Human Biotechnology: Responding to Emerging Dangerous New Human Genetics
By Jesse Reynolds,
Z Magazine
| 03. 31. 2003
As 2003 began, the mainstream press was grappling with a cloning hoax. This January, it launched extended coverage of the 50th anniversary of the identification of DNA's structure. Both events provided golden opportunities to deepen public understanding of the social and political implications of new human genetic and reproductive technologies.
Unfortunately, the media have mostly flubbed these opportunities. The coverage of the Raelians' cloning claims obscured rather than illuminated the critical issues. Early signs on the second media opportunity-a series of carefully planned celebrations throughout the spring-are none too promising. Fortunately, a civil society response to dangerous new human genetic and reproductive technologies is emerging in a number of countries, as witnessed at January's World Social Forum in Brazil.
The year's first human biotechnology media frenzy actually began at the end of December 2002, when a previously obscure alien-chasing sect announced that its scientists had produced the world's first human clone. The initial news reaction appropriately focused on whether the claim could be true. But by the time the Raelians' excuses as to why they were unable to show the...
Related Articles
By Jenny Lange, BioNews | 12.01.2025
A UK toddler with a rare genetic condition was the first person to receive a new gene therapy that appears to halt disease progression.
Oliver, now three years old, has Hunter syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder that leads to physical...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
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...