Re: [DIYbio] Re: "Geneva Statement"

The comic is off by an order of magnitude. Social issues take
multiples of 100 years since that is the human lifespan and it seems
nearly everyone retains the social values they grew up on. However if
technology were able to speed up the adoption of innovations in social
values, then you could reduce those timeframes.


On 8/11/20, David Murphy <murphy.david@gmail.com> wrote:
> addendum: there's also, as always, a relevant XKCD:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> When people make open-ended demands like that it's basically never in good
> faith. The goal is for them to suspend their opponents from any action. 10
> years later, 20 years later 30 years later they'll say the exact same thing
> just as they've been doing for decades already.
>
> They have no intention of *ever *stopping because a "temporary" hold they
> can keep extending forever is as good as a win and it means they don't have
> to make their case very well.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:21 PM David Murphy <murphy.david@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > "..given adequate time" does not mean "infinite time." Such
>> extrapolation is ridiculous hyperbole.
>>
>> When people openly support the kind of position that *created *the awful
>> history of eugenics I'm unwilling to give them any benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> Apparently they have no problem with restricting people from procreating,
>> all those forced sterilisations weren't a problem for them because *"sure
>> they can just adopt"*, apparently their only problem was with the changes
>> in allele frequency.
>>
>> Anyone who signed that statement should be viewed as having *extremely
>> *questionable
>> ethics.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 6:17 AM Jonathan Cline <jncline@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "..given adequate time" does not mean "infinite time." Such
>>> extrapolation is ridiculous hyperbole.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 10:22:51 AM UTC-7, David wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "We contest moves toward reproductive use of human genome modification
>>>> and affirm the need for broad societal consensus before any decision
>>>> about
>>>> whether to proceed is made. We insist on the need for genuine public
>>>> engagement that is inclusive, global, transparent, informed, open in
>>>> scope,
>>>> supported by resources, and given adequate time."
>>>>
>>>> Translations:
>>>>
>>>> "broad societal consensus" : "Specifically the author and only the
>>>> authors opinion, everyone else can fuck off because that's the only
>>>> opinion
>>>> they respect"
>>>>
>>>> " whether to proceed is made" : "never to proceed"
>>>>
>>>> "inclusive" : "excludes or ignores anyone who disagrees with us"
>>>>
>>>> " global" : "all decisions to be made based on the opinions of a small
>>>> number of middle class american arts graduates"
>>>>
>>>> "informed" : "anyone who disagrees with us will be dismissed as
>>>> uninformed"
>>>>
>>>> "open in scope" : "all objections given infinite air time no matter
>>>> whether they're coherent or not"
>>>>
>>>> "supported by resources" : "the authors side should be given grants to
>>>> employ people full time to come up with more inventive objections,
>>>> anyone
>>>> on the other side must do so for free"
>>>>
>>>> "and given adequate time." : "infinity years so we can shut it down
>>>> forever"
>>>>
>>>> "For example, prospective parents may seek to have unaffected children
>>>> via third-party gametes or adoption." : "we have no problem with
>>>> litteral
>>>> standard eugenics, preventing people with heritable diseases from
>>>> having
>>>> kids using a justification which would be recognised as evil if applied
>>>> to
>>>> any other group"
>>>>
>>>> These are not good people.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:57 PM 'Cathal Garvey' via DIYbio <
>>>> diy...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It also adopts uncritically some very iffy philisophical positions
>>>>> that
>>>>> are extremely convenient if all you want to do is wash your hands of
>>>>> other
>>>>> people's problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g.: germline gene editing doesn't cure any diseases because the
>>>>> people don't exist yet -> no need to switch the trolley to the other
>>>>> track,
>>>>> because it hasn't hit anybody yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt anyone with Huntingdon syndrome is going to read this and
>>>>> think
>>>>> "yea, thank goodness nobody intervened to prevent that gene from being
>>>>> inherited by the kids of my parents, or maybe I would be different or
>>>>> something"
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Securely sent with Tutanota. Get your own encrypted, ad-free mailbox:
>>>>> https://tutanota.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 Aug 2020, 13:48 by etcw...@hotmail.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> The geneva statement raises some valid points, but seems to err on the
>>>>> side of status quo bias, and linking gene editing to racist eugenics
>>>>> is
>>>>> just unjustified proliferation of aversion learning. Even if it *were*
>>>>> used
>>>>> that way, which it isn't, you don't hold a technology morally
>>>>> responsible
>>>>> for the way political outliers use(d) it.
>>>>> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 6:30:09 PM UTC+2 jnc...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Geneva Statement on Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Need for
>>>>> Course Correction*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Trends in Biotechnology SCIENCE & SOCIETY| VOLUME 38, ISSUE 4,
>>>>> P351-354, APRIL 01, 2020
>>>>> Published:January 31, 2020 DOI:
>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.12.022
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Heritable Human Genome Editing: Nearing a Critical Juncture
>>>>>
>>>>> "We contest moves toward reproductive use of human genome modification
>>>>> and affirm the need for broad societal consensus before any decision
>>>>> about
>>>>> whether to proceed is made. We insist on the need for genuine public
>>>>> engagement that is inclusive, global, transparent, informed, open in
>>>>> scope,
>>>>> supported by resources, and given adequate time.
>>>>> Toward that end, we call for an urgently needed course correction (Box
>>>>> 2) along three dimensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, we need to address and clarify several misrepresentations that
>>>>> have distorted public understanding of heritable human genome
>>>>> modification.
>>>>> Second, we must reorient the conversation by foregrounding societal
>>>>> consequences and undertaking a thorough analysis of threats to
>>>>> equality.
>>>>> Third, we need criteria for 'public empowerment': robust public
>>>>> engagement that promotes democratic governance through shared
>>>>> decision-making [4].
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the most fundamental and widespread misrepresentation is that
>>>>> heritable human genome editing is needed to treat or prevent serious
>>>>> genetic diseases. Deliberations about heritable human genome editing
>>>>> should
>>>>> hence acknowledge these basic points:
>>>>> • Heritable human genome editing would not treat, cure, or prevent
>>>>> disease in any existing person. Instead, it would modify the genes of
>>>>> future children and generations through the intentional creation of
>>>>> embryos
>>>>> with altered genomes. This fact makes it categorically distinct from
>>>>> somatic gene therapies. Heritable human genome editing should be
>>>>> understood
>>>>> not as a medical intervention, but as a way to satisfy parental desires
>>>>> for
>>>>> genetically related children or for children with specific genetic
>>>>> traits.
>>>>> • Modifying genes in early embryos, gametes, or gamete precursor cells
>>>>> could produce unanticipated biological effects in resulting children
>>>>> and in
>>>>> their offspring, creating harm rather than preventing it. Heritable
>>>>> human
>>>>> genome editing would also require and normalize the use of in vitro
>>>>> fertilization (IVF), exposing healthy women to significant health
>>>>> burdens
>>>>> [4].
>>>>> • Prospective parents at risk of transmitting a genetic condition
>>>>> already have several options to avoid doing so, should they find them
>>>>> acceptable. For example, prospective parents may seek to have
>>>>> unaffected
>>>>> children via third-party gametes or adoption.
>>>>> • In nearly every case, prospective parents at risk of transmitting a
>>>>> genetic condition who wish to avoid doing so and to have genetically
>>>>> related children can accomplish this with the existing embryo
>>>>> screening
>>>>> technique preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) [5]. While PGD also
>>>>> raises troubling ethical questions about what kind of lives we welcome
>>>>> into
>>>>> the world, modifying or introducing traits through genome editing
>>>>> would
>>>>> vastly intensify these concerns. Genome editing cannot be considered
>>>>> an
>>>>> alternative to PGD, because PGD would remain a necessary step in any
>>>>> embryo
>>>>> editing procedure.
>>>>> Deliberations about heritable human genome modification must seriously
>>>>> investigate the implications of social and historical dynamics such as
>>>>> these:
>>>>> • Competitive pressures to 'get ahead', coupled with commercial
>>>>> incentives in the fertility industry (especially where it operates in
>>>>> the
>>>>> private sector), could foster the adoption of heritable human genome
>>>>> editing by those able to afford it. Unequal access to perceived
>>>>> genetic
>>>>> 'upgrades' could then exacerbate the recent dramatic rise in
>>>>> socioeconomic
>>>>> inequality.
>>>>> • Racism and xenophobia are resurgent around the world, fueled by
>>>>> discredited scientific and popular assumptions about biological
>>>>> differences
>>>>> among racially categorized populations. Eugenic thinking, which aims
>>>>> to
>>>>> 'improve' humanity through genetic and reproductive technologies and
>>>>> practices, persists in popular discourse and could be reinvigorated by
>>>>> the
>>>>> availability of heritable human genome editingiv [6,7]. These
>>>>> pernicious
>>>>> ideas increase stigma and discrimination against those considered
>>>>> genetically disadvantaged, including disabled people and communities,
>>>>> and
>>>>> undermine the fundamental equality of all people.
>>>>> • Outcomes in related biotechnological spheres provide examples of the
>>>>> likely trajectory of heritable human genome editing if commercialized.
>>>>> These include the promotion of social sex selection by fertility
>>>>> clinics
>>>>> and of unproven and risky 'treatments' by commercial stem cell
>>>>> clinics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Public engagement and empowerment are likely to reveal additional
>>>>> concerns that have not yet surfaced, particularly if we commit to
>>>>> including
>>>>> and listening to a broad range of voices and perspectives.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> End quote
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-8, Jonathan Cline
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> He Jiankui and colleagues found guilty, He gets 3 years in prison and
>>>>> pays a mediocre fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Chinese Scientist Who Genetically Edited Babies Gets 3 Years in
>>>>> Prison*
>>>>> He Jiankui's work was also carried out on a third infant, according to
>>>>> China's state media, in a new disclosure that is likely to add to the
>>>>> global uproar over such experiments.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By Sui-Lee Wee
>>>>> Dec. 30, 2019
>>>>> Updated 10:02 a.m. ET
>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/business/china-scientist-genetic-baby-prison.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BEIJING — A court in China on Monday sentenced He Jiankui, the
>>>>> researcher who shocked the global scientific community when he claimed
>>>>> that
>>>>> he had created the world's first genetically edited babies, to three
>>>>> years
>>>>> in prison for carrying out "illegal medical practices."
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, China's state media said his work had resulted in a third
>>>>> genetically edited baby, who had been previously undisclosed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. He pleaded guilty and was also fined $430,000, according to
>>>>> Xinhua.
>>>>> In a brief trial, the court also handed down prison sentences to two
>>>>> other
>>>>> scientists who it said had "conspired" with him: Zhang Renli, who was
>>>>> sentenced to two years in prison, and Qin Jinzhou, who got a suspended
>>>>> sentence of one and a half years.
>>>>>
>>>>> The court held that the defendants, "in the pursuit of fame and
>>>>> profit,
>>>>> deliberately violated the relevant national regulations on scientific
>>>>> and
>>>>> medical research and crossed the bottom line on scientific and medical
>>>>> ethics," Xinhua said.
>>>>>
>>>>> American scientists who knew of Dr. He's plans are now under scrutiny.
>>>>> Dr. He's former academic adviser, Stephen Quake, a star Stanford
>>>>> bioengineer and inventor, is facing a Stanford investigation into his
>>>>> interaction with his former student. Rice University has been
>>>>> investigating
>>>>> Michael Deem, Dr. He's Ph.D. adviser, because of allegations that he
>>>>> was
>>>>> actively involved in the project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Quake has said he had nothing to do with Dr. He's work. Mr. Deem
>>>>> has said he was present for parts of Dr. He's research but his lawyers
>>>>> have
>>>>> denied that he was actively involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ## Jonathan Cline
>>> ## jcline@ieee.org
>>> ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
>>> ########################
>>>
>>>
>>>


--
## Jonathan Cline
## jcline@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAAhtNQu5kty8HXHNdou0q76psqLW_wq81ud6_A%2BFagN%2B4Jd4kg%40mail.gmail.com.