> The scientific establishment, however, seems to not have gotten the memo. If you suggest we engineer the genes of future generations to make their lives better, they will often make some frightened noises, mention “ethical issues” without ever clarifying what they mean, or abruptly change the subject.
This, I'm fairly confident, is absolutely untrue and I would be interested to see why they think this is the case, or to hear what specific objections they have regarding the current discussion. This New Yorker article (https://archive.is/uHf5J) from 2023 is about He Jiankui, whose methods the author specifically cites. More than likely, the author just doesn't agree with the objections raised by the scientific community, but I don't think it's about "not getting the memo."
The user Metacelsus mentions this in the comments:
> Finally: we need to be sure not to cause another He Jiankui event (where an irresponsible study resulted in a crackdown on the field). Epigenetic issues could cause birth defects, and if this happens, it will set back the field by quite a lot. So safety is important! Nobody cares if their baby has the genes for 200 IQ, if the baby also has Prader-Willi syndrome.
I'm a Senior Engineer with 18+ years of experience building and evolving scalable platforms, primarily focused on back end work. As a passionate mentor and collaborator I love building cross-functional relationships to grow teams and solve problems alongside both business and technical stakeholders.
I have a strong background in e-commerce from my most recently role (8+ years), but I consider myself a generalist looking to work alongside smart people solving interesting problems.
My kid loved Dora the Explorer. It asks kids to engage with it, so it feel like a more active experience than a show that's meant only to be watched. I used to watch it with her and we'd shout at the TV and jump around and even then it doesn't have that frenetic energy of a lot of other modern shows.
My personal website/blog!