Yeah America has all the moral debates about genetics and experiments with embryos. But the bottom line is other countries are going to move forward no matter what America does.
If those morals say people should die instead of getting the organ transplants they need, maybe we are better off ignoring such morals.
Viability matters here. I realize you see that differently. Realize others will ALWAYS differ on this. ALWAYS.
Frankly, this will absolutely be done. There probably will be wars over it too.
And it still will be done.
And then it will be done sans an embryo, using stems.
Right now, powerful, wealthy people are paying full attention. The one thing they cannot buy will end up for sale. More time.
Buckle up. It is going to get super ugly.
There is not a wrong, just grave differences, IMHO, unresolvable ones. At least for a considerable time.
That was the intended point.
People are going to really struggle over this area of tech.
Not so much an argument as it is, look out. Incoming!
This research is part of a larger trend in biology where things once thought to be impractical are rapidly becoming possible. Extend these trends decades into the future; are you okay with a world where people can select the quality/type/number of organs for other people? What about the intentional creation of deadly viruses that select for subsets of the population? What about organizations intentionally modifying embryos to create people fit for menial labor? What about people making involuntary clones of others? And so on and so forth with the presently sci-fi topics.
Whether or not most people would generally agree to do such things, the fact is that they become possible. Without accurately projecting the economic factors in play 50, 100, 200 years from now, you can't actually confirm that people won't exploit biological research in this way.
Consider the atomic bomb as a case study. There are immediate positive side-effects that particle physics has brought to the world; but it doesn't simply cancel out the negative effects, nor can anyone alter their severity. After the creation of the 1st atomic bomb, the world is now left in a position where any of the major world super powers can _literally_ wipe out all human life on earth. Millions of man-hours per year have to be dedicated to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring atomic weaponry, and the stakes of political action have been permanently raised.
Similarly, if producing viable human-animal embryos becomes possible, the status quo of biology is permanently altered. Is it for the better? Maybe, but it's glib to just _assume_ it's better.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
When it comes to biological sciences, we are on the forefront of some very big questions that do need consideration, especially because other populations (in advanced first-world countries) are deciding to move forward.
If Japan had just approved involuntary human experimentation on political prisoners, and it eventually lead to a breakthrough on cancer research, every person who argued against it would still immediately use that research to save their kids.
People are (broadly speaking) usually hypocritical when their individual needs conflict with their social ideals. Productive discussions about social moral standards should usually ignore that hypocrisy.
(Philosophical question I suppose)
I'm sure you would disagree, of course, because you probably only see this principle applying to certain moral issues--namely, the ones you've already carved out as exceptions because you don't perceive them as injustices.
note that many parts of the US enthusiastically adopted stem cell technology (https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/history) but unfortunately federal-level policies set by conservative leaders have ameliorated the ambitious plans of that project.
The opposition was/is entirely to the death of embryos in order to obtain some stem cells for research. It's not as if it's some anti-science policy.
It's simply a continuation of anti-abortion politics, which a lot of people feel very strongly about and invokes a ton of ethical questions. As long as there can be a perception that someone was killed in order to provide the stem cells to save someone else, that's not going to go away.
Find ways to research stem cells without doing that and all of those concerns vanish.
https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/cirm-faq#embryos "All the embryos used in CIRM-funded research were donated from IVF clinics. They had either been rejected for implantation and were going to be destroyed, or the couple had decided to stop storing the embryos for future use. The embryos used to create embryonic stem cell lines were already destined to be destroyed."
You're also making the assumption that this is moving "forward" and that there won't be ramifications outside of external influence by other countries.
Nice.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
As in, "you're having all these debates about how to defend your front door but you don't even have a lock on your back door."
While that's their prerogative, the US could still enact trade sanctions.
On the other hand, DARPA is probably already working on the next generation of hybrid human/gorilla soldier.
Related:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701-000-blasts-f...