Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
In the case of embryo cloning, it's Sophie's Choice but for embryos. Make a few dozen combinations of sperm and egg, and then choose the best one to grow based on your opinion. But embryos are people too. How many potential sibs can you waste for the perfect child? It's icky, and we should have caution when we do powerful things.
Individual gene editing therapies are also being worked on now, but these pose similar issues.
What if taking away depression from the next few generations causes the human population to no longer produce quality artists? Another issue: the wealthy will have unequal access to it compared to others. We can only have nice things (freedom from disease) if there are those willing to ~~pay~~ charge for them. Not everyone can benefit from gene therapy, so it is not truly a benefit to society or humanity, and therefore should not be developed as a biotechnology. As if that ever stopped anyone.
Eh, they're not people yet.
Human bodies produce way more gametes than most people want children, so I'd say that one could "waste" quite a few.
Strongly disagree. While socioeconomic inequality is an important issue to address, that is no reason to halt scientific research and technological progress.