Calculate your site FeedRank Today
FeedRank, a newly developed algorithm for ranking RSS feeds only on RSSMicro
Click here to learn more
 7/10 Very Good --- blog.wired.com http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/atom.xml
| Wired.com weighs in on the latest science news, including space, biology, disease, drugs and alcohol, geology, math, neuroscience, and physics. ... |
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 --- 73 days ago http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/your-take-on-th.html
| The genetic modification of a human embryo by scientists at Weill Cornell Medical College has elicited both hope and horror.The tweak itself was small -- a gene that produces glowing proteins,
allowing researchers to better observe embryo development -- and the
embryo was already defective, incapable of ever developing into a
baby. But however incremental in scientific terms, the research is a
social milestone.
Gene therapies add new genes to specific cells, but they're not passed
to future generations. Assisted production lets people choose
high-quality sperm and eggs, or pick disease-free embryos, but actual
modification is off-limits. No human embryo -- at least, none that we
know of -- has ever been genetically adjusted by human hands.
In the short term, such techniques could be used to study embryo
development. In the long term, they could make possible the permanent,
inheritable modification of our children.
Is that right? Wrong? Who decides?
Wired Science readers certainly had much to say. Yesterday's post
prompted more than 150 responses. Below are a few particularly
insightful, representative or otherwise noteworthy comments:
Jericho: If I could choose that my children would not suffer from
Schizophrenia as I do and maybe never have to worry about Cancer as
well then I see it as an advance and preventer of misery. Seppo: I am legally blind due to a genetic misprint. As a thought
experiment: If I had the opportunity ... |
|
|
Recent Posts
|
|
|
Facebook Del.icio.us Digg StumbleUpon Reddit Google
Anytime
