tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post8228114711920659563..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: Brave New World: A review of Jennifer Doudna and Samuel Sternberg's "A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution"Wavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-21644568250885145362017-05-17T09:18:53.615-07:002017-05-17T09:18:53.615-07:00Your discussion (as well the book itself) is very ...Your discussion (as well the book itself) is very apt. Coupled with the gene drive, CRISPR is a big deal-- and you captured that sentiment so well in your final sentence.<br />The conclusion is that we better figure out our ethics first.<br />But how many scientists (or engineers) have even taken an ethics course? Much less a good one? (I've taken one horrid one and one great one). And who has time to figure out a consistent ethical approach for a technology when exponentially magnified tertiary effects are unknown unknowns and grant deadlines are due?<br />To paraphrase Aragorn: "Are you frightened of CRISPR? Not nearly frightened enough."<br />I'm an optimist that some of us will survive, mostly intact. But I have no idea how.Tihamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10455538338951299249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-53427010022314205872017-05-06T02:03:00.615-07:002017-05-06T02:03:00.615-07:00Interesting review, makes it sound worth a read. H...Interesting review, makes it sound worth a read. However, I'm more taken by your discussion of balancing the opportunities and risks. I've had cause to think about this in a different area of science in my own work. I've ended up musing on the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' trope, which can be applied to the negative products of science ('science doesn't kill people, people kill people'). It occurs to me that objects are not equally dangerous - a person is much more likely to be able to kill someone with a gun than a banana. It feels like you can make an analogy that objects are filled with potential danger, in a similar way that they can be filled with potential energy. Whereas some drugs, for example, have a large benefit:potential danger ratio, it appears that CRISPR could have a smaller ratio. I've only just thought of it this way, but it's a little worrying. Early days yet still, I guess. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02723437600664270099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-38303554653634811432017-05-03T15:41:23.431-07:002017-05-03T15:41:23.431-07:00Thanks, corrected now.Thanks, corrected now.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-64484232570925892442017-05-03T06:54:50.824-07:002017-05-03T06:54:50.824-07:00I believe you meant "Currently there is thus ...I believe you meant "Currently there is thus no good scientific argument for <b>NOT</b> using CRISPR, at least for the kinds of changes in crops and livestock that we have been doing for years."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com