If it can be 'contained.' But who will be the overriding authority to decide the ethics of the ethical divide? Will that authority be international or body corporate? Invigilation of ethics falls into an unexplored region as well as genetic research. What's good for science might be bad for humanity.
2
Several commenters here are asking some form of this question: What is wrong with passing on increased intelligence to future generations?
The problem is that we don't know the full ramifications of genetic alterations intended to raise intelligence, and won't, until actual human genes have been subjected to this genetic engineering and the resulting children brought into the world and observed for many years. Should adverse side affects become apparent, it will then be too late for them. These will be real human beings with real, perhaps horrific, abnormalities.
And worse still, if these traits are heritable and these persons go on to have children of their own, there is the possibility of a very serious polluting of the human gene pool, leaving us with the choice of either living with the consequences or forcing sterilization on them-- an alternative that no ethical person today wants to touch with a barge pole.
The same possibility of unknown and unintended consequences, of course, applies to all traits deemed positive, not just high intelligence. And Chinese scientists' Confucian cultural norms won't excuse this type of experiment: Any mistakes not spotted in the embryo will be manifested in a human. A real, full human being.
Ethical scientists have always understood and respected this grave danger and have acted accordingly.
The problem is that we don't know the full ramifications of genetic alterations intended to raise intelligence, and won't, until actual human genes have been subjected to this genetic engineering and the resulting children brought into the world and observed for many years. Should adverse side affects become apparent, it will then be too late for them. These will be real human beings with real, perhaps horrific, abnormalities.
And worse still, if these traits are heritable and these persons go on to have children of their own, there is the possibility of a very serious polluting of the human gene pool, leaving us with the choice of either living with the consequences or forcing sterilization on them-- an alternative that no ethical person today wants to touch with a barge pole.
The same possibility of unknown and unintended consequences, of course, applies to all traits deemed positive, not just high intelligence. And Chinese scientists' Confucian cultural norms won't excuse this type of experiment: Any mistakes not spotted in the embryo will be manifested in a human. A real, full human being.
Ethical scientists have always understood and respected this grave danger and have acted accordingly.
4
I would much rather leave genetic changes to nature, be it in animals or plants or humans. The reason is, I believe nature's preferences are more likely to ensure our long term survival than human preferences such as height or color or even IQ; who knows, if human intelligence were to go up by an order of magnitude rather abruptly, who's to say that it will be applied ethically; as things stand, the most well to do and educated people are not necessarily the most moral people! But this kind of experimentation is hard to control, and I think it will continue inexorably until some catastrophic point is reached; let's hope humans and other species do not suffer any irreversible damage as a result.
2
I think this debate about ethics is really arbitrary and perfunctory. Why is it unethical to study genetic editing on embryos, for scientific advancement and a better understanding of our bodies? To me it's more than exciting that we are getting to know ourselves better, and hopefully one day the knowledge can transcend to cures for presently incurable illnesses.
As for the ethical guidelines set forth by the US, what makes the use of a 13-day embryo more ethical than a 15-day embryo? I am not suggesting we should take a 7 month baby and experiment on that, but if basic genome research is a no-go zone, should we just stop there and say no more cloning, no gene decoding, or embryonic stem cell research once and for all?
Unfortunately, all I see in the article is the usual rhetoric of casting China to the right opposite of the West, instead of offering any real substance in what can be done to bridge the gap in the interpretation of ethics (yes, ethics, just like anything else in the world, is up for interpretation). It's always China (the portrayed villain) and the West (portrayed as the Legion of Saints) on WSJ, and you wonder why China doesn't like to work with the West?
As for the ethical guidelines set forth by the US, what makes the use of a 13-day embryo more ethical than a 15-day embryo? I am not suggesting we should take a 7 month baby and experiment on that, but if basic genome research is a no-go zone, should we just stop there and say no more cloning, no gene decoding, or embryonic stem cell research once and for all?
Unfortunately, all I see in the article is the usual rhetoric of casting China to the right opposite of the West, instead of offering any real substance in what can be done to bridge the gap in the interpretation of ethics (yes, ethics, just like anything else in the world, is up for interpretation). It's always China (the portrayed villain) and the West (portrayed as the Legion of Saints) on WSJ, and you wonder why China doesn't like to work with the West?
1
Editing the genes in human embryos may seem very risky at the beginning. But I'm sure it may worth it! I do believe in science. Not only it may be used to eradicate inheritable illnesses, but to facilitate progress in scientific research.
An international bioethics tribunal is necessary in light of new technologies involving robotics and brain mapping. Dr.Rao is correct in recognizing that man's technological inventions can be dangerous to mankind. The price we pay for progress might be our civility and humanity toward one another. Reason is the order of the day.
2
Instead of genetic engineering, certain countries in the West use discrimination based on social engineering, instead. To all those who are not blind and dumb, it is obvious that these Western societies, which overtly pretend to provide equal freedom and treatment toward everyone, actually give preferential treatment ubiquitously to those who have certain physical traits, i.e. tall height, blonde hair or blue eyes, in all segments and milieus within their societies, even when these particular people have proven themselves to be incompetent at their positions. Popular opinions and culture, in the mainstream media as well as everyday life, are even less abashed about gushing their favoritism and favorable prejudice toward people with those physical traits.
So, if genetic engineering were "wrong" and "unethical", then how would it be any more wrong and unethical than discrimination based on social engineering as highlighted above? But if discrimination based on social engineering were right, then on what sensible basis could one claim that it is more right than genetic engineering?
So, if genetic engineering were "wrong" and "unethical", then how would it be any more wrong and unethical than discrimination based on social engineering as highlighted above? But if discrimination based on social engineering were right, then on what sensible basis could one claim that it is more right than genetic engineering?
1
This is not a matter of cultural of some subtle moral differences. The Chinese have a deep heavily indoctrinated race based belief that they are the globe's superior people, who have been humiliated, transgressed against not properly respected in the past, and so not only are entitled conquer and subdue all others - but also that they are due immense revenge and reparations of all kinds. This results in an attitude that they are essentially at war with the rest of the world's hostile inferior barbarian tribes. And because in war the first casualty is the truth and all morality, all that matters is winning, they can rationalize that there are no moral restrictions, limits in what they can do to win, defeat and subdue the rest of us.
1
There were an appalling number of examples of misconduct in US history - read the Wikipedia page on "unethical human experimentation". And of course the Nazis brought it to a head. There are still instances of scientific and ethical conduct in the U.S., but they are thankfully rare because we have ways to identify it, root it out, and severely punish people and institutions for it. For example, the NIH or NSF can withhold ALL research funding for an institution - you can be sure they pay close attention to that. This creates a huge incentive to play by the rules, which mostly works well. If a researcher claims that their project was reviewed by an ethics panel and that they adhered to the guidelines, that is highly likely to be true. The consequences of ethical misconduct in the US are very high.
As others note above, the current system in some countries is to incentivize success at nearly all costs. If that is the incentive, you can bet that researchers respond to it, and ethical misconduct will be a regular occurrence and there is little price for them to pay for it.
As others note above, the current system in some countries is to incentivize success at nearly all costs. If that is the incentive, you can bet that researchers respond to it, and ethical misconduct will be a regular occurrence and there is little price for them to pay for it.
1
Life is cheap in China. Always has been, always will be. China has a lot of lives to waste. This is why we should keep them at elbow's length.
2
Really, a country where 10 year olds work 70 hour weeks for ten dollars a month so Walmart can sell cheap products? A country where accused are summerly executed to provide organs for world trade? Who would think they would be unethical in terms of research!
3
what is wrong with improving intelligence, eye color and other physical attributes? With this technology China can advance, leaps and bounds, over the West.
Why the racism in the West? The Chinese seek to improve themselves, why don't Westerners?
Why the racism in the West? The Chinese seek to improve themselves, why don't Westerners?
6
Yoda, I agree with you I see nothing wrong in research into genetic enhancement. One thing I think will be a challenge is identifying and enhancing intelligence, since two geniuses can have brains wired in dramatically different ways. I am happy that the Chinese are doing this and I hope they go with the approach of promoting a persons existing make up of genes, rather than creating clones.
1
Peteh, there is a factor that is general to IQ scores, so you could always raise that. At the same time, psychologists have established numerous subcategories of intelligence and it would be possible to increase one at the expense of another (there are, after all, limits on brain size). And then there are at least some geniuses who appear to have unusual and idiosyncratic mutations -- see the work on Einstein's brain. That being said, just making people smart enough to avoid voting for people who exploit them would hugely improve society.
The whole idea that you can edit a few genes to make a human smarter is wildly oversimplifying how genes work. Enumerating the human genome was trivial in comparison to figuring out what the genes do (and they very often do it in concert with each other, its the ratio of this to that, not just the presence of a gene). Editing out errors that might cause disease is comparatively simple compared to attempting something like raising intelligence.
In the development of cures and treatments for disease it is very common for many many patients to suffer ill effects until the thing actually works. But at least those patients consent to try something experimental. When editing the genes in an embryo there is no consent by the patient since they don't exist yet. What happens when that embryo develops into a person with perhaps terrible consequences, birth defects etc, is the Chinese state going to take care of them? The law of unintended consequences is unavoidable.
The Chinese seem to think they are already so superior they need not be bound by any rules set by "the west" (in scientific ethics or IP rights, or patents, or trade secrets). Yet they seem unwilling to execute the most basic of guidelines in any endeavor, that of learning form the mistakes of others, of learning from history. Our civilization is not ready for eugenics.
In the development of cures and treatments for disease it is very common for many many patients to suffer ill effects until the thing actually works. But at least those patients consent to try something experimental. When editing the genes in an embryo there is no consent by the patient since they don't exist yet. What happens when that embryo develops into a person with perhaps terrible consequences, birth defects etc, is the Chinese state going to take care of them? The law of unintended consequences is unavoidable.
The Chinese seem to think they are already so superior they need not be bound by any rules set by "the west" (in scientific ethics or IP rights, or patents, or trade secrets). Yet they seem unwilling to execute the most basic of guidelines in any endeavor, that of learning form the mistakes of others, of learning from history. Our civilization is not ready for eugenics.
2
If you don't want to adhere to Western ethics then you shouldn't be participating in the largely Western scientific community. So forget about the main journals, conferences and talks. And let's face it, that's what your gift means by peer reviewed articles for the $$.
With this kind of incentive structure and ethics based on 'do now, talk later' lord knows we also can't trust the data.
With this kind of incentive structure and ethics based on 'do now, talk later' lord knows we also can't trust the data.
8
I have commented before and my comment was not published. Here's the thing.
Learn Chinese or you're out in next few decades in STEM fields. That's what will happen if English is the only venue all Scientists should adhere to, that's what if you're thinking.
Robert Koch, father of microbiology, published his findings in German, not in English. Learn some history.
Learn Chinese or you're out in next few decades in STEM fields. That's what will happen if English is the only venue all Scientists should adhere to, that's what if you're thinking.
Robert Koch, father of microbiology, published his findings in German, not in English. Learn some history.
I have commented before.
Robert Koch, a father of Microbiology, published his finding in German.
Louis Pasteur, a father of Pasteurization, published his finding in French.
Learn Chinese or you'll be out of STEM in next few decades. If English publishing Journals are blocking Chinese Researchers findings, that's fine. They can publish in Chinese. English is not the only avenue where you can publish yours.
Robert Koch, a father of Microbiology, published his finding in German.
Louis Pasteur, a father of Pasteurization, published his finding in French.
Learn Chinese or you'll be out of STEM in next few decades. If English publishing Journals are blocking Chinese Researchers findings, that's fine. They can publish in Chinese. English is not the only avenue where you can publish yours.
Given China's willingness to step over ethical boundaries in polluting its own air; repressing its own citizens; and stealing intellectual property wholesale, why is this a surprise?
10
The vulgar expression 'to beat one's gums' fits this situation best. It means ineffectual (toothless) talk or complaint.
No ethics restrain China from trying to become Number One in life sciences (or whatever else it fancies).
Civilized nations can only shun, ignore, freeze out, or deny Chinese researchers access to organizations and international meetings of ethical researchers. Telling China's ethical researchers apart from imposters is hopelessly challenging, so a broad-brush approach would be needed until determined and unrestrained researchers mended their ways. That would likely be never.
No ethics restrain China from trying to become Number One in life sciences (or whatever else it fancies).
Civilized nations can only shun, ignore, freeze out, or deny Chinese researchers access to organizations and international meetings of ethical researchers. Telling China's ethical researchers apart from imposters is hopelessly challenging, so a broad-brush approach would be needed until determined and unrestrained researchers mended their ways. That would likely be never.
6
As a person of color, anytime I hear about Euro-American scientists bring up "ethics" I think about all of the HUMAN experimentation that was done in the past on people who were viewed as "lesser." It's more than slightly hypocritical to bring up these issues when there has been little to no acknowledgement of THAT history. For instance, HeLa cells are widely used but Henrietta Lacks and her descendants did not give consent and have no full control. The examples abound!
9
Past crimes, and abuses, should be acknowledged and addressed. Changing one's mind is not hypocritical.
4
@EC: "... HUMAN experimentation that was done in the past ..."
Proposed experiments on human subjects are rigorously reviewed now.[1]
"... there has been little to no acknowledgement of THAT history."
Not so. Experiments on human subjects have been the focus of numerous books and articles.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_research
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_Uni...
Proposed experiments on human subjects are rigorously reviewed now.[1]
"... there has been little to no acknowledgement of THAT history."
Not so. Experiments on human subjects have been the focus of numerous books and articles.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_research
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_Uni...
1
@EC: "For instance, HeLa cells are widely used but Henrietta Lacks and her descendants did not give consent and have no full control."
In 2013, "[The NIH came] to an agreement with the Lacks family to grant them some control over how Henrietta Lacks’s genome is used."
A Family Consents to a Medical Gift, 62 Years Later
By CARL ZIMMER
AUG. 7, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/science/after-decades-of-research-henr...
In 2013, "[The NIH came] to an agreement with the Lacks family to grant them some control over how Henrietta Lacks’s genome is used."
A Family Consents to a Medical Gift, 62 Years Later
By CARL ZIMMER
AUG. 7, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/science/after-decades-of-research-henr...
3
I realized first-hand that commonly held "Western" ethics (even though I'm Japanese) have no reference in China when I was offered an abortion by my university officials when I was seven months pregnant while teaching at university there. At first I informed them how far along the pregnancy was, but they said in all sincerity that "any time is Okay in China." Of course I politely declined the offer, but rather than being grossed out, I came away with the impression that they were actually concerned about my well being as they presented their case with no guile. I could not judge from my perspective, so I thus have the opinion regarding this research that the Chinese are doing it for the betterment of mankind with neutral intentions.
By the way, the baby was born in China and the doctors (all women) were very professional.
By the way, the baby was born in China and the doctors (all women) were very professional.
8
@M: "... in China when I was offered an abortion by my university officials ..."
Why were you "offered an abortion"?
Why were you "offered an abortion"?
1
And this is how it all unravels. They do it, we fear that they may get some type of military or other competitive edge, so we do it also, if only in secret. We wonder why we haven't found other advanced civilizations. Maybe there's a sort of rule to it-- "Once a civilization reaches a certain level of technical proficiency, it destroys itself".
7
LOL, I've had the same thought.
It's a paradox. On one hand competition, and military competition, promotes progress. We and the Russians went into space on the tips of ICBM's and we and the Russians wouldn't have gone into space without competition. Just look at how we went to the moon in 1969 and haven't done anything on that scale since, because we don't have a rival to beat. On the other hand, all of this progress produces technologies like nuclear and biological weapons that could potentially wipe us out and eventually may lead to the situation you describe, in which it becomes so easy to do so that our destruction is inevitable.
It's a paradox. On one hand competition, and military competition, promotes progress. We and the Russians went into space on the tips of ICBM's and we and the Russians wouldn't have gone into space without competition. Just look at how we went to the moon in 1969 and haven't done anything on that scale since, because we don't have a rival to beat. On the other hand, all of this progress produces technologies like nuclear and biological weapons that could potentially wipe us out and eventually may lead to the situation you describe, in which it becomes so easy to do so that our destruction is inevitable.
3
I agree, but my impression has always been: find something good and slowly ruin it. That seems to be our greatest talent.
codger,
why don't you believe this technology will give CHina a signficant edge? Imagine a new breed of human, in this case Chinese, who can outperform any other race? This would helf China improve itself and the world.
Just because you want your nation to remain backwards and primitive does not mean the Chinese do.
why don't you believe this technology will give CHina a signficant edge? Imagine a new breed of human, in this case Chinese, who can outperform any other race? This would helf China improve itself and the world.
Just because you want your nation to remain backwards and primitive does not mean the Chinese do.
Ethics without courage will ultimately defeat the West. China is on its way to world domination. It won't be long that all of humanity will wake up to the reality that China will rule the world. Fantasy? Just look at what they did in those disputed islands in southeast Asia.
China will be world's predominant power, but that isn't because of the west's ethics, it's because of demographics -- China has as much land as we do and four times the population.
1
Josh,
and with eugenics they will have better citizens than us soon too!
and with eugenics they will have better citizens than us soon too!
"The technology, called Crispr-Cas9, may one day be used to eradicate inheritable illnesses. But in theory, it also could be used to change such traits as eye color or intelligence, and to ensure that the changes are passed on to future generations."
If they are able to affect intelligence (positively) then there is hope. Maybe someday, with this increased intelligence, there will not be any republicans.
If they are able to affect intelligence (positively) then there is hope. Maybe someday, with this increased intelligence, there will not be any republicans.
2
First, Chinese are smart.
Second, Chinese scientists would do anything to show that they are smart.
Third, this is a country that forced women to have abortion, so do you really want to talk about "the line"?
Second, Chinese scientists would do anything to show that they are smart.
Third, this is a country that forced women to have abortion, so do you really want to talk about "the line"?
3
It looks as if the Chinese want to hasten the onset of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." I do not know if we are ready for that.
1
I keep trying to get my mind around the 'ethical' problems with this species becoming more intelligent. It seems to me that's desperately needed. Or for that matter, engineering a particular eye colour. (And this from the same newspaper that sees no problem, indeed applauds, drastic mutilating surgery and lifelong hormone treatments to make one person into an effigy of the opposite sex.)
Take a deep breath, friends, and look at the scare word 'eugenics'.
Every time a Jewish couple has tests done to ensure they aren't passing on Tay-Sachs? Eugenics. Every time a couple in a fertility doctor's office chooses the sperm or eggs of an Ivy grad instead of a high school dropout?Eugenics. Everyone who decides to marry the good-looking or smart guy or girl instead of Quasimodo or the Witch of the West? Eugenics, eugenics, eugenics. The only way to get away from it would be to assign everyone a mate at random, by lottery, and bring all pregnancies to term.
I have a lot - a LOT - of problems with China, with its Hobbesian industry, its authoritarian government, its driving species to extinction, etc. etc. But I agree that an individual life begins with live birth, so it is hard for me to wail over 'we only experiment on embryos that are younger than 14 days old' while here in the US fertility doctors are tossing out unused embryos older than that because they're no longer needed (or the storage bills weren't paid).
Take a deep breath, friends, and look at the scare word 'eugenics'.
Every time a Jewish couple has tests done to ensure they aren't passing on Tay-Sachs? Eugenics. Every time a couple in a fertility doctor's office chooses the sperm or eggs of an Ivy grad instead of a high school dropout?Eugenics. Everyone who decides to marry the good-looking or smart guy or girl instead of Quasimodo or the Witch of the West? Eugenics, eugenics, eugenics. The only way to get away from it would be to assign everyone a mate at random, by lottery, and bring all pregnancies to term.
I have a lot - a LOT - of problems with China, with its Hobbesian industry, its authoritarian government, its driving species to extinction, etc. etc. But I agree that an individual life begins with live birth, so it is hard for me to wail over 'we only experiment on embryos that are younger than 14 days old' while here in the US fertility doctors are tossing out unused embryos older than that because they're no longer needed (or the storage bills weren't paid).
7
Yes, most or all animals practice eugenics, it's what all that head butting and tail parading is about, as well as our attraction to beautiful mates, or mates with a sense of humor, etc.
Eugenics got a bad name because of what the Nazis did with it, murdering and sterilizing people in the name of crackpot theories of racial superiority. After that, we found abuses in the US and many other nations, e.g., the woman who occasioned the famous "three generations of imbeciles are enough" remark form Oliver Wendell Holmes apparently turns out not to have been retarded at all.
Now the name has a bad taste to it and people conflate forced sterilization programs with fixing defective genes or improving human characteristics, which are different things entirely.
Eugenics got a bad name because of what the Nazis did with it, murdering and sterilizing people in the name of crackpot theories of racial superiority. After that, we found abuses in the US and many other nations, e.g., the woman who occasioned the famous "three generations of imbeciles are enough" remark form Oliver Wendell Holmes apparently turns out not to have been retarded at all.
Now the name has a bad taste to it and people conflate forced sterilization programs with fixing defective genes or improving human characteristics, which are different things entirely.
2
First, many of the best in China were trained in the US, including my labs. US universities, in search for qualified students, have no problem with giving our best techniques to competitors. Take a look at your alma mater's alumni journal to see the hiring and awards.
Second, nothing is more gratifying to the Chinese government than beating the US - at anything: Olympic gold, Space exploration, large infrastructure projects, scientific breakthroughs. China will not, under any circumstances, pass by the opportunity to go in history as the first country to achieve human genetic engineering.
Third, China has shown through the decades to have little regard for treaties that it signs: China sea for peaceful purposes, IPR, etc.
Fourth, China's argument of culture differences is completely true. There is nothing intrinsically right about how westerners view ethics. After all, many of those thoughts descend in one way or another, and across the millennium, from the papacy's interpretation of the bible and its social goals. There is no moral standard by anyone that can be defended as right or wrong. Even killing of human beings is acceptable in the west under some circumstances.
Second, nothing is more gratifying to the Chinese government than beating the US - at anything: Olympic gold, Space exploration, large infrastructure projects, scientific breakthroughs. China will not, under any circumstances, pass by the opportunity to go in history as the first country to achieve human genetic engineering.
Third, China has shown through the decades to have little regard for treaties that it signs: China sea for peaceful purposes, IPR, etc.
Fourth, China's argument of culture differences is completely true. There is nothing intrinsically right about how westerners view ethics. After all, many of those thoughts descend in one way or another, and across the millennium, from the papacy's interpretation of the bible and its social goals. There is no moral standard by anyone that can be defended as right or wrong. Even killing of human beings is acceptable in the west under some circumstances.
4
Well, I was with you until the end. Morality is relative but it isn't arbitrary. It serves a social purpose that changes from place to place and time to time, and a society can destroy itself by choosing the wrong one. Hitler's Germany, for example.
2
Something got lost in translation here: What Confucius actually said was: “one is born human but is made a person through fulfilling responsible roles in society”. What then? Until someone fulfils his or her “roles in society” experimenting on them is fine?
Of course, the Chinese do not care about the human rights of their grown up citizens; why should they care about embryos?
Of course, the Chinese do not care about the human rights of their grown up citizens; why should they care about embryos?
4
No, sorry, this is getting back to the christian fundamentalist insistence that embryos are people, just like you and me. It really depends on the stage of development. But, changing physical characteristics is not a good enough reason.
" it also could be used to change such traits as eye color or intelligence, and to ensure that the changes are passed on to future generations."
And just what is wrong with passing increased intelligence on the future generations?
And just what is wrong with passing increased intelligence on the future generations?
2
I don't know but this country seriously needs that advance and badly. I'd enroll the leaders in government and business first.
If there are traits such as honesty, integrity, kindness, and honor, I'd like those to be gene edited into our leaders as well. We could really use that.
If there are traits such as honesty, integrity, kindness, and honor, I'd like those to be gene edited into our leaders as well. We could really use that.
In the US, it's OK to kill your baby in utero, as long as you don't attempt to change it's eye color. Because, y'know, that would be immoral.
1
Gene editing for modification of the human is as inevitable as the rising of the sun.
We should find a way to embrace this technology, and in doing so have some hand in its direction.
If we fail to participate and preach only abstinence we will be left to react to the results, when we might have proactively contributed. Sticking our head in the sand in denial will not help change the future for our children.
We should find a way to embrace this technology, and in doing so have some hand in its direction.
If we fail to participate and preach only abstinence we will be left to react to the results, when we might have proactively contributed. Sticking our head in the sand in denial will not help change the future for our children.
14
Chinese research is fine but what sort of ethical guidelines there should be is a matter for all of humanity to decide upon and not based upon purely fiscal, political or religious guidelines either.
"Ethicists" possess no special knowledge of anything, and should not be the last word on anything. People do need to consider what is right, and what is wrong, in a common-sense way, but this can best be done by ignoring "ethics" and "ethicists", who simply hobble useful research while doing little if anything to stop outright fraud.
1
Oh, there's a real science of morality -- see the great philosophers -- but I agree about the "ethicists," who from what I've seen are just operating from belief and emotion.
2
The real danger is not that China will "get ahead" in research. The real danger is that going too quickly and recklessly will enable a new disease or humans and/or livestock susceptible to an old one. The interactions between our bodies, bacteria, and our genes are not well understood. We are all petri dishes that microbes evolve in--you change that petri dish, you change those microbes, too.
3
Agree. As an example, a mutation protects some people from AIDS. Since it deletes a receptor site, before the AIDS epidemic it would likely have been identified as a genetic defect. But such mutations can save a species from extinction if a new disease arises. Loss of diversity and inadvertent errors are a major concern.
1
This is just how science has always worked. Either you keep up or you're left behind. The West is going to have a difficult decision regarding whether it wants to maintain its ethical standards or whether it wants to maintain its edge in science. If we fail to maintain our edge, we will eventually become irrelevant as China develops technologies that allow them to dominate us in all spheres of life. They may even develop bioweapons to eliminate us if we become too meddlesome.
4
It's scary to read the opinion that "these"changes are to make mankind better, whereas the bad people did it for evil purposes so this is okay. Every scientist, with or without the technology to alter genes, has aways said the same thing from eugenicist to National Socialist. We do understand how subjective "good" can be right?
Tim from New York comments, "There is a huge difference between POSITIVE eugenics (modifying human genes to treat diseases, extend life, improve people's health and living conditions, etc.), and NEGATIVE eugenics (i.e., KILLING people). China isn't seeking to kill people!"
This is fantasy thinking. Once a technology is out there, it can and will be used for every purpose imaginable, whether profit, ideology, or whatever. I have no idea what China is actually seeking, but its motives and intent are largely irrelevant.
North Korea does not have nuclear bombs because of brilliant students in excellent Departments of Nuclear Physics at highly regarded universities in Pyongyang.
Yes, some ethics are cultural and, yes, the West is not always right. However, yes, some values are better than others, and claims of cultural imperialism and the virtues of moral relativism are often a smokescreen for justifying bad or even evil actions.
Tim also says, "Someone needs to do the research to understand...how we can improve who we are, for the betterment of science and humanity." And just who is going to decide what constitutes an improvement? Congress? The Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party? The U.N.? The non-existent scientific "community?"
Eighty years ago the scientific community was largely transparent and international. Then came WW II. There is no going back and claims that any fundamental technology can only be used for good ignores both history and human nature.
This is fantasy thinking. Once a technology is out there, it can and will be used for every purpose imaginable, whether profit, ideology, or whatever. I have no idea what China is actually seeking, but its motives and intent are largely irrelevant.
North Korea does not have nuclear bombs because of brilliant students in excellent Departments of Nuclear Physics at highly regarded universities in Pyongyang.
Yes, some ethics are cultural and, yes, the West is not always right. However, yes, some values are better than others, and claims of cultural imperialism and the virtues of moral relativism are often a smokescreen for justifying bad or even evil actions.
Tim also says, "Someone needs to do the research to understand...how we can improve who we are, for the betterment of science and humanity." And just who is going to decide what constitutes an improvement? Congress? The Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party? The U.N.? The non-existent scientific "community?"
Eighty years ago the scientific community was largely transparent and international. Then came WW II. There is no going back and claims that any fundamental technology can only be used for good ignores both history and human nature.
1
Sure, but I think the main point is that people are wrongly seeing nothing but evil in eugenics. This isn't about marching people into death camps or sterilizing them with x-rays the way the Nazis did. It's about better eyesight, about curing sickle-cell anemia. It could be turned to monstrous purposes but then so can the knife you use to slice carrots.
in reply to Josh Hill:
Josh, you are essentially right. However, what I am arguing for is some skepticism about miracles, that with a bit of humility and good sense we consider that there absolutely will be unanticipated and unintended consequences, some of them seriously bad. Basically, techadvocates are sales people with strong marketing departments and ad agencies, touting the latest thing as God's gift to humanity.
When Page, Brin, Zuckerberg, and Sandberg push their wares, they are selling a product, even if done with a religious fervor. (The converse holds also, religion selling a product.) Letting them judge its value to humanity or even to America is just plain nuts.
If a technology is possible, there is enough money out there in public and private hands to take that technology in every direction. Both private vanity and belief in "the next world" are just two of the personalities that could take this gene technology to ugly and dangerous places.
Josh, you are essentially right. However, what I am arguing for is some skepticism about miracles, that with a bit of humility and good sense we consider that there absolutely will be unanticipated and unintended consequences, some of them seriously bad. Basically, techadvocates are sales people with strong marketing departments and ad agencies, touting the latest thing as God's gift to humanity.
When Page, Brin, Zuckerberg, and Sandberg push their wares, they are selling a product, even if done with a religious fervor. (The converse holds also, religion selling a product.) Letting them judge its value to humanity or even to America is just plain nuts.
If a technology is possible, there is enough money out there in public and private hands to take that technology in every direction. Both private vanity and belief in "the next world" are just two of the personalities that could take this gene technology to ugly and dangerous places.
1
our freedom, democracy, higher living standard, rule of law, wide availability of electricity, running water, and good health care is enough to attract the best and brightest Chinese scientists to work here. the ones who are doing research in China are usually the ones who couldn't get into good PhD programs.
if you have been to any american university, you'd see them by the dozen - cleaning test tubes, toilets, dishes, windows, etc.
my Chinese gardener in Canada has a PhD in biochemistry from a top Chinese school, and my sushi chief has a PhD in physics. they are happy working in minimum wage labors in Canada.
if you have been to any american university, you'd see them by the dozen - cleaning test tubes, toilets, dishes, windows, etc.
my Chinese gardener in Canada has a PhD in biochemistry from a top Chinese school, and my sushi chief has a PhD in physics. they are happy working in minimum wage labors in Canada.
1
Will the end come from fire, ice or plain old arrogance?
Look at how much China is investing in biomed, how it's investing in its young techies, how it's investing for its future.
The contrast with our every man for himself, hard to get grants and resistance to invest in our young people's creativity or even the infrastructure....
Whose country is on the rise here. If the world finds a cure for a disease no one cares if Eastern or Western ethics involved, and crooks will find a way to exploit it.
Our paralyzed gov't is ignoring the trees, captivated by big forests of Empire and War.
The contrast with our every man for himself, hard to get grants and resistance to invest in our young people's creativity or even the infrastructure....
Whose country is on the rise here. If the world finds a cure for a disease no one cares if Eastern or Western ethics involved, and crooks will find a way to exploit it.
Our paralyzed gov't is ignoring the trees, captivated by big forests of Empire and War.
3
Mr. Li Ka Shing in Hong Kong is one of the richest men in the world and has contributed substantially towards building more medical schools in Asia and investing in medical research. My spouse and I worked at Stanford Medical School for a combined 40 years and often met with medical personnel from Asia Mr. Li had sent to Stanford. He also was the largest donor in the school's medical education building which is named after him.
Unfortunately, I am not surprised by the info presented in this article. China and Hong Kong are not known for their medical schools with the exception of U. of Hong Kong.
Unfortunately, I am not surprised by the info presented in this article. China and Hong Kong are not known for their medical schools with the exception of U. of Hong Kong.
“Confucian thinking says that someone becomes a person after they are born. That is different from the United States or other countries with a Christian influence, where because of religion they may feel research on embryos is not O.K.”
It would be interesting to follow up with an article on another high tech non-Christian country that also has fewer problems with neo-eugenics today than the West: Israel.
http://takimag.com/article/the_strange_evolution_of_eugenics_steve_saile...
It would be interesting to follow up with an article on another high tech non-Christian country that also has fewer problems with neo-eugenics today than the West: Israel.
http://takimag.com/article/the_strange_evolution_of_eugenics_steve_saile...
The basic problem comes from how the West & China view the world: in the West, everyone is innocent until proven guilty (read: everyone means to do the right thing but fails occasionally), but in China, everyone is guilty until proven innocent (read: people always do the wrong thing so make a hero of one unlikely good-doer). When the two cultures mix with their underlying assumptions, it's not regulations alone that will make the difference.
3
The Republicans are giving tax breaks to the rich and enormous loopholes to oil corporations and federal funding for medical R&D has never been so low - on average, 10-14% proposals are funded by the NIH. The Chinese are, on the other hand, investing like crazy - as well as hiring Chinese expats who are bringing the expertise gained at US universities. The gap between top US and Chinese institutions has narrowed and almost disappeared.
This, unfortunately, is about the money.
This, unfortunately, is about the money.
3
Before we criticize anyone we should look in a mirror -- see the article on the US Chamber of Commerce and tobacco on the front page. See the article on the recent SCOTUS rulings on allowing us to be poisoned with Mercury and allowing the State to execute people, possibly innocent people, with horrific drugs.
People that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones!
People that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones!
17
From first hand experience, I can state categorically that many Chinese scientists have no training in ethics, including the youngest generations. the lack of raining is not limited to medical genetics but most branches of scientific research. Those Chinese scientists who cite Confucianism are simply making excuses for ignoring any kind of ethical decision making. Since many Chinese scientists publish in Chinese language journalist, they do not come under scrtiny in the West.
Nevertheless, China is outstripping Western scientists on many fronts. Said to say, but the ethical decision making process slows down the research process, especially when it comes to research oriented towards disease-prvention and aging processes.
Now, to turn the debate, since when is it ethical in the west to feed the population on genetically modified foods? Are we not what we eat, and do not genetically modified foods unerringly over time modify the genome in unpredictable ways. Let's not cast stones too quickly.
Nevertheless, China is outstripping Western scientists on many fronts. Said to say, but the ethical decision making process slows down the research process, especially when it comes to research oriented towards disease-prvention and aging processes.
Now, to turn the debate, since when is it ethical in the west to feed the population on genetically modified foods? Are we not what we eat, and do not genetically modified foods unerringly over time modify the genome in unpredictable ways. Let's not cast stones too quickly.
28
Some of our ethical rules are just decadent rubber playground stuff, or worse, they have to do with the appeasement of priests. So good for the Chinese, as long as they don't take things too far.
6
@LS: "From first hand experience, I can state categorically that many Chinese scientists have no training in ethics, ..."
How do Canadian scientists receive ethical training?
How do Canadian scientists receive ethical training?
2
Just because the Chinese does not take exemption to the Judeo Christian belief of ethics does not mean they are morally inept.
Sometimes institutional review boards impose "ethical" restrictions that are just ill-informed and stupid. I am working on research in which I am forbidden to photograph people out in public on the street,(out of concern for their privacy) even though it is perfectly legal to do so, even though I have done it in the past and I could do it all I want for non-research purposes. As a result, we cannot compare our research subjects to the general population to see how they differ, which will hamstring the conclusions we can draw. For what?
I agree that many ethical guidelines are necessary -- as they are in the Chinese research cited here. But some well-intentioned "ethical" directives are ill-advised and unnecessarily interfere with research.
I agree that many ethical guidelines are necessary -- as they are in the Chinese research cited here. But some well-intentioned "ethical" directives are ill-advised and unnecessarily interfere with research.
25
China should and would over takes the West in research. Chinese minds are not bounded by political-correctness, affirmative action and Christianity; values that have no meanings in the natural world.
Were all Christian scientists adhere to Christian ethics, there would be no zero, negative numbers, fractions, heliocentrism and who knows how many breakthroughs.
Were all Christian scientists adhere to Christian ethics, there would be no zero, negative numbers, fractions, heliocentrism and who knows how many breakthroughs.
15
"Were all Christian scientists adhere to Christian ethics, there would be no (...) heliocentrism..."??? - do you happen to know Copernicus had taken minor orders of Catholic Church, had all his life been sponsored by Catholic Church and had been heavily (and friendly/positively) involved in intellectual exchange with prominent Catholic and Lutheran thinkers of his era? Not to mention that the contemporary Pope's first reaction to the heliocentric system hypothesis had been very positive and encouraging?
Of course we should not forget Catholic persecution of Giordano Bruno or Galileo, but please be aware of the whole story, not the black/white politically convenient distortion.
Also, read Newton and you will know something about relation between Christian faith and science, how actually much of the science progress had been *motivated* by sober faith.
Of course we should not forget Catholic persecution of Giordano Bruno or Galileo, but please be aware of the whole story, not the black/white politically convenient distortion.
Also, read Newton and you will know something about relation between Christian faith and science, how actually much of the science progress had been *motivated* by sober faith.
@AmateurHistorian---But on the other hand, if more research monies had gone into determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, we might have gotten to quantum physics centuries earlier.
1
oh please. these are relative qualities. the chinese are bound by political correctness relative to their standards. these standards are also manifest in the treatment of the mentally ill and disabled. as a western-style humanist, i prefer the ethical constraints promoted by western societies. i only wish that our corporations were held to similar standards of conduct.
"But in theory, it also could be used to change such traits as eye color or intelligence, and to ensure that the changes are passed on to future generations."
Intelligence isn't an inheritable trait in the same way the eye color is. In the vaguest of terms to avoid being wrong: It's likely an emergent property from a neural network.
Stop perpetuating misconceptions about intelligence. This is a mistake that could easily be avoided. Don't sacrifice accuracy for glitzy claims.
Intelligence isn't an inheritable trait in the same way the eye color is. In the vaguest of terms to avoid being wrong: It's likely an emergent property from a neural network.
Stop perpetuating misconceptions about intelligence. This is a mistake that could easily be avoided. Don't sacrifice accuracy for glitzy claims.
15
Utter nonsense. We will be able increase (or decrease) intelligence with genetic engineering. Twin studies show that adult intelligence is mostly inherited. Multiple genes are involved -- there is no single gene that turns you into an Einstein.
Of course it's an emergent property of a neural network, but it emerges mostly from the genetically-determined nature of that neural network.
Of course it's an emergent property of a neural network, but it emerges mostly from the genetically-determined nature of that neural network.
3
I agree with you fully but unfortunately this isn't the prevailing view. People (and even neuroscientists) think of intelligence as being inheritable. They point to twin studies and also to intelligence observed in non-humans (like in dogs) that do seem to be inherited.
Human intelligence as you say likely arises from complex systems behaviour and so cannot be inherited aside from factors that contribute to the structure of the network since it would follow chaotic dynamics.
Human intelligence as you say likely arises from complex systems behaviour and so cannot be inherited aside from factors that contribute to the structure of the network since it would follow chaotic dynamics.
RamS, but it is the factors that contribute to the structure and operation of the network that determine intelligence. What else could be it be? Richness of connections, size of brain centers (see the work on the mutations in Einstein's brain -- and remember that intelligence is not a monolithic quality), perhaps factors such as signalling speed.
But the bottom line is that identical twins have more highly correlated intelligence scores than fraternal twins so it *is* largely determined by our genes. And that means that we will be able to improve it.
But the bottom line is that identical twins have more highly correlated intelligence scores than fraternal twins so it *is* largely determined by our genes. And that means that we will be able to improve it.
1
There is a simple and practical, if not perfect, solution. All the prestigious scientific journals (the ones Chinese scientists want to publish in) are under the editorial control of Western scientists. If the scientific community in the West truly thinks that a line has been crossed, then a refusal to peer review on all such research articles submitted and an embargo on publication will deprive oxygen to such activity.
42
God no.
3
This will only result in more opaqueness about what is going on in Chinese research. China research will go on with or without the west. The ultimate goal of scientific research is not to publish in Nature.
Good on you.
T here is a cultural divide between east and west, but the challenging question asked of the west, is if we have the right to judge another country's values and progress as it In this country we are just moving toward accepting diversity in many areas, so we may not wish to throw stone's on another's glass house without great introspection. Excellent book published, that I am currently reading provides insight about China's past and how it could affect the future. Book is written by Martin Jacques.
Seeking open dialogue is the way to express concerns and share understanding. It seems that doors need to be opened to reach that stage.
Seeking open dialogue is the way to express concerns and share understanding. It seems that doors need to be opened to reach that stage.
3
With NIH funding rates at an all time low and China now more than doubling our spending, we will be overtaken in a matter of single digit years as the world power of biomedical science. And as the new leader, China will make the bioethical rules. This is a situation we are condoning by our lack of support for biomedical science. We will come to regret this very rapidly.
99
It is interesting that those that advocate for use of this technology use the rationale that it has great potential for curing diseases. There are rather more profound issues here that bear some really careful thought. We are the products of perhaps a billion years of evolution that has produced our human nature supported by incredibly complex interacting genes turned on and off in ways that we do not understand very well. There is a natural arc to our lives and deeply satisfying experiences with the world and each other that all float on this fantastic machinery. As a species do we really want to allow the application of a technology that can potentially monkey (whether by sanctioned scientific protocols or by rogues) with this machinery with unknown long-term consequences for retaining our humanity? So, this is a species-level issue not just a matter of the cultural niceties of the two of its most powerful cultures.
7
"As a species do we really want to allow the application of a technology that can potentially monkey (whether by sanctioned scientific protocols or by rogues) with this machinery with unknown long-term consequences for retaining our humanity?"
But of course we're going to do it! We're hairless apes who have nuclear weapons. So sit back for the ride. Caution is not in our nature.
But of course we're going to do it! We're hairless apes who have nuclear weapons. So sit back for the ride. Caution is not in our nature.
1
@RBS: "... unknown long-term consequences for retaining our humanity?"
Predicting the future is impossible, but that's no reason not to speculate, so what are some possible "long-term consequences" that could cause "us" to lose "our humanity"? You could start by explaining what you mean by "our humanity"?
Predicting the future is impossible, but that's no reason not to speculate, so what are some possible "long-term consequences" that could cause "us" to lose "our humanity"? You could start by explaining what you mean by "our humanity"?
The real story here is that the US is losing it's lead in biomedical research funding to China and a lesser extent other Asian countries . According to a 2014 New England Journal of Medicine report between 2007-2012 the U.S. share of global public and private biomedical R&D investments slumped from 51 to 45 and you have to bet that share is a lot lower now. Not many years ago the US funded as much as 80 percent of global research in this area. You can put all the geopolitically driven Yellow Peril/Fu Manchu narrative spin you want on this but it's a lot easier to write the rules for research when you are leading it. Wealthy and not so wealthy Americans are already flocking to Mexico, Europe and Asia for stem cell and other genetic based treatments not available in the US. If US funding of research in this area continues to decline we are going to see a lot more. No worries America will however, no doubt, continue to lead the world in development of new financial instruments, dating apps and weapons systems. Meanwhile, the Chinese will be out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct etc.. etc...
58
What a fine comment this would be if it were not for the fact that it is Americans who have come up with a real and ingenious CURE for the age old scourge of cancer. If you should get the urge to infprm yourself, look it up on Scientific American.com.
I work in science (undergrad doing independent research in a lab, but still experiencing the academic field, nonetheless), and the amount of professors at my school who are being turned down for grants to continue their work is staggering. I completely agree that we're investing our money in the wrong places. I think about continuing my education at a grad school out of the country more and more as the days go by, simply because there is more cutting-edge research that's being better supported (and with better pay!) elsewhere.
1
The fig leaf of "Confucianism" is too cute by half. I'm not sure how filial piety, harmony with heaven and ancestor worship are advanced by genetic engineering of human beings. Am I too cynical for suggesting it all comes down to money.
As one who works in medicine and has done biochemical research, I am aware how much garbage research is done here in the United States alone, usually in the name of advancing one's career and getting grant money. China is a Wild West one thousand times worse. At one Ivy League university I studied at, the unbelievably extensive research portfolios of a few Chinese grad students quickly lost their luster once we found out their skill sets. One incompetent young man also had a penchant for spitting on the floor of the lab and watching porn in his office. We began to wonder exactly how much research he had done and how easy it was to fake results and pay a journal to publish it.
Don't expect these researchers to blush at letting more than a few malformed men be born into a life of perpetual agony. Remember people, science serves human beings and not the other way around.
As one who works in medicine and has done biochemical research, I am aware how much garbage research is done here in the United States alone, usually in the name of advancing one's career and getting grant money. China is a Wild West one thousand times worse. At one Ivy League university I studied at, the unbelievably extensive research portfolios of a few Chinese grad students quickly lost their luster once we found out their skill sets. One incompetent young man also had a penchant for spitting on the floor of the lab and watching porn in his office. We began to wonder exactly how much research he had done and how easy it was to fake results and pay a journal to publish it.
Don't expect these researchers to blush at letting more than a few malformed men be born into a life of perpetual agony. Remember people, science serves human beings and not the other way around.
27
" At one Ivy League university I studied at, the unbelievably extensive research portfolios of a few Chinese grad students quickly lost their luster once we found out their skill sets. "
This is it, China is sending 10s of thousands of students here w/ amazing CVs but it is all essentially fake. Some of them must be worthwhile but I think it's mostly just a numbers game, throw enough of them at a modern university and some of them will stick.
This is it, China is sending 10s of thousands of students here w/ amazing CVs but it is all essentially fake. Some of them must be worthwhile but I think it's mostly just a numbers game, throw enough of them at a modern university and some of them will stick.
14
well said, thank you!
Just to balance this out...I've worked with scientists from China and find them to be hard workers, disciplined, and diligent and as capable as Americans. I don't quite find them to be a rich source of great ideas or creativity but none of them were fake.
Your Ivy League university has a serious problem in their admissions committee.
Your Ivy League university has a serious problem in their admissions committee.
Is anyone in the West really surprised by this? Just like, is anyone in the West really surprised by the Chinese state violation of international law vis-a-vis things like territorial boundaries? Just like, is anyone in the West really surprised by the failure of Chinese businesses to adhere to ethical manufacturing standards or investment standards?
The quicker we can come to grips with the reality that the Chinese truly view the world according to a different--and often dangerously conflicting--set of rules in comparison with the West, the more ably we will be able to handle their challenge to the world we have wrought. This will be a defining conflict of the 21st century and it will play out across most if not all spheres--including scientific ethics.
The quicker we can come to grips with the reality that the Chinese truly view the world according to a different--and often dangerously conflicting--set of rules in comparison with the West, the more ably we will be able to handle their challenge to the world we have wrought. This will be a defining conflict of the 21st century and it will play out across most if not all spheres--including scientific ethics.
55
This is kind of bigoted. American industry was the same 100 or 150 years ago, before laws were created to regulate it. Coca-Cola had cocaine in it, you could buy and die from a tonic called Radio-Thor that had as its active ingredient radium. Even when I was a boy in the 60's there was still lead in gasoline and paint and industry just dumped its toxic wastes into the air and water. You never saw a hawk or an eagle because they were dying from DDT.
Well, we got rich and founded the FDA and the EPA. The Chinese, being much, much poorer than we are, are just at a more primitive state of development.
Well, we got rich and founded the FDA and the EPA. The Chinese, being much, much poorer than we are, are just at a more primitive state of development.
1
Truly prophetic, Maximus.
1
"The Chinese, being much, much poorer than we are, are just at a more primitive state of development."
So if it's just a matter of time and development, how much longer do the Chinese have free rein to be unethical before they're expected to catch up? 100 or 150 years?
So if it's just a matter of time and development, how much longer do the Chinese have free rein to be unethical before they're expected to catch up? 100 or 150 years?
1
I'm more worried about fraud than ethics in Chinese science at this point. The absolute rush to be first, to publish as much as possible, naturally pushes scientists to cut corners. The past few years have seen far too many cases of all out fraud, with scientists faking data.
45
I agree, but ethics are still an issue. And the two could very easily go hand in hand.
Like in climate research?
This has everything to do with greed and profit, something China has learned all too well from the west.
4
LOL. You think the West invented greed and the pursuit of profit and then infected innocent Chinese with these vices? You're not a careful student of human nature, are you?
My goodness, from the headline I fully expected the article to reveal unethical research on post-birth human subjects, not microscopic embryos that have scarcely begun to develop.
3
@Sue: "... not microscopic embryos that have scarcely begun to develop."
Do you have an opinion as to when an embryo becomes a human?
Do you have an opinion as to when an embryo becomes a human?
A truly remarkable point from this article: China spent 190 billion dollars on research in 2013. The US spent ~65 billion in the same time or 1/3rd the amount. At about the same time (2014) China spent far less on military (129 billion) whereas the US spent 581 billion. Keep this up, and the US predominance in science and technology will be surpassed, just like our predominance in manufacturing already has been. What will we have left? Service sector jobs and amazing drones.
117
"China spent far less on military (129 billion) whereas the US spent 581 billion"
The cherry-picked statistic furthers your point, but remember that China has exponentially increased its military spend over the past few years, in an effort to catch up to the U.S. and assert itself in Southeast Asia. Please, let's not pretend that China is some "new wave" of civilization that acts in the interest of humanist good. It's as greedy and territorial as the U.S. was, except we at least pulled out of the Philippines and Iraq. China is just getting started.
The cherry-picked statistic furthers your point, but remember that China has exponentially increased its military spend over the past few years, in an effort to catch up to the U.S. and assert itself in Southeast Asia. Please, let's not pretend that China is some "new wave" of civilization that acts in the interest of humanist good. It's as greedy and territorial as the U.S. was, except we at least pulled out of the Philippines and Iraq. China is just getting started.
6
@C
While Vladek's numbers are not completely correct as US still spend more on R&D than China in both percentage of GDP and absolute amount, China is spending far less than the US on defense.
In 2012, China spent 1.98% of GDP on R&D and US 2.80%. Not surprisingly as China's effective tax rate is a lot lower than US. China's spending is growing much faster than US though as in 2010 China spent 1.76% to US' 2.74%, nearly a full 1% difference where as in 2012 the difference narrowed to 0.82%. If World Bank have 2014's number, I am sure the difference would be narrow to the 0.60% range.
As for military spending, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated in 2014, US spent $610 billion/3.5% of GDP on defense while China spent $216 billion/2.1% of GDP on defense.
While Vladek's numbers are not completely correct as US still spend more on R&D than China in both percentage of GDP and absolute amount, China is spending far less than the US on defense.
In 2012, China spent 1.98% of GDP on R&D and US 2.80%. Not surprisingly as China's effective tax rate is a lot lower than US. China's spending is growing much faster than US though as in 2010 China spent 1.76% to US' 2.74%, nearly a full 1% difference where as in 2012 the difference narrowed to 0.82%. If World Bank have 2014's number, I am sure the difference would be narrow to the 0.60% range.
As for military spending, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated in 2014, US spent $610 billion/3.5% of GDP on defense while China spent $216 billion/2.1% of GDP on defense.
What's wrong with the China trying to catch up with the US, either in military or in scientific research? Isn't that what is expected of a great nation of long history and civilization? Does anyone expect anything less? Do you think other nations should be satisfied being subordinated to the U.S. perpetually?
1
I was at a recent conference where a Chinese colleague indicated with a smile that they don't need regulations from the west so much as ideas that's why they purchase our equipment.
This is a very big problem and concern, little to do with our different belief systems and more to do with national pride and personal gain. My take is that we need to do a better job monitoring the work and "outing" the bad behavior with counter arguments in the world press including China's. Explaining as best we can why it's so fraught with danger.
I don't think that China is alone in this either.
This is a very big problem and concern, little to do with our different belief systems and more to do with national pride and personal gain. My take is that we need to do a better job monitoring the work and "outing" the bad behavior with counter arguments in the world press including China's. Explaining as best we can why it's so fraught with danger.
I don't think that China is alone in this either.
16
How would we feel if the east proposed regulating our science?
We can be so unthinkingly arrogant at times.
We can be so unthinkingly arrogant at times.
3
@JP: "... they don't need regulations from the west so much as ideas that's why they purchase our equipment."
How do they get "ideas" from purchasing "our equipment"? Are you referring to reverse engineering? If so, how does that really help with understanding molecular biology?
How do they get "ideas" from purchasing "our equipment"? Are you referring to reverse engineering? If so, how does that really help with understanding molecular biology?
1
Science is universal, though. We're all working to better the entire world's understanding of natural processes that we all experience. There has to be some kind of middle ground or at least attempt at congruence of ideals and ethics to keep every researcher on the same page.
Ethicists often stand in the way of R and D/ Progress.
Examples:
Pope Leo X11, 19th C,banned small pox vac as it interfered with nature.
Malcolm Muggeridge, 1960s,BBC,said heart transplants transferred a man's soul.
1990s, ethicists, said face transplants transfer a person's personality.
Don't listen to such silly people.
Examples:
Pope Leo X11, 19th C,banned small pox vac as it interfered with nature.
Malcolm Muggeridge, 1960s,BBC,said heart transplants transferred a man's soul.
1990s, ethicists, said face transplants transfer a person's personality.
Don't listen to such silly people.
8
I'm used to the religious being silly, but what appalls me is when I hear some of these self-appointed "ethicists" speak on scientific issues. They seem to be religionists in disguise.
2
Are you joking? How was Malcolm Muggeridge an "ethicist"? And you misrepresented the concerns about face transplants.[1] The Pope is infallible, so I have no quibbles there. :-)
[1] Facial allograft transplantation, personal identity and subjectivity
J S Swindell
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug; 33(8): 449–453.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598153/
[1] Facial allograft transplantation, personal identity and subjectivity
J S Swindell
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug; 33(8): 449–453.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598153/
1
Confucian writings do not say anything about embryos, genes, or anything related to biomedical research, so the claims to "Confucian" ethics are nonsense. This is probably true of Christianity, too. People like to invoke ancient teachings to justify their opinions about things that ancient people never thought about. The ethics of Chinese science has more to do with the atheistic culture of the ruling party than with traditional Chinese ideas.
22
Chinese are traditionally atheistic. Confucius didn't waste anytime talking about life after death and so on.
At least China is looking for the future while Americans piddle away on old stuff. China is outsmarting us Americans in R&D.
12
Not really….in China R&D consists of going online and pulling from there and copying, I see it in my business and w/ the college students I teach all the time.….they take & copy and of course there is intense censorship by the ruling party. They are not creative "out of the box thinkers" at all at this point in time, and are driven by traditional Chinese nationalism, personal greed and desire for more world power and most importantly control of resources for their own exploitation which includes patents…..none of those are good characteristics to be admired. Until they get their human rights issues fixed and freedom of thought & expression is "allowed" why would anyone expect meaningful R&D from China?
2
If we don't do this work, the Chinese will. It is a national security priority that we immediately direct resources for Crispr experiments to edit the human genome. For example, we could use this technology to create custom made super soldiers with protective mutations against chemical weapon attacks.
3
@j: "For example, we could use this technology to create custom made super soldiers with protective mutations against chemical weapon attacks."
OK, but you still need to stop bullets.
OK, but you still need to stop bullets.
1
It's all about more status, more prestige, more recognition. Face is a central concept in Chinese culture (social scientists recognize this phenomenon across the board).
Naturally, wanting to look talented, or wealthy, or intelligent leads to shortcuts. Sometimes it's innocuous and scrappy, like with knock-off Louis Vuittons. Other times, it's downright shameful.
For all their problems, don't anyone tell me for a second that U.S. institutions are the most corrupt in the world.
Naturally, wanting to look talented, or wealthy, or intelligent leads to shortcuts. Sometimes it's innocuous and scrappy, like with knock-off Louis Vuittons. Other times, it's downright shameful.
For all their problems, don't anyone tell me for a second that U.S. institutions are the most corrupt in the world.
3
The Chinese clearly have the right to do whatever isn't done in the west since it is all cultural. Master Kung made it clear that tinkering with DNA is the chinese way. as did Chairman Mao.
This is all about principle. Li. The ancestors are all behind it.
Yeah yeah. Con men and hustlers on the make with stolen technologies.
This is all about principle. Li. The ancestors are all behind it.
Yeah yeah. Con men and hustlers on the make with stolen technologies.
5
Good for China! The only reason we are reluctant to do genetic engineering on embryos is superstition. Genetic engineering has great potential to cure genetic illnesses.
Improving the breed is another matter, as it has great potential not just for good but for harm. Some day it will grant us many boons, but first, society will have to figure out how to use it wisely. And of course no technology should be used to bring a child to term under any circumstances until the procedures have been perfected and tested for safety.
These are where the lines should be drawn, not at experimentation on tiny embryos that feel nothing and are going to be destroyed anyway.
Improving the breed is another matter, as it has great potential not just for good but for harm. Some day it will grant us many boons, but first, society will have to figure out how to use it wisely. And of course no technology should be used to bring a child to term under any circumstances until the procedures have been perfected and tested for safety.
These are where the lines should be drawn, not at experimentation on tiny embryos that feel nothing and are going to be destroyed anyway.
17
I strongly suggest you spend some time reading a history of the eugenics movement in twentieth century America. Your cheery attitude is wholly unwarranted, historically and scientifically.
14
The line between forestalling illness and improving people is too fuzzy to be useful. To pick just one kind of example, personality traits from hyper-activity to hyper-shyness are now deemed disorders. Whatever trait people (at a given time, in a given culture) become dissatisfied with can be regarded as a disorder that needs fixing.
Species norms won’t help draw the line. Tooth decay is normal, for example (in fact near universal), but it’s a (minor) disease.
There is no line to separate the illness-fixing from enhancement, and I think there’s no way to stop the use of genetic engineering to forestall illnesses. So for better or worse we’d better get used to the idea of genetically enhancing of the species.
Species norms won’t help draw the line. Tooth decay is normal, for example (in fact near universal), but it’s a (minor) disease.
There is no line to separate the illness-fixing from enhancement, and I think there’s no way to stop the use of genetic engineering to forestall illnesses. So for better or worse we’d better get used to the idea of genetically enhancing of the species.
9
The problem with eugenics is that it involves telling living people what to do or not do or in extreme cases killing them. This is unethical because it involves harm to human beings.
Experimenting with human genetic engineering does not involve harm to human beings and is therefore not unethical
Experimenting with human genetic engineering does not involve harm to human beings and is therefore not unethical
2
American will end up as the Venice/Spain/England/InsertPastEmpireHere of the 21st century. Research will continue regardless of our bizarre religious objections.
30
@ed anger: None of those empires fell because of lack of technological innovation. In fact, when they were declining, all of them were still very advanced societies. You should have found a better analogy to make your point.
4
I don't think they are religious objections at all but ethical ones. I am cynical about the propaganda that comes out of China as they are not honest about what they do , how they do it, and create environmental disasters as they try to force their way to be #1…..this is folly. They are unethical and clearly do not lead in human rights….I find it rather sinister that that they are doing this.
This is a disturbing article. All 21st century scientific research and beyond and the knowledge it creates, must be examined by non-scientists including ethicists and many other disciplines in the humanities and religions. One hears an ominous tone of paranoia, inferiority and a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality among many Chinese researchers.
It is encouraging to see a number of high profile scientists taking time to write books that are readable by the lay public in the physical and biological sciences. I hope the Chinese public is getting access to such books.
I also hope researchers all over the world come together on the issue of managing new discoveries, whether altering human genes or the environment. Anyone who thinks this is much ado about very little is naive to say the least.
It is encouraging to see a number of high profile scientists taking time to write books that are readable by the lay public in the physical and biological sciences. I hope the Chinese public is getting access to such books.
I also hope researchers all over the world come together on the issue of managing new discoveries, whether altering human genes or the environment. Anyone who thinks this is much ado about very little is naive to say the least.
12
Please, remember Galileo and keep religion out of this.
14
Oh please. Religious people should have no say on science whatsoever. What's naive is expecting people with no scientific background to regulate science.
8
Those who doubt the value of including religious-based thinkers into the discussion of science-based ethical dilemmas might peruse: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issue.... Also, read about the noted physicist, John Polkinghorne. Finally, Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
3
Cultural practices in different countries are informed by their history. Obviously, in the West, manipulation of human genes carry an unnecessary stigma from the Second World War. But China wasn't affected by this history! In fact, the West has gotten its interpretation completely wrong. There is a huge difference between POSITIVE eugenics (modifying human genes to treat diseases, extend life, improve people's health and living conditions, etc.), and NEGATIVE eugenics (i.e., KILLING people). China isn't seeking to kill people! What China is doing is completely valid. If the West is squeamish about the subject, I should hope that China is able to remain independent out of the West's cultural views. Someone needs to do the research to understand better who we are, how our genes work, and how we can improve who we are, for the betterment of science and humanity.
33
And who will judge what are positive and what are negative modifications? Mankind does not have a good record of foreseeing unintended consequences. Yes, experimentation can and will happen, but an open society with free debate on not only the technical possibilities but also the ethical and social implications for the earth's inhabitants is a bare minimum requirement.
2
The only way to learn about unintended consequences is to experiment and see what happens. Sitting and doing nothing is not a way to learn. If there are negative unintended consequences the approach can be modified or improved to capture the intended consequences but avoid the negative unintended consequences.
Someone needs to research the law of unintended consequences.
Wow. Who'd of thunk it? Chinese and Western ethics are different.
11
This has nothing to do with ethics.
China is a fascist dictatorship.
Anything Chinese scientists do must be with the intent of increasing the power of the Chinese fascist state.
The discussion of ethics has no place in a fascist dictatorship.
China is a fascist dictatorship.
Anything Chinese scientists do must be with the intent of increasing the power of the Chinese fascist state.
The discussion of ethics has no place in a fascist dictatorship.
35
People like Jon Davis will more likely become fascist when given opportunities, because they religiously believe they are superior to people who have different views, and call them unethical, immoral.
3