6,353
edits
Mutation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Deleterious vs beneficial mutations
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Kodrashov is staunchly against eugenics and concludes that deleterious mutational accumulation can only be ethically and effectively be resolved via bioengineering technologies like gene editing. He discusses the various ethical quandaries surrounding the use of these technologies and the likely far-reaching social implications of their deployment at some length in the book. | Kodrashov is staunchly against eugenics and concludes that deleterious mutational accumulation can only be ethically and effectively be resolved via bioengineering technologies like gene editing. He discusses the various ethical quandaries surrounding the use of these technologies and the likely far-reaching social implications of their deployment at some length in the book. | ||
Substantial progress has already been made towards the development of these technologies, in particular, strides have been made in correcting deleterious mutations in embryos via gene editing. | Substantial progress has already been made towards the development of these technologies, in particular, strides have been made in correcting deleterious mutations in embryos via gene editing.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/02/540975224/scientists-precisely-edit-dna-in-human-embryos-to-fix-a-disease-gene?t=1577487765548</ref> | ||
Perhaps the focus on deleterious mutations from the news media and others is because bad news is more attention-grabbing, humanity seems to have a negativity bias.<ref>https://www.adweek.com/digital/bad-news-negative-headlines-get-much-more-attention/</ref> | Perhaps the focus on deleterious mutations from the news media and others is because bad news is more attention-grabbing, humanity seems to have a negativity bias.<ref>https://www.adweek.com/digital/bad-news-negative-headlines-get-much-more-attention/</ref> | ||