Opening Comments at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) consultation on Human Enhancement
By Richard Hayes
| 06. 01. 2006
Mark Frankel asked if we’d share some general perspectives on what we believe to be the major challenges posed as we consider technologies of “enhancement.” I’d like to share the perspective of the Center for Genetics and Society, as well as what we’ve learned about the perspectives of a wide range of Americans and others.
CGS got started following a series of meetings held in 2000 on the social and political implications of the new human genetic technologies. The meetings brought together people concerned about social and economic justice, women’s health and reproductive rights, science and society, environmental protection, and the rights of the disabled.
Those participating became concerned when they learned how rapidly these new technologies were being developed, how profoundly consequential these could be, how thin were the few rules and regulations in place, and how well below the radar screens of both the general public and policy makers all this was.
A major concern was that use of these technologies could greatly exacerbate human inequality, in particular through a revival of eugenic technologies and ideologies, this time...
Related Articles
By Jenny Lange, BioNews | 12.01.2025
A UK toddler with a rare genetic condition was the first person to receive a new gene therapy that appears to halt disease progression.
Oliver, now three years old, has Hunter syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder that leads to physical...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...