#41 ·
Aganor said:Everything mentioned above sounds great in theory, but reality is messy. Even standard gene therapy hasn't lived up to the hype—not for the scientists, not for the doctors, and certainly not for the patients, particularly cancer patients who were promised miracles. It isn't working out quite as planned.[/B]
We are barely scratching the surface. We know the basics, and mapping individual gene functions can drag on forever, but the roadmap is there.
Aganor said:However, when we talk about germline therapy or modifying the genome of embryos and fetuses, the landscape changes entirely.
So, let me ask you a few questions. Once you answer, we can see if you actually grasp what you're talking about.
[/B]
Exactly. Fetal modification is controversial, which is precisely why I want to discuss it.
Regarding point 1: This is a broad debate. How this applies to the American public and its long-term consequences deserves serious scrutiny.
Regarding point 2: Using this on human embryos is only an option once we've mastered the mechanisms in other species. Risks exist regardless; we simply apply the same ethical standards used in all human research. This isn't a new dilemma, nor has it ever been a reason to halt progress.
Regarding point 3: Certain therapies should be covered by health insurance (if we find modifications for diabetes, cancer, etc.), especially since the resulting illnesses are matters of social welfare. Investing early in life saves massive amounts of money down the road. Other tweaks, like eye color or intelligence, shouldn't be subsidized by the public.
Regarding point 4: Genetic inequality already exists. A parent's desire to give their child the best possible start is legitimate. It’s nothing new; kids from wealthy families in cities like New York or Los Angeles already have a head start without any genetic help. Let's not descend into anecdotal arguments about some millionaire's kid struggling with addiction.
Regarding point 5: What happens during recombination when different genetic info meets at conception? Mutations—benign or otherwise? Only the method changes; the outcome remains the same. There is a risk of introducing new defects, but that shouldn't be a reason to ban genetic modification entirely. The potential benefits are too significant.
Regarding point 6: People ask how to prevent abuse. Yet, we didn't ban blunt force trauma. Ethics usually dictate how we use a tool, rather than banning the tool itself.