I don't think they would mean that much when things get personal. Ie you want to have kids but genetic heart disease runs in your family. The risk for down syndrome is 5x the average. And so on.

Or if you are a parent and your child is actually affected, you will go to great lengths to do practically anything possible for him/her. Becoming parent changes everybody.

Your priorities will be very different from say 20-something childless person in such a case.

All that being said, what the guy actually did doesn't make much sense. HIV isn't top priority concern for anybody apart from poorest parts of Africa. You can protect against catching it pretty effectively. But yeah pandora box and all that.

> All that being said, what the guy actually did doesn't make much sense. HIV isn't top priority concern for anybody apart from poorest parts of Africa. You can protect against catching it pretty effectively.

Correct. It makes a lot more sense IMHO if you imagine that his motive might have been less to protect them from HIV and more to get his name in the history books.

Enforcement is very difficult since anyone that wants to can start doing it. It's mind blowing but the tools and materials for genetic work are relatively inexpensive and are mostly unregulated. As far as know-how, it is not restricted either. The field mostly relies on good-will to make sure they do it ethically. Sure there are laws but they are only useful once some one is caught doing something wrong.

What are your ethics around human genome editing? Do you think its ok? If an ethics committee said it was ok, would that make a difference to how you evaluated it?

> What are your ethics around human genome editing? Do you think its ok? If an ethics committee said it was ok, would that make a difference to how you evaluated it?

no ethics committee would ever approve transgenic human embryo experiments.

this also sounds really stupid. like there's no real science there, just a willingness to overstep ethical bounds in the pursuit of fame and fortune.

meanwhile, it sounds like actual scientists are exploring crispr/cas9 approaches to curing hiv infected persons.

Seeing that I am not a certified professional in that domain. I would defer my judgement to a committee of experts.

Any self-proclaimed bioethics "expert" in the morality of this field has no more context on the ethics than you would have after an afternoon of browsing wikipedia and thinking about it carefully.

(obviously the actual scientific experts have more context on the what and how, but that's not the question)

Anyone can be an ethics expert after a short visit to Wikipedia?

This is how eugenics happens

Wasn't eugenics more about perceived superiority?

Getting rid of diseases seems like a nobel cause to me.

Being gay was considered a disease. I have mental illness. The jews were considered unclean.

Nazism is a spiritual disease and one i would be happy seeing continually wiped off the face of the earth.

>Nazism is a spiritual disease and one i would be happy seeing continually wiped off the face of the earth.

Not sure if this is a joke, but the idea that removing people from earth due to their belief of who should be removed from earth seems a bit of a moral pickle, or at least a self perpetuating people-removal-machine.

Yes, same.

>>Seeing that I am not a certified professional in that domain. I would defer my judgement to a committee of experts.

>This is how eugenics happens

I am astounded at the simplicity and the speed at which eugenics can happen. Can you provide links, I would learn more of this rapid process in hopes of learning how to defend against it.

Would you mind peeking at a comment i placed above? I have links in that one which address your concern directly.

Eugenic ethics: https://www.csustan.edu/history/hitlers-ethic

A quote from feynman: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Also eugenics is literally the belief that the genome can and should be improved via intervention beyond mate selection. Which you already hold. If you are incapable of seeing the connection between "we should be allowed to edit the genome" -> "we should improve the human genome" then i doubt you are engaging on good faith and im concerned about your elementary mental capacity

Yeah what an idiot. I’m totally fine with gene editing, I could give a shit how many experts disagree.

It’s possible, it’s cool, let’s do it.

Hey at least youre not blindly following experts. Id rather end up in your camp ;)