New York Times Falls On Its Face In Glorifying Genetic Engineering Without Proper Risk Or Ethics Controls

Back when the Chicken Littles were squawking that the sky was falling with Peak Oil, we wrote that the hounds of hell had been unleashed in American laboratories and other countries around the world and it would eventually suck to be an oil fiefdom. ie, We were going to innovate ourselves off of oil at some point. That will continue to happen whether we have oil at $100 or at $10 because the issue isn't necessarily one of price. It's one of cost. There is a substantial difference as we wrote back then. Additionally, humanity's inquisitiveness is not predicated on capitalism. It's predicated on the search for truth. Seekers of truth realize this. Capitalists often don't because they generally seek to control rather than participate in the search for truth. So they whine that regulation will stifle human ingenuity. Hardly. Bureaucracy stifles ingenuity. Capitalists simply attempt to exploit inquisitiveness for monetary gain. Or to suppress it since bureaucracy is obviously not interested in the search for truth but instead for the perpetuation of power. Hence the foundation of much of our economic model. Is it any wonder that big business and big government are so intertwined? They are both run by the same power-seeking bureaucrats. Bureaucratic monopoly is so destructive to our economy and our democracy. That is in fact the dynamic which took down the Soviet Union and is having a similar impact on our economy for the exact same reasons. That is, the bureaucratic suppression of self-determination and its natural outcome - inquisitiveness.

Anyway, we have also written quite about about a lack of bioethics and risk controls and an appreciation for the power of mother nature as it pertains to genetically tampering with nature. I have a substantial concern about what humankind is capable of creating by cavalierly "toying" with nature's DNA and being too foolish to understand the consequences until after we had killed half of the world's people, wiped out the natural biodiversity so necessary for the perpetuation of life or some other catastrophe. This is a very, very, very serious issue. An issue any knowledgeable scientist would be terribly concerned about. And most critically-thinking scientists are.

The loose journalism in this New York Times article is astounding to me. This article might have been focused on the incredible ethical and environmental risks of playing with life forces we clearly do not understand in any detail. The most capable genetic researchers in the world today have no idea what they don't know. And that is an unbelievable enormous amount. Our scientific knowledge in genetics is akin to that of a new born baby's knowledge of the keys to the universe. To then glorify giving ill-qualified students this ability to toy with nature with seemingly no risk controls is horrifying to me. And it should be to you.

On a positive note, the fury of ingenuity is hard at work. Yet a gut check is in order. If we don't learn how to more effectively manage risk in this process, some day the world will surely deal with the consequences.