Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think the article mis-guesses some of the reservations people have.

For instance:

> Scheufele also found that very religious people were less likely to support either type of gene editing (for therapy or enhancement) compared to less religious people. That could be because altering the human genome — perhaps permanently — could be seen as "playing God."

I think the "playing God" aspect might certainly factor into it, especially when you move beyond merely treating disease/disorders. But perhaps a bigger reason is the ethics around the research itself, which involves manipulating human embryos and then essentially discarding them once the research is over.

And then the survey questions themselves have some ambiguity:

> The scientific community is capable of guiding development of new technologies in a responsible way

There are several ways to interpret this. Are they talking about a morally responsible way? A scientifically responsible way? One might have full confidence that a scientist can pursue research in a scientifically sound, responsible way, but one may have far less confidence that the scientist will make choices that accord with one's morality. That may not mean violating Ethics Boards guidelines, but a more fundamental disagreement about what the Ethics Boards consider to be ethical.




Well either abortion is unethical or embryo research is ethical.


Devils advocate: Abortion can be ethical and embryo research can be unethical, since there are additional ethical concerns. There's no consent, if you believe an embryo is alive. Also the embryo is being kept alive artificially, which may be seen as cruel.

Also it's possible to oppose both abortion and embryo research.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: