz3$HC!k)inO(K5bZO[keXAS/]SX,AAR,4/ 1 UqPB0n^^,,vXw-0Izm`"iN?W2&G'MBr$[WCekRx$0> @%Ls.F}=tS92ovX!zkt*@(#IY~=#]:+jnBR,Mo_%7_?:A$DX!r1>q~|1hL2_v0 k|E>V, l~1oeP'%ELLR(l'-)Le8#k/JD Q#uvL'>(USUX?=2EHFASmmGO]{Sga8)T5'e!Yj +[P*8potVdg R )n8w2;kn[E C")8CCK?+2a7NdR1`l&RHGk,`u 3rb[)xiJ`]/e2J {zqG3'8fv!g^zvoWW;n7]hnZ3N~,/Or)v9FVp0K~M:yN&t+TXkhFkS%8psIa;)lZY;~k!)gDTj%)jYt)Y y?G7~kd3gg~R(Wiv|BIvVTT,&),L{jx,FCWU*?FAR^^*ZyXIIV]V=Oo?]^&v? wHb+D" !LRX%#'}p=?!}QLwWOtG&~(K|rZ!:z8=6x~tB43!,K2/?FJJjonS!P6+UXoB-)xclRLR=/wsYfJCla^GPJk}{`K #)Z(K6%KZ]uw)2Kp Qc"k$={V4b=C=$o$ef2?=L+w&y6m_`O8giukmHA{px.q,|,0C1&>poo^U$eYaskKKuw2lyRbvMRRISuB",1J#*B~Ig]Nwbc[[MI LmT&Q#_)`Dy&x-** p[/LR}*7dTcz=~g}G5IR3:H2ahUHHH8GGMTmQQ5ykTvX8fl5fN?(.u"=f1h$F1)^p5p$P Sn&'kGz_-8~PSr0Q2/%wD+4-2C/jfT`L,q&rSp;)IY4eF7>wrD]uP326>uJ+?_fq-=hKE Fv'BVja@2yd.vH a9O>5>xH`Dl5'd5EW=,0kkW&N:}_w>kg[{?|$Z;[LG ERLRL qCRLfp'n~EYkXN*,YC,9Jv-DGeLR8H $;P(JD "G?9j#S MX5Ik[yR#f$Yv>}d#OR61%1a!2OW3zO*2dLRh|)=_68CSxPeF)!b!Lp12Xn)(-edLHZ1Ky!S~([D$W==(u|(D}inO+31 Y'Ohvp,."401g'?F]@ 6PZyzig-%$_[T#g=p;2(|k0V|CJG")?~`Z2UISTky`5>)PL Ii"@A' bY2wy'?wh |e$gF1U U~M:Zf9oS&z3x -Nff@sS*ICZeHih]RgKOH`L8_2c Cg|myyoxI01@ERH 2bP`(` uS9>J)!@Rd' ~P(:u^b9a$`Y@f)#H0H 23-a2@PmX=&8URBWWYXO`w ]VO^0U

Zb/xN(^fj"[g&gWU%2KXDaHQLyU;(tK1HW9vTTju%P%?xS8TyCeAxJ__2"s0JNBoYfNihb@*>s}.9IQ0h%mM!/qauIjP_R,2#LO'(*xJr%K87rXu}1EvZ+Db% @'p@/E`a2n71(^tgR~c@2)n),.S~f tDS2a;IQT+X^Vds?di`Jy5XA$}HT8h/>R|"_Y;+#AR _t5*Off8(8tahia@l2K R>4"D"5XhRO G-GP):!n411=KT jy'#(^CMK80KVI%477~hd=V LpI($t: O.9@bNY N}KU}|PcP&>,Id*k-cS *@vj>T;H#ad?hys#?8+6Hhf'3~KCW&) qyV]$I"tLQ~gAI]kKkpJDVl#CJtr$;wdDcb%Q1S(BjCS-~Vs }VdIR0E*CANV*yl@R[Z"df$nN/1-/+2j QoUWyw-vtGR>Lmj}dh1wDdt}Z:;;'[77PSQFua|OZe!$z#!F]f3`{i%wX54 C/8Hj2~"2P:@ L'ojx?6m/.Yrs 2d 3na"/O>`K$%o;ERd^SOA(6$)x~Eb]H%~ ]- S?U~,*!Rgtr/ FbIbe&e|S__L1SNq0"3:/BX9#cGw${P=,[*HAOa",T`1jOM eJYWUd4(k'3OeL_md(',;@RX/(ker6VUuJt]-MVs.^VlSm )Q/odq]'L=_3TTs|q[3K!)0T/41wdI?,@RSM3.qPRk|K~1f&)9}gI,xL/F1gX0 "SdjIeGR$sYqYY}Db]^yB#Cib>Et))/De M2z"_M5>_o,6f( 8E3+7Zit LU2#8M4yb?=4K>;NxAa^i4L*CR`RcIu2sNpDPs=t@g|QW,:4Uc_?>Go?4Y7;N`aOpn#XV0Oe:{,amG3B2Z.KH CPX_$%Ed@ZV8>y[jLLw?sp(PmSvo9s~g 1ox25=WxoEGW1vVTT3T9(w!EM&a.v*@J,XzS(8sI 9y?tIkAawwTHg,_c}^][WW#4$%Yj}Xnb9sy+HYke`9-HX#ZLFsdS$t%Fy.aL$,u,BkUl^cHS

j@IqH;uQ)8s@K&)c=xP|Hw >ED*L:mmmHWUs6 uY{v6,_e(Kj4OOuis rkJuw'zJZ%l(jAb,*> y*o(OQoG,I*c 2j*..>-j5%!UQP.W#+{VRlX]1*o$ bAd)Kei K,KStYo(fr!)?0!WD"Q,"XLhnn~fMc"/Egj5p>?{a)-LAPO0E>N4=5dx lF]e) K$1J6uMA @,w 9|kF?_~Z,GyU&'Mzn?vNJD_@R,. 2I =Y5MIJ)/^Xf?Snm`D[D#Sda?O =e.[*w0/sKuk1#V,idc_{z7q|G"4HX'SqT>x/-J)2>E R. ,ON %BURRWiH$%kI4!^3J)TJ`5#J.y$Oi_pu$d"}uMna:::|z_r)+Zc16/EjXAvWn

^%*xJ&rgR>T%[%D:'jJ$sZYGd-C"xx^ F.7B&p9Ex_/o!V -HBTtS&nhzOH sh/#=u8Qwc .}GOm.x(3]q1@ggrp IOT5z [99Q'7mSxbM8!/$ppaf+ou TIs(O3g!t1Y|;NR|sbzkcW]c?8ZTij|lXkdB3lY)0fXzamDf1*$ET5gTi_7~PA "L I9802V;w.V`>E$, 6=, Jt_B5%6-}Bupp=83w1?yk5#`_JEf#45uL]:za,bHYdORd2H,]3Sh>Twk6 [GV%'u|yCj+.3yHKuQ CJzc!$X[8"YM0SXwN4X+>I)YrL=`rXp)S4vW2)P1ttt8rHfT.]SXm}(a@|% wb4pRd%`)Ji:uJr:D38u%Ez STQH.]pAOo"2$E Y|kY7 28Jc!)] ^Wd@H$x"zZVS:]aP`,@44%5+NC/^Xf?Z[ekNe,JR+}(%BHeQ=N Y:_`(5jIJHFRl$3!/~O$Ftx}:i:X+[{R)+OWSa@d&)Xria=x2Q}}ua|Puu"HRd--J+R]BQ>Gy>!70Ao")10iMPH UU~JJf&YU,%pMT=mt=!;fFpJwwwOO_&o R)nX }.PPFHJ Rj Y;`:b `(MKa|#o$E O~CI6$%t=oW Uqrbn1;?C4S~`9wMHPtex'rpp O^r'hii ei}PFRr+7 aOd%L"H'$G]!o?c~Gw[ XdJ.'~C=;wd>R`CViD{)t`810uO(9E2c IA,Hzd^b~OC?)|FRDZn$EAFw??kU3>r-[#0?G{kXKc!)IG1HHmAbN_B>JImH>J]dF27$O&01:~RYCACACA#o$uMq|I$0knn~uI7 4XMQlI md|MRd4c=f} m;:?`zu0f"Aa w:88+ER#(CD.$d$&(J`bA@ .m^cw%I~00ICggs8pp$0HIQ][ I-I9888>/Length 32773>>stream x tTU.#j@D~NcZ2+d~Vqgc3.gkL;5siisi#MtQB H{sNU*!^CSg}Wd%+YJZ$'YJV6bnVO0mmmyyyCxCYJVrHyyyFl=:}DGQSC^??z^v]z?pW6Syx1!C$~xU0o 7+Y.&I9BHVz3yL=vU/~>$qiTsa0BF&tj RIPK0u$bD |=COO8ckx>UlY hl N8TpLZ_ shbnVs{waJ@V=pZ& 0m'?F,Gt@kI:K?xvmjW*/rrpiy0bSe sG~(d60%LP{,%]4id%-rf(5)VqQ3Yy-smKy*]^T|O `._F[X .y#p[!02/&@@LSk9s50:8A bx=`__~??JVW='O2{:tT`w)h|3fWs5>648+

{[*>S8%mL2sKg7keB+L]8+f6Suwb.+/**JFJJhDwy.BZdl:)eENjc8 R.ZUiKd Hz@'#T?J,EiADuCbP-ld mlive^ RC[x"ONkAFWL1 53R}S2VVV;2)R&Ug5?_O?vc5Skp[[^3LdG 2_xpn_+`s9 [BaiDNO0ALE]ltEMWVel>wfi+]4Z Bf" n{zqYS]=== :ah#[?g$ZMbar+_ t[Soph.y.(B;x{%.8'NrTUnJg"/)7n(NfsmUW:aTV8+3(H/n?7$oB+$*Ii0x1Tbn&:8PoAi'#,3B!y-u!b>+n:Tr"2^S2s1%F@*^]$kN.|9[Tkp0~c@ {(p%Mb{@c':zP@^Z]Fxh jM x5]}p2Fs=@rsvEv;fZ&J/455EIlWYyckCP 0Vqe#OspR/_jS%o+pNII {Vg=?2 ![1NE:6 C1 K[& FOxv.pmOmLFe4Gfxa;`h/{[Zl@aw{Fqidq11)itW;&__]z?v5!%naIp?}F@ 9ORcOx6'#tA|a>MUk=BGxr}F@aW[bi>[s.]`X?yC9+N~8jW%B= Wu3 Ygt=#[IU,L56&(J$8uM^WG.B$g9JYq{Eu61Z)([j/tWYLv{P4 q%2]>L ~t`rlq}3^3][`#FYi@[ArzYpC@XEA):GB7xJ6v7WA*~?A*f Z|jik~2fCAx]QZT*^henecaUsEk_@'jx{2o#0C5Kl*`9E Z/ _D fyi&]@xXcG]%0+- ,z"*U93mket3a7XBul:v{:s?:M9b`Su&5Ay.3nE^.mH5g.yI~_Ahs?{5o8b4+d$kG', !x E0.r8Dss*aal5 Dde(HApQT]=NtD1Og]`4R,f%+Y21I.8QmcOfr-?*t%L{OUQQS,f%+Y2%&Nc mE(/oikdI`zns .t3yNi.F_PP'OYwcKodXuwvCsa/.=j{b[Y!cAX!LI%Khf~7Z-h2L1ywqClp &5NYJV2bx%q^Dx n;u+$y5n^I`vwGd17+Y maX|hQlF{{?p_N2QyA[_Nel 7qoX2TnC_^tZ$YJV-=&!CUSVqMgj 1)[mI$YI1ZbnVt>H3z^6X@6mmm[m%Ur"%bnV`nunIO^wo/_|Z_*^J?%L/YJV-pZr~1LJIBzJ3/2b[7&gbPZFBsozv:Oky0tZeSC3{NCi;},}WA`OWcz* ? 2NnK/%JV^}Y~~~s-Q(a&}8z*W-a )_ t^Kty}@GO^*+.%e`6yxqeso;~i_s%w*$77'eU+Sv|J-%Q'h#G&O:%zFQVyDj82hCa26J=BV}}|4;TZ' rp*XP?L_c]z5gs21"M,R|xt'zVHhGmUkLXW VlcDhLv?|yIaYJo~aX=1JRV'3JDeEH*yE_rqT'Ga8p).:O+"v#qg/-..J(eG0Y[[zkz17$]sgui1Z$,X;J|S4H' /jx5*Jd Jq`*tgAmm}u*M7ykO57,&F===g3f9bfFZK6j;vLcl9a;z]@)|S'LICg5E2QCS91lalDwCkRkza- &r_|^"[7]P8m$6ze:~&Vv=gC4n{8okVY~ /8t`8hVQ,vDhK7}-6#L,6lNN {z~moI^x Fv=v'D,]Rw[C=~x&sv)wD0jku= ^Yk@rTP>R

zx|Q8ib%a`[ZG1qF[d3?{{9y3P[MCfHYA8hr|G@.3t~!8x}FA-5zg2k4tj-%":?!!F25?4:D'GhA= vO8A Xvb4vyH-r9so_1ed7Y%tS>0aUukd*#v&H'e* =!s+z*--:~x"qR*3=J6Il --pZXtn^R94hzj!rpUvCV8LvwZKva.TWLL$==PtGthiD[zm#AT" Yv_aAe.s ptb@nMqnkk+3$2).ZMbhEv.>}S?t|b:pZ0G&x9y6}&r=p#CCu>PsL+p-y C {UUs%1vI~7zV72Tm*_}Q/!uCrh'^Pp bOUZZz&g*ti(.gA3Q0;[ Q&MW/*Ndr76muKB"F@mWtWl,@,-$EZMktoT>u>4yzK'HS.|O>ZBv47G"z]YT4DX4rZujhPv;=}8|3%F 1^f *>BbuOnQ&us1~;iNzIr2sJ'cG)Quo6m yM4Wi&6zo_nh$8YT)mM}Q3dS-k^h#GwFm@Civ{kJK5Q5@;Tri6N2y) %UDK$(8 .{t0`aq]K`;V~#QZb/d@Cs,/rV&" w]pG8H-VMM [ny+"(q2WU%t}pY}yvbp/>3{Ai96 sW H /iP31635 S'%mo;>4PW]@Cj"U."8^Xz'O^1 ZP#4&%W2sM# RC "v")1__RP_=6&D#GVN2n-P]% GQR4 |QuVUVz #`V!A|&aaAW}U H6X**s=^i:>5dPEc'AMB#5a>(Y jgs2IQm&2SniH>JKx1W9&wun/F* *0WX 5X M`mxMR:l?p0xnK^"bmKkfxbaK`@O?"DO+NS-IOZ9a'N*P$C(9ab$xqtd9E3MR +4_C[*!L~tR'yL IX BsfAi.&%QLS1k,'dJCd8r~VMMJvx4}4,x0>M6F'>v]r4-JB44DUo#6KWw54@#84iOeGVk/i" Hu.Ib[9pJM@Wovj'VDXX? l:7{).~={r"YZe_%QukKBk61f]DvyO 5Gt~.W1$2saI bK+D[(i U[03z3lpD_^2/ %JePk!Z*]B b#6W8>(9'wf{tv>n7![0=IJG[lKK4Z|Ws|3aIp~.7;tm`#4bh&,zrIAS p+ s_YH96J;TW& Y9 [^Z&h[/v>} wkx}Qs}W:rg&V*IHfv_[}Xz7/nj7(jvZ }0l~cLYszj#{e59Dvt`:*f %)Xn>f6P#RUK^~&,H6dUNmvw/;!MHoF2x6aCS;*^H// QtaFuMi|8K w-V*Y1l>}z7e4_A[ki* q$Q,nXF1kq[;b| $H%9i0/fuO95xaiF(!9s>SPc.]5v|+b:=Vv}#5~g5K~K D?& 0z|v0"V"D;Rc q/ 9 y"Sl[Z0 xou)&A^4paji, [Xv20us'SH-1/Kp@K8iv#wC*Ft{T[9s$MU9^"yrPi#.E6d-ll)75*1u)27&%Kmth,0uR. #}yf{{HE9:Y.Xw~x (A"ObB7I.to`Ri70 x]BZoWfcpfeC"oFooJlq;h|1WxJ#W^yyPjM^e}w%1JWf8q.kZm[~xGrp*F_~{W;u hm#G5/Vp^ZK`P0W ?l@v}-s={he!2vi+i&+!7 wofr~[&?M$Weped2PH6::7g{S+2Nil:E">h&LXzZD9eI07sf5bgC)'&WY[KP++S&=]lR&e;prZV|iK3aV?O n8akFwSgKo~g$.(__I{LnDa*nJz{J3e`1x8vC2gPNyOa4HtVc0sfl#SD@YI3?N7Y?zo17D>LdIB ^ bN $,"{z=f{QnbHH$t}B{%]6#!vosO(Fd]t/uPw}fOwr9;]G4E%L}w;),x~wkseX,$&Y(XiWv3U2s[ZZh9Zx r&fn*} !r3 % f*F"_^blh]=8sVjve,bVvwWQT']*zN0W9f3m37hz- 4xI' 4%Qu Rk'_aV.r{'x$c0uq$Be5d8niv$DDt@YJ~XWp LkSUp|0&&F~= g||+8,''[ @w>r-xYv;s(d| r&aIvsMJqdI&!EKh^YH`YTBiX SUNF57 xD~aNUEL@ .$aW[|{a5zZ}0-FA68&-++#e#4"+7d*-^E'FKftC" 5Mzo}u~U!YZ0Lbzs~qv 5(q#qAw4&OVVxwiGAZwEU%/YJ$0VB+,b N^Ien-6C>DL'hBa%Qit#t.dYexbj|#MC7 e+B?Sq~ghQ] 4"r5kl8sa_^Zp$d&nlo_j xp/;@OddPPQ%()AU| %dTN &s? gjJHqI"eYS:J1t2n^HUV={6{uvL.v2ZN~&N

F{HK ds.xIcV~jX;mtNB5 ]'9jP++knxpZ&ti_DLz3c{bb$q-B /ziG0gR}~A|:Jw9h:e$0{/bVpiVlb=MNC? tx'0d=/ppO Irt2K"[s2/wMh~^J40WB1cKOixd065## }C (aJSV&$Bu8oX0>vcF~rQsi=PBmY.ZaWxf?: V(qBuk@9,KLD_`Rv HCLQ4DB99@@w)IpS^+H.X_i@!`7r00UU {Xa*DK5r"~ytW^ZI]*"i$M6rfBuiBc4u3N G3. >$11X^$CObvPH@G@)g>Mb%5HzzQYY4}:z4>O?}^!+O9d|WTWn"gYZ6La0aWKm)@|7OWF$duq6YWpCKDCAB4i1Fu3'_^oMLL!;wf39%?E"p5 5([[L~]nn,Ea!WW9mOJ'Lb2f|]q#ZU F6my[}ay}e`-suSJGp{WHy5MmWF|jw6]-v7C'BAnotxWpsxUDt@p fNlv}5I"Ba%J-t,()NNbUU->-=oLNNNb^b?E/Cr [^Mk{V`=6l1^C/,]qi&O=~7ag+gV*=@v?*-!MVMRO@U/I[(3mUb4H|BGr'Puu_vj2Eo- vj_umH[a{ y("[E6e. {w)^_ }k6knps.yq?f^,EQfY/F#>:Tn]gHY;U9l.L1[@oq@0#P[!LNN8R~x?ngyyBtM>NN45% Ql6S~S)5-']=~X(9_z>R:mH"@B1l 9iE*pW}yi{Zd2UU&YMH&& (i>Drx4*jh"(i;)2*_}Z[W;?P@23;Wj) ylP'*`5 Ar+jAx`{s.k!=fGJ jYW|Z#bB0F#c-ZXhA)55 FG/ 5I8U47+|XWBYSDOGK&?PWGv1J`LB]|EzGN=6@jS^CJdAz8Lr{2;{vhhj[@gR[5d j^\B7xe`AX 4`}=1SH-k.uWL:MV|ee%2@=I!.j|N&'eGA0Qos'wO[RtJmhp|K=W2,.(Yd;7ejK=WA4W(W^{+q^8UxDsf}u">tGypI[E/s-0sM$.UUU[@ K+I^@;8a~3:MNDos[u_)G2NKJJt+{>99yxVKLFnzJ A5n',ydFz+Wjv [?K=XN>>S2xSOH$WhJAq.r'4>Yv]v8p&J2PYskLY*c%-|eGV%*5aD.MmmIYYfQ_H>Htz~[1/:X&GLq?sqYzmH-'+VJUkgv?>W. o=9}7)}y|5B&_~+lF`7ygrCkXs.;=9Cu]8s)/sc#'`/vxv1V4WkUfTd`|Qsq%o&mp1$p&X0Ge%?'{%]OH> endobj 41 0 obj <> endobj 42 0 obj <> endobj 46 0 obj <> endobj 47 0 obj <> endobj 51 0 obj <> endobj 52 0 obj <> endobj 56 0 obj <> endobj 57 0 obj <> endobj 61 0 obj <> endobj 62 0 obj <> endobj 63 0 obj <>stream x| x93F%vY[UlY^x8{H bCB-"!@O))MR@iKShKH>>Og29#h#PJHVo:/E#z/[(0h,jA]Q%p^%4~'t9QrQH@oME;sX(2t3:E rE5?F2-h}A$jxeK34%oOozQ> Gf-AVJ^!]!t:}kC".9wL1 v3r@/uM_BOB^@/y'wC>gkD&9-"DB@JC9(GC;U+CEC 4)F{p!.aF<_i#BN( ""b'qq6Cc3!w o*h8ihO%5F`&#5TE(J(h}928l@{^}n~Gr< B'Ak9@{4o]?g>CI8X),2ZlVl `"*2[q;x} x'(_ow1@;x_OC''.#Zb7qxxI I R !k: Wcsk;dykyyN^w{Cu;wO R*JO]G=)%B31n'Q#BD0Xos7qr(F#&XD$0E!k5?{EVTL:Y//HFRQFk::z|KkK2Hf;Q:kY]Cu ]#XE _Q- P 71ux#S6!N:#hfv5*Z5qAm^cvN!o32'{w(SyO{Dh]]/6emFr,`eO[,io/R/L~x".ZN>xBIK IhoS+> 4maiB6XcTbt[>k'r ?1)E"J0R]@?_#)K`S"U"6M@#%<6 Q~tPJ:(9(%.'. )~KGK9 Eso5..>OqN.DRQLIONI'S,#|t%',j3QN5x)9kE3hP1I;RdC;CSw s USS;ZheRMZ)^O_h?G&OZOLv=kqm~Z-_C fZU{ZJZL !qjpP`L 6ghOF O ^^85+/``iD2x}gcg8e8;;dI{gN{rzO>,icF} }}bjH{ARY U{} p{y&hVj9~G#FBDw';#_|WyQ>8:9bnEec"STV=9&rrLY1=dK1^+ZBH> J*4`%PR<('gp99gy MNr_159j||rp= v,G|:=hZXmnS3*@doAtVNY!' { oM~C!L>1Q]VYC2yRr3"Rh;i&anzVkXivV("~gO[-tsTb,cp|gW#RkU:[#[#[####C^ S^yL)(H9e1$]hf MBP/ B0' B`'8"?5?`f/gjp!jx= .vF6lP|-F6OxKo/zd/>WUK*X[6rv;X#N't:w6w1B7wX{fh,qz'Cpb@' + N,"Nb'&uMh'D2 RRRu8IEU@ 5e4M24HLL3WSKxhk 6G=0w6y>?AiIc/c?N/+v nkj>//8F=BT[[Vr#D*$s: S^:.Qp6SI6`a J Eo^K-4IRPSZ".Amrv#Ne&lm_QBDyTIaA%Q,Q:+:'nc5GxeE}.k|:k3QZy d5QT]rg&F?>#<9O.S2u]/R'3s<F>slm^)^ qP`!t J@ql.)09"IuI%9`5 &,x_KU^ym'Ze*I2,!tPb>tS09STV~=*$%vN%!W&8XiP7jEjXptMC`2.iW^sJlLV,0#%uB,}mk5-we1u60=tx_{y':37[| zt'b-kjG"Z>SMm1SggrnnEj+dm5Db,`7fZNtT;UXg>tU)c^:.WK??Vfy7W]szmN4U%cOC+1w +,b_8h]rO`h9XoX~KK6 R6{ivr73&E[smYffF)a3Z^0 ` 0_E6|D)]#=`q;O g&Mcr;{FF*[Cr S4h `D~>!4b.8.!"65XIsiJ+ }-bTmW[W7#F}+*YY|=HdSU_ P/X,=R+X4aj9Qp6y0."5,q[s*kr2N;}$$l/gfYa] r3f~gk6w37&?]w>|s]#[w` lry=k?gFh{J6d3s$9,]/zm"ZCVrTl Y/wnSF| W ]sz@=^b_5w%W:uM}4DZ[jp(r?s/?CA?R]>E/m>,U2l.{@VZd|U`~xi*-g{I 7&4MMyYNAZ KJHp)Rz7NWaP|YK+t~%hg TX)X5z.*U-o5-;DVQ<>]" iMywTm#me^XRbin4`E ]d(iYV+ay] huD+*+UYz"j.7S=-?@BSis,'vRB 8S5jLJ08"8_S_ER#nl+[-+v //cJs_u}!k=iNz=7:d+VZ2 qc3" !=vLPCneC}|W-gV_ ?*FVdZ23WJ> X1T+UjB]NfYYyl,:gl latjRTVB<[YaA]y~NN@w*k.y%(=:BS!qyt*cH9YJjV [NX5VxXhTfp$Ig"RB1NMBl_yG6voqk?,xw^1:&9c-eOTU6O3dP l%fHZZY2::GcaKiqa ]92dfeqA)Y.l` xt`-a?_:Kw3h-OvW*J 2*rcdCJlr HL$7/`ak+h;>{O2uQDyH'1L0Xx drA9Sxu7n9q>_6r^1Z*,j5C cjepfef e"UPj'("eph,oSb$C ,,-ZM[y/ebHMHTj /RSX4X4to$nxoV* +Es+G L7vfXn+s/6;[d++^^*"n)+^ %~tuvtge{DHPA#i-VEY>50 V1bl5IsjqF*Ct@i 3lcL mR_85T,M6)!]^p'Kv*1/?V"4k]EUae;YUk?Wf_ %DvDKoiiZ~.|AGj(HxF!41Zmjj!,F)0xlDy9 5JU/1G#x~.n3Fi3gtwjCRik*d`$WfB0pLWQ*mZSf2uMFzLy%/a]{+19P ht|LRA9j3dP:"]jEAjj1M .;r*D!`Izzv("N){"e("x<OKivW7Mv-};o ~1'T%J[p2;1T`n3BD44$d CDoclQ[,[P2-@Qm68[l z0EOTB I*;;H^b57N'iY,WM#`q*2,@v1tCNX+ 57{m}uUS#w,U8V=;kvC6gzO;6o*FUGZ}8tK"3t?wuGnC*[kk1_w :'TH(:hDFRGdr/GYl,U6P&3X,H>If=o/EsKK~l`AbSIZ^klvr}\i'!oj{VgKk.{vf~V7|fr[ao.TvIWLG~{y^?/:Ah8 bipvvm$d+knJAdcj]{L2yN}3z(zS?`8.&5^0Al@r/7l*/^X^h96 kK!X{3g xe7'~f8*UK[#w;Zq}GM[ +l+[%83JF&H_Nyy|w~w*C[Yux{7d5Feo[xYMqOK?9"l5 ls?j2,<>A}Rq9SdG15m"xrHEbZ-'+F"Zd"$BQ'[ xR*)|yDiRaU^@s#b # h!(U@@z%'a8VE~=Cspi/) FRN'_RgDV0UIU%+s$~ _N||cpc)*: PR-)NLh+!K9t"w KmqJD=$&*=#n%we|SG]ZD~+3|[U_uTk#aJ?nTEey`&R'%j%Kw,[%Ozr?oO K1x'`8.)APbj@ 5%_diA sC)E}h2dl{cP )BGkJy/ KO?F_woo=Hsw~/A|sve[G?p^A#p=A(c:K-bA?~jP)cp6rzO|fa <>stream x|yxUt$,vh H$Hf3FI5b4D"2J3 8:(33c^EqKwnueyySws=U ApP2kn0?45Ihp>8mV_re]5uo``PUm-~R|

Read the original post:

Human Genetic Engineering on the Doorstep - hgalert.org

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

The chasm between rich and poor in the world has become so extreme it is frequently difficult to grasp. The eight richest men in the world now own as much as the entire bottom half of the worlds population. The wealthy OECD countries, representing less than 20% of the global population, consume 86% of the worlds goods and services, while the poorest 20% consume only 1.3%. These numbers translate into the shameful reality that a billion people go hungry every day and another billion remain chronically malnourished.

Nevertheless, you wont hear much talk about these numbers in techno-optimist circles that breathlessly discuss the tantalizing possibilities of human enhancement. When futurists blithely envision the possibilities for human enhancement, they ignore the fact that billions of people are barely surviving. and will have no realistic chance of gaining access to these advances. In fact, spend enough time on these topics and youre liable to forget that the majority of human beings are struggling to make ends meet and barely able to think about the next month, never mind decades ahead.

In certain affluent echelons of the developed world, the technological promise of an enhanced human lifestyle exerts a powerful attraction. Leading Silicon Valley companies are funding startups intent on discovering how to disrupt the aging process and allow people to achieve something close to immortality. Breakthroughs in neural implant technology raise the possibility of people being able to communicate with their computer and each other by thought alone in the near future.

Meanwhile, advances in genetic engineering offer the possibility that, within a few decades, the gulf between rich and poor might extend beyond economics and technology to become part of our biological makeup. Scientists are working on identifying sets of genes that correlate with better intelligence, physical fitness, health, and longevity. Once they do so, affluent parents will not forego the advantages that genetic engineering could offer their offspring. At first, new generations will appear much like the older ones, only somewhat more intelligent, healthier, and longer lived. Before too long, however, we will see a new default perception of what constitutes a human being in the affluent world.

Gregory Stock, an advocate of human genetic engineering, predicts we will soon see humans as divergent as poodles and Great Danes. Hes not alone in this view. Physicist Freeman Dyson has warned that engineering the human germline could cause a splitting of humanity into hereditary castes, while biologist Lee Silver sees what he calls GenRich and naturals ultimately splitting into entirely separate species, with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

Eventually, the affluent and the dispossessed will become effectively, if not literally two separate species. One species, genetically and technologically enhanced, exploring entirely new ways of being human; the other species, genetically akin to us, left behind to struggle in a world reeling from resource exploitation and environmental degradation. Its a future scenario I refer to as Technosplit.

Cameron and Jude, circa 2050

Based on the current rate of converging technical advances, its reasonable to expect, by 2050, a young affluent urban couple lets call them Cameron and Jude to be planning their genetically optimized offspring while communicating their thoughts and feelings to each other in an enhanced form using neural implants.

Cameron and Jude will be increasingly segregated from the fate of billions of others suffering the effects of climate change and resource scarcity. They are fortunate to be living in London, one of the affluent cities that by then, will have spent many billions of dollars to protect itself against the massive tidal surges that will be part of the new normal. As they enjoy their virtual reality tours of the few carefully engineered eco-zones still maintained as wilderness parks, what kind of world will the majority of humanity be experiencing on the other side of the Technosplit divide?

In future decades, as the affluent minority enjoy their neurally interconnected, genetically enhanced lives, cities in much of Africa and Southeast Asia, beleaguered by political instability, massive poverty and inadequate infrastructure, are likely to be reeling from the ravages of climate change. Reduction in river flows and falling groundwater tables will lead to widespread shortages of potable water. Flooding and landslides will disrupt electricity, sanitation and transportation systems, leading to rampant infectious disease.

Meanwhile, even as these cities strain to the breaking point, millions more refugees will be streaming in from the rural hinterland where the effects of climate change will be even more devastating. Wealthier residents will flee these urban disaster zones for safer abodes, either in the developed world or newly planned, segregated cities insulating them from the suffering of their compatriots, leaving the largest urban population centers without the capital reserves to fortify their structures against the threatening onslaught of even more severe climate disruption.

Along with the human catastrophe of failed states and the misery of billions in overwhelmed coastal megacities, the nonhuman world is heading inexorably to its own form of collapse. At current rates of destruction, natural ecosystems are likely to be reduced to islands of conservation habitats surrounded by vast agribusiness plantations and urban sprawl. Tropical rainforests will only survive as degraded, shrinking remnants in national parks.

Cameron and Jude might not, however, consider this situation as gravely as we do, given their reduced expectation of the natural world and their ability to experience vastly enhanced virtual reality immersions in wildlife reservations, enabling them to feel closer to nature in some ways than many of todays urban residents. Meanwhile, the affluent world will be doing its utmost to maintain an iron grip on access to vital global resources through its stranglehold on the worlds economic and military systems.

A betrayal of human values

At the current rate of increase in global economic disparity and technological innovation, this is what we must expect for humanitys future. But is it what people desire, even in the affluent world? Many techno-optimists, who argue that humanitys defining feature is the ability to reach beyond the limitations of our biology, believe so and celebrate the possibility of humanitys ultimate triumph: the unfettered progress of technologys conquest of nature.

But theres another view of humanity that permeates the modern world, one based on the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. These words, from the U.N.s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, represent a different kind of historical progressthe progress of humanitys moral scope, which has expanded beyond tribal groupings to encompass the entire human race. In this view, spelled out by the Declaration in 1948, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. According to this view, everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

From this viewpoint, the Technosplit scenario would be a fundamental betrayal of human values. It would be equivalent to the rich minority building a luxury lifeboat and deserting a rapidly sinking ship thats taking down those who cant afford the entry ticket.

Avoiding Technosplit

On the other hand, might Cameron and Jude be more profoundly disturbed by the convulsions of their world than an equivalent couple in todays society? Could their enhanced connection with whats left of the natural world cause them to treasure it more keenly? Might the impending devastation from climate change drive them and their peers to demand a radical redirection in the worlds trajectory? Could their potentially enhanced neural ability to connect with the suffering of the impoverished billions cause them to press for a different world economic order that honors the intrinsic rights of each human being?

The attitude Cameron and Jude and millions of their peers take to their world will fundamentally affect the future trajectory the human race. And this attitude will depend ultimately on their core values, which will emerge to a large extent from ideas developed by our generation.

A scenario where humanity remains resilient requires something deeper than even the most compelling economic and technological solutions to our current crises, such as a global price on carbon and massive investment in green energy. These are undoubtedly necessary to avert disaster, but even if theyre fully effective, they wouldnt be sufficient to avoid the Technosplit scenario. That would require a more fundamental shift in the underlying values that drive our daily decisions, along with structural changes to the global economic system that is causing the inequalities wrenching humanity apart and leading us step-by-step towards Technosplit.

When a system is stretched to breaking point, something has to give. In the Technosplit scenario, our economic model remains resilient, but our shared humanity is transformed beyond recognition. In a scenario where our shared humanity remains intact, the economic system driving our current trajectory would need to be transformed, along with its underlying values: the pursuit of never-ending material growth and the glorification of humanitys conquest of nature. In its place, we need to nurture a new set of values, ones that emphasize growing the quality of life rather than material possessions, a profound sense of our shared humanity, and a commitment to the flourishing of the natural world.

As we progress further into this century, with its combination of glorious possibilities and existential threats, it is becoming clear that our generation, along with the next, is engaged in nothing less than a struggle over the future of what it means to be human.

This article was adapted from the final chapter of The Patterning Instinct: Trajectories to Our Future.Jeremy Lent is author of The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanitys Search for Meaning (Prometheus Books) available May 23, 2017.

View original post here:

Technosplit: The bifurcation of humanity - Salon

In Brief

The gene editing technology CRISPR/Cas9has paved a new path forward for us from eliminating diseaseandfixing pests,to restoring lost abilities the process is expected to graduateus into a new age of medicine. But it begs the question, can we make ourselves better? Can we improve our intelligence inthe advent of gene engineering?

The answer might just be a resounding yes.

The Cognitive Genomics Projectis focused on understanding the origin of intelligence within our own genome. Its lead by BGI, a non-profit research group based in Shenzhen, China, that was founded in 1999. The organization is currently conducting a gene-trait association study of g, a general factor of intelligence. General intelligence is defined by three prominent categories: stability, heritability, and predictive powers. In short, the study is collecting genetic data from over 20,000 individuals who have an IQ above 150, and looking for patterns in their genes.

While this might seem relatively straightforward, its actually a complex and difficult task. Thats becausegeneral intelligence does not follow mendelian, single-gene genetics. Researchers cannot simply look for specific mutations in specific genes, as they do for diseaseslike Huntingtons Disease or Cystic Fibrosis. Rather, intelligence is more similar to traits like eye color and hair color that involve multiple genes in inheritance patterns that we are just beginning to understand.

It remains to be seen how effective gene editing can be at influencing traits like personality and intelligence in peoplewhose brains have already been formed. One way we could avoid the gene editing process entirely is by genetically designing intelligence into our children from conception. We could utilize in vitro fertilization and carefully process the genetic information of each embryo produced for genetic preferences.

If the Cognitive Genomics Project provides significant data supporting thecorrelation between particular parts of the genome and intelligence, then parents can look for these genetics sequences in potential embryos and select the embryos with the desired traits. This method would increase the probability of intelligent children without having to edit particular genome sequences.

While the ethics of human genetic engineering continue to be debated, we may be closer to a more intelligent humanity than ever before.

Read more:

Gene Editing Could Make You Smarter - Futurism - Futurism

Commentary | Feb. 6, 2017

Should Christians face unethical uses of biotechnology with despair and resignation or with hope and determination?

Ive spent the last decade writing and speaking about the remarkable and terrifying world of biotechnology from a Catholic perspective. Many times Ive felt like Frodo Baggins at the gates of Mordor, looking upon Mt. Doom with despair and dread.

Ive never felt this more acutely than in the past few months. A series of recent headlines have renewed my sense of hopelessness in the face of the never-ending assault on the dignity of human life by modern biotechnology.

The gloom began to settle when it was revealed that a Swedish scientist is editing the DNA of healthy human embryos.Fredrik Lanner,a developmental biologist, is using a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR to disable some genes in healthy human embryos to see how those genes affect development. He and his team are intentionally modifyingotherwise healthy IVFembryos so they cannot develop properly.

Anin-depth story byNPRreveals that while the reporter was observing thegeneticmanipulation of five donated IVF embryos, one didnt survive the thawing process and one perished after being injected with the experimental gene-editing tool. Of the three who survived, one continued to divide, but not for long.All of the embryos were to be destroyedbefore they are 15 days old,as the law in Sweden dictates. Lanner insists that his research is critical to understanding human development, which, in turn, will shed light on infertility and disease.

Lanners work makes many ethicists and scientists extremely nervous. Jennifer Doudna, the co-inventor of CRISPR, along with other heavy-hitting scientists,havecalled for a voluntary moratorium on any editing of human embryosfor fear that it will lead to the creation of genetically modified children. Marcy Darnovsky, of the left-leaning Center for Genetics and Society, explains why she and her group havebeen so vocal in their opposition to the modification of human embryos. She told NPR: The production of genetically modified human embryos is actually quite dangerous. ... When youre editing the genes of human embryos, that means youre changing the genes of every cell in the bodies of every offspring, every future generation of that human being. So these are permanent and probably irreversible changes that we just dont know what they would mean.

Then came the revelation that a U.S. doctor traveled to Mexico to create the first baby intentionally engineered to have three genetic parents. This technique, misnamed mitochondrial replacement or MR, seeks to eliminate the transmission of genetic disease through the mitochondria.Mitochondria are small but abundant organellesoutside the nucleusinthe cytoplasmof our cells that make energy. They have their own DNA called mtDNA. We inherit our mtDNA solely from our mothers. A woman who carries a deleterious mutation in her mtDNA cannot help but pass that on to her offspring.

There are various MR techniques that replace the mitochondria of a woman with mitochondrial disease with the mitochondria of a donor femalein the IVF process.Essentially, MR creates a genetically alteredembryo with the genetic material from three people, one man and two women.

MR had only undergone limited study in primates before getting approval in the United Kingdom for use in fertility clinics to make babies. Little is known about the complexcommunication between the DNA in the nucleus and the DNA in the mitochondria,and so there is little data on the effects ofa mismatch between the nuclear DNA and mtDNA.

Alsoin all MR, its the nucleus thats being moved from cell to cell, not the mitochondria which is why mitochondrial replacement is such a misnomer.This makes MR acousin to cloning, which also transplants the nucleus of one cell into anotherto make a new organism. MR brings with it many of the same risks.Scientists are concerned about the health of the resulting children.

In anopen letterto the U.K. Parliament, Dr. Paul Knoepfler, a vocal American stem-cell researcher, warned: Even if, hypothetically, this technology might help avoid some people from having mitochondrial disorders (and thats a big if), the bottom line is that there is an equal or arguably greater chance that it will tragically produce very ill or deceased babies.

MRis also a germ-line genetic modification, which means that any girl born with this technique will pass her genetic modification on to her children.

A recent review in Nature reveals that MR leaves a tiny percentage of mutant mitochondria behind, and sometimes the mutant mitochondria rapidly divide and overtake the healthy mitochondria. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, head of the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at the Oregon Health and Science University, reported a 15% failure rate where mitochondrial defects returned. Mitalipov told NPR, That original, maternal mitochondrial DNA took over, and it was pretty drastic. There was less than 1% of the original maternal mitochondrial DNA present after replacement with donor DNA and before fertilization, and yet it took over the whole cell later. University of California San Francisco professor Patrick OFarrell suggests that mutant mitochondria can resurge at any time in a developing three-parent child or even resurface in future generations.

For all these reasons, MR is not yet approved by the FDA in the United States,and may never be.So, when a Jordanian woman with mitochondrial disease wanted to have a child using MR, John Zhang, from the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City, had to perform the procedure in Mexico. He created five embryos,and, according toNewScientist.com,only one developed normally. That child is now 9 months old.

Zhang went to Mexico because, he said, there are no rules, and yet he insists he did the safe and ethical thingin the absence of any medical or ethical oversight. In an ironic twist, the couple is Muslim and so chose the MR technique that wouldnt destroy existing embryos.But it was clear that only male embryos would be transferred for gestation, because boys cant pass on the genetic modification. What happened to the other four embryos, however? Were they destroyed,discarded or frozen? If they were females, would they have been destroyed anyway to make sure they couldnt pass on any ill effects?

Darnovskycalledthis rogue experimentationand added, No researcher or doctor has the right to flout agreed-upon rules and make up their own. This is an irresponsible and unethical act.

Knoepflerrespondedto the news by remindingus that this is a living human experiment that is going to unfold over years and decades. It is also worth noting that this child is a genetically modified human being as a result of this technique.

Of course, these are happenings to despair of not only because of the sheer disregard for the sanctity of individual human lives, but because of the breakneck speed at which scientists are kicking ethical lines farther and farther down the road like a tin can. All the while, they insist that its for the good of humanity. I wonder: How can wetreatindividual members of the human species so callously and then, at the same time, say its for the good of the whole human race?

I fear there is no line we wont cross;no ethical boundary wewonttear down in the name of science.

On a daily basis, Im surrounded by science and scientists. Often, their response to this madness is that its going to happen anyway, and theres no way to stop it, which implies we must go along to get along all in the name of progress.

If I am Frodo, then they and the rest of society are Saruman giving in to the despair and making a deal with Sauron.In the film version of The Lord of the Rings, Saruman says to Gandalf: Against the power of Mordor there can be no victory. We must join with him, Gandalf. We must join with Sauron. It would be wise, my friend.

Gandalf replies, Tell me, friend, when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?

Indeed. When did science abandon reason for madness, ethics for recklessness?

So what shall we do? If wesuccumb to despair, we become like Saruman.

We always have prayer. Its time toadd human embryonic research and germ-line human genetic engineering to our list of life issues that we pray about.It doesnt matter whether we understand the finer points of the science or not.Praying for an end to abortion andassisted suicide is nolongerenough.

In addition to prayer, there are other things we can do. The first is to vote pro-life at every level of government, from city council to state assemblymen. Being pro-life isnt just about abortion, however. Its about protecting the sanctity of life from the beginning to the end. Pro-life legislators, even if they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade, can effect local and state laws and steer funding away from unethical research.

Secondly, we must fight for conscience rights for medical professionals. I envision a not-so-far-off world wheredoctorsare forced into making genetically engineered embryos and bringing these children to term simply because parents claim its their reproductive right to have the children of their design. Without conscience rights, unethical experimentation on the next generation will be rampant and unchecked.

We must, however, always have hope. Whenstaring downthe juggernaut that is modern biotechnology, I always remember Frodo Baggins.When he was faced with the seemingly impossible task of taking the One Ring to Mordor, instead of shying away because it was too hard, he said: I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way.

Rebecca Tayloris a

clinical laboratory specialist in molecular biology.

She writes about bioethics on her blog,Mary Meets Dolly.

Read more:

Immoral Uses of Biotechnology Even With Good Intentions Are Evil - National Catholic Register