Based on direct experience,…I would advise that heady promises regarding biotechnology should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism…Many…biotechnological interventions…carry with them an almost guaranteed set of deficits, inadequacies, inconveniences, and risks that are conveniently ignored in the valedictory narratives woven around them.
…
[M]ore respondents said they were concerned rather than enthused about fiddling with babies’ genomes…Not only did most of those surveyed expect that the cons would outweigh the pros of such interventions, a majority believed such interventions “could exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots in society….[“]…
David Masci…seems to take the side of the pro-enhancement champions,…[who] strives to normalize enhancement…[claiming] that, “Human enhancement is at least as old as civilization.”
…
We cannot perfect the human; we can only push genes and protoplasm past a certain point—and no one quite knows where it lies….
Even the most exquisitely engineered of artifacts…are prone to error and screw ups…Even when our biomedical and bioengineering prowess achieves its best, there will always be downsides.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: To Err is Biotechnological: Reflections on Pew’s Human Enhancement Survey
