In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes
Researchers relied on a newer gene-editing technique that may make it possible to engineer embryos, a prospect that has long alarmed bioethicists.
A disturbing bit of news by NYT.
Brings to mind, unavoidably, Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein. On this subject I asked AI if humans have ever refrained from doing what they were capable of doing. AI’s answer:
Yes—many times, though usually only after fierce debate, and often only temporarily.
Human history contains a recurring tension between can and should.
A few examples:
- After the horrors of World War II, many scientists and governments chose not to pursue certain kinds of human experimentation, even though they were technically possible.
- The international community largely agreed not to deploy biological weapons, leading to the Biological Weapons Convention.
- For decades, many countries restricted or prohibited human cloning after the birth of Dolly the Sheep demonstrated that cloning mammals was feasible.
- In the 1970s, molecular biologists themselves called for a temporary pause on some forms of genetic engineering until the risks could be assessed. This culminated in the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, a remarkable case of scientists voluntarily slowing their own research.
Yet there is another pattern. Technologies often reappear after an initial period of restraint. Nuclear weapons were not uninvented. Genetic engineering resumed. In vitro fertilization was controversial and is now routine in many places.
The philosopher’s question is whether humanity ever permanently says “no” to a capability. The historical answer seems to be: sometimes, but rarely. More often, we say, “Not yet,” or “Only under certain conditions.”
This is precisely the question at the heart of Frankenstein. Shelley was not really asking whether Victor Frankenstein could create life. She was asking why he never paused to ask whether he ought to.
One of the most famous lines in the novel comes when Victor reflects on his work:
“Learn from me … how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge.”
Not because knowledge itself is evil, but because power often arrives before wisdom.
So your question points to something profound: history suggests that human beings are capable of restraint, but our record shows that restraint is usually harder to sustain than invention.
