Germline Warfare
By Ralph Brave,
The Nation
| 04. 07. 2003
A most remarkable event occurred in the weeks preceding the
June 2000 announcement of the completion of the first draft
of the human genome DNA code: One of the leaders of the genome
project publicly called for strict limits on what the scientific
community should be permitted to do with the human genetic blueprint
now in hand.
At a conference at MIT, Dr. Eric Lander, leader of the team
that decoded the largest portion of the genome, called the conference
to attention with this surprisingly stark suggestion:
Already, there are well-meaning discussions about improving
the human DNA. I find this somewhat hubristic myself. [The human
genome] has been 3.5 billion years in the making. We've been
able to read it for the last, oh, I don't know, year or so.
And we suddenly think we could write the story better? It's
very amusing.
There is the prospect that by changing things we might put
off aging, prevent cancer, improve memory. I find it a very
difficult question. For my own part, I would put an absolute
ban in place on...
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...