Late last week the closest thing to a real Jurassic Park happened. In Siberia, Russian scientists revived worms that had been frozen in permafrost for an estimated 42,000 years. The worms were thawed over the course of several weeks in Petri dishes and they eventually came back to life and started eating. It's the first time this has ever been documented for any living creature.
While scientists are contemplating the implications of what they've learned and can do, there's another conversation about sciences' ethical role in life. Gene editing.
We're on the verge of gene editing, scientific alterations to genes leading to specific desired outcomes at birth becoming a real possibility in our world. Science has already proven the technology exists. While I worry about the implications in rogue nations, we do have new research out of ours.
The Pew Research Center studied gene editing and here's what we think. Generally, 58% to 18% oppose it.
I'm mildly heartened by that take but I'm a bit uncomfortable that only 58% are opposed to the idea. Here are the top three concerns we have with human gene-editing. At the top, increased inequality, followed by the moral use of it in unacceptable ways and coming in at number three is unintended consequences. Here's the rational among the 18% that support it. First, it'll lead to new medical advances and second people will live longer/better lives.
As for my concerns, anytime we're "playing God," I'm uncomfortable. Moreover, isn't this exactly what Hitler was attempting to achieve? In case you're a little murky on what could go wrong here. I'm far more comfortable with the Jurassic worms than genetically altered babies.
Photo By: Getty Images