cooperellis

UK has been doing this for decades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8

While I agree that it is good to treat and cure diseases, the third perspective in the article (David King) argues that gene editing has rapidly advanced recently. The main evidence of this the UK approval of an experiment that uses the Crispr-Cas9 method, which was only developed 3 years ago.

I agree, but getting multiple perspectives on an issue can be extremely time-consuming and challenging. This site shares three different perspectives on current events in one place: http://pxw.news/whos-to-blame-for-the-iran-saudi-dispute/

I agree, getting multiple perspectives on an issue can be extremely time-consuming and challenging. This site shares three different perspectives on current events in one place: http://pxw.news/whos-to-blame-for-the-iran-saudi-dispute/

yea, i think wyden makes sense: "It would create a perverse incentive for companies to avoid looking for terrorist content on their own networks, because if they saw something and failed to report it they would be breaking the law, but if they stuck their heads in the sand and avoided looking for terrorist content they would be absolved of responsibility."

how so?