I see your point in that gene drives are dangerous. The fact that anyone could make their own gene drives that could do practically anything and unleash that upon a population is a terrifying...
I see your point in that gene drives are dangerous. The fact that anyone could make their own gene drives that could do practically anything and unleash that upon a population is a terrifying future. But whether we like it or not, gene drive technology will advance exponentially. If countries ban research on gene drives or related technology, those researchers will inevitably turn to other countries that will allow the research to continue.
Imagine a world where nearly every country in the world has banned research in gene drives. No research in that technology can take place in any of the countries we usually associate with scientific research. This, however, does not stop researchers from trying to develop that technology. So what will they do? They will go to countries that haven't banned the research because they want to use it to their advantage. Imagine a country like Iran or Russia having the biggest state-funded research sectors on genetic editing research. Imagine what they could do with that technology.
Science will progress no matter what we do. It is up to us to try to make sure that the research continues in the safest ways possible, and to make sure that these tools are used in the best way possible. Because, like it or not, the technology is coming one way or another.
Really fascinating article! I wondered from the title if it was about gene drives; I first came across them in the New Yorker article "Rewriting the Code of Life" which was linked at the end of...
Really fascinating article! I wondered from the title if it was about gene drives; I first came across them in the New Yorker article "Rewriting the Code of Life" which was linked at the end of this article. It's one part scientist profile, one part CRISPR and gene drive primer, and one part exploration of the lyme/mouse research and its ethical implications. I highly recommend it to folks who like this Vox article, and I'm looking forward to reading the other articles linked alongside it.
[As an aside: would this type of article maybe work better in ~science? It's quite science-heavy and there's a lot of interesting stuff to talk about.]
The OP might also add tags to this post to indicate the core topics the article touches (I would suggest at minimum science, then maybe "malaria," "CRISPR," and "GMOs").
The OP might also add tags to this post to indicate the core topics the article touches (I would suggest at minimum science, then maybe "malaria," "CRISPR," and "GMOs").
I see your point in that gene drives are dangerous. The fact that anyone could make their own gene drives that could do practically anything and unleash that upon a population is a terrifying future. But whether we like it or not, gene drive technology will advance exponentially. If countries ban research on gene drives or related technology, those researchers will inevitably turn to other countries that will allow the research to continue.
Imagine a world where nearly every country in the world has banned research in gene drives. No research in that technology can take place in any of the countries we usually associate with scientific research. This, however, does not stop researchers from trying to develop that technology. So what will they do? They will go to countries that haven't banned the research because they want to use it to their advantage. Imagine a country like Iran or Russia having the biggest state-funded research sectors on genetic editing research. Imagine what they could do with that technology.
Science will progress no matter what we do. It is up to us to try to make sure that the research continues in the safest ways possible, and to make sure that these tools are used in the best way possible. Because, like it or not, the technology is coming one way or another.
Really fascinating article! I wondered from the title if it was about gene drives; I first came across them in the New Yorker article "Rewriting the Code of Life" which was linked at the end of this article. It's one part scientist profile, one part CRISPR and gene drive primer, and one part exploration of the lyme/mouse research and its ethical implications. I highly recommend it to folks who like this Vox article, and I'm looking forward to reading the other articles linked alongside it.
[As an aside: would this type of article maybe work better in ~science? It's quite science-heavy and there's a lot of interesting stuff to talk about.]
The OP might also add tags to this post to indicate the core topics the article touches (I would suggest at minimum science, then maybe "malaria," "CRISPR," and "GMOs").
Oh, I didn't see ~science! I'll make sure to post content such as this in there from now on.
You should read Tomorrowland: Our Staggering Journey from Science Fiction to Science Fact