Gene Editing Might Change What Being Human Actually Means
By Edd Gent,
Singularity Hub
| 04. 18. 2017
Attempts to distill the essence of “selfhood” have occupied philosophers for centuries. Consensus has been fleeting at best, but is likely to get even harder as genetic tools allow us to tweak our bodies and potentially our minds.
DNA-based technology’s entry into the mainstream has been picking up lately. Just last week, the FDA approved a genetic testing kit from Californian company 23andMe that lets customers find out how their genes could contribute to their chances of developing 10 diseases or passing them on to their children.
For the time being, this is where this technology is primarily directed—forewarning those whose DNA conspires against them. But rapid advances mean it is becoming increasingly feasible to go further and start editing out this defective code, either using gene therapies or editing genes in the embryo.
As the authors of an essay in Science last week noted, the imperative to help those afflicted by genetic disease could be causing us to ignore the significance of what it means to tinker with our genetic makeup.
“The urgency to rebuild ourselves following disease and...
Related Articles
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...
By Emile Torres, Jacobin | 11.15.2025
Watching tech moguls throw caution to the wind in the AI arms race or equivocate on whether humanity ought to continue, it’s natural to wonder whether they care about human lives.
The earnest, in-depth answer to this question is just...
Public domain portrait of James D. Watson by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
and the National Human Genome Research Institute on Wikimedia Commons
James Watson, a scientist famous for ground-breaking work on DNA and notorious for expressing his antediluvian opinions, died on November 6, at the age of 97. Watson’s scientific eminence was primarily based on the 1953 discovery of the helical structure of DNA, for which he, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins shared the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or...
Paula Amato & Shoukhrat Mitalipov
[OHSU News/Christine Torres Hicks]
On September 30th, a team of 21 scientists from Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) published a significant paper in Nature Communications, with a scientifically accurate but, to many, somewhat abstruse headline:
Induction of experimental cell division to generate cells with reduced chromosome ploidy
The lead authors were Shoukhrat Mitalipov, recently described here as “a push-the-envelope biologist,” and his long-term colleague Paula Amato. (Recall that in July the pair had co-published with...
