Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Imagine a world free of genetic diseases, where parents control their offspring’s height, eye color and intelligence. The science may be closer than you think. Genes interact in ways that we don’t fully understand and there could be unintended consequences, new diseases that result from our tinkering. But even if the science could be perfected, is it morally wrong? Would it lead to eugenics and a stratified society where only the rich enjoy the benefits of genetic enhancement? Or would the real injustice be depriving our children of every scientifically possible opportunity?
For
Sheldon Krimsky
Professor, Tufts University and Chair, Council for Responsible Genetics
For
Lord Robert Winston
Professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor, Fertility Studies, Imperial College
Against
Nita Farahany
Professor of Law and Philosophy and Professor of Genome Sciences & Policy, Duke University
Against
Lee SIlver
Professor, Princeton University and Author
MODERATOR
John Donvan
Author & Correspondent for ABC News
Listen to the edited radio broadcast
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Listen to the unedited radio broadcast
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to the PodcastFor The Motion
Sheldon Krimsky
Professor, Tufts University and Chair, Council for Responsible Genetics
Sheldon Krimsky is the Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning in the School of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University. He is also an Adjunct Professor in Public Health and Family Medicine in the School of Medicine at Tufts University and a Visiting Professor at Brooklyn College. Krimsky's research has focused on the linkages between science/technology, ethics/values and public policy. He is the author of over 180 papers and 11 books, including Genetic Justice: DNA Databanking, Criminal Investigations and Civil Liberties (2010) and co-editor of Race and the Genetic Revolution (2011) and Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense (2013). Krimsky has been elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for "seminal scholarship exploring the normative dimensions and moral implications of science in its social context."
For The Motion
Lord Robert Winston
Professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor, Fertility Studies, Imperial College
Robert Winston, Professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College London, runs a research program in the Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology on transgenic technology in animal models, with a long-term aim of improving human transplantation. His research led to the development of gynecological microsurgery in the 1970s and various improvements in reproductive medicine, subsequently adopted internationally, particularly in the field of endocrinology and IVF. His work on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis enabled families carrying gene defects to have children free of fatal illnesses. He has been a visiting professor at a number of American, Australian and European universities and was President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 2005. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, an Honorary Fellow of Queen Mary College, and holds honorary Fellowships with the Royal Academy of Engineering, Institute of Biology, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow.
Against The Motion
Nita Farahany
Professor of Law and Philosophy and Professor of Genome Sciences & Policy, Duke University
Nita A. Farahany is a leading scholar on the ethical, legal, and social implications of biosciences and emerging technologies, particularly those related to neuroscience and behavioral genetics. She holds a joint appointment as Professor of Law at Duke Law and Professor at Duke University’s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy. In 2010, she was appointed by President Obama to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, and continues to serve as a member. Farahany’s recent scholarship includes “Searching Secrets,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2012), which explores the descriptive potential of intellectual property law as a metaphor to describe current Fourth Amendment search and seizure law and to predict how the Fourth Amendment will apply to emerging technology. She also is the editor of The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law (2011), a book of essays from experts in science, law, philosophy, and policy. Farahany clerked for Judge Judith W. Rogers of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In 2011, Farahany served as a visiting associate professor of law and the Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor of Human Rights at Stanford Law School. She teaches courses related to criminal law and criminal procedure, along with courses at the intersection of law, science, and philosophy.
Against The Motion
Lee Silver
Professor, Princeton University and Author
Lee M. Silver is Professor of Molecular Biology and Public Policy at Princeton University. He is also a founder and principal science advisor of GenePeeks, a personal genome company that helps people interpret their genetic information to reduce the risk of heritable disease in the next generation. Professor Silver holds a doctorate in biophysics from Harvard University. He is an elected lifetime Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a recipient of a National Institutes of Health MERIT award for outstanding research in genetics. Silver has authored a leading undergraduate textbook in genetics and genomics, a post-graduate textbook in mammalian genetics and two popular books for a general audience, Challenging Nature and Remaking Eden. He has also authored over 200 scientific articles in the fields of genetics, reproductive biology and molecular biology, as well as scholarly articles at the interface of biomedicine, law, bioethics, and public policy. In addition to his academic works, Silver has written opinion pieces for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine and Newsweek International. He has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including the Charlie Rose Show, 20/20, 60 Minutes, PBS News Hour, NBC Nightly News, ABC News, Nightline, National Public Radio and the Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. Silver collaborated with the playwright Jeremy Kareken on the award-winning play Sweet, Sweet Motherhood which opened off-off-Broadway at the Here Arts Center.
Declared Winner: Against The Motion
Online Voting
Voting Breakdown:
Tracking the voting patterns of audience members who voted in both the pre- and post-debate votes, the breakdown is as follows: 42% voted the same way in BOTH pre- and post-debate votes (18% voted FOR twice, 20% voted AGAINST twice, 4% voted UNDECIDED twice). 58% changed their minds (4.5% voted FOR then changed to AGAINST, 4% voted FOR then changed to UNDECIDED, 4.5% voted AGAINST then changed to FOR, 3% voted AGAINST then changed to UNDECIDED, 19% voted UNDECIDED then changed to FOR, 23% voted UNDECIDED then changed to AGAINST) | Breakdown Graphic
Research
Research For The Motion:
- Articles & Publications: Lord Robert Winston
- Articles & Publications: Sheldon Krimsky
Research Against The Motion:
- Articles & Publications: Lee Silver
- Articles & Publications: Nita Farahany
Search By Tag-Cloud:
About This Event
Event Photos
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/798-prohibit-genetically-engineered-babies/798-prohibit-genetically-engineered-babies?tab=4&start=10#sigProGalleria2e4da6a79d
21 comments
- Comment Link
Wednesday, 13 February 2013 19:37 posted by Jeanne Where is God in all of this?
Never mind 'mother nature'...
What about what Father God has to say in all of this!
It will be too bad if we don't even consider this very important part of the debate! - Comment Link
Wednesday, 13 February 2013 19:09 posted by LaToya Thank you PETE DOMINICK for talking about this debate and this site on your show this morning!!
- Comment Link
Wednesday, 13 February 2013 07:32 posted by Agil i am with the motion!
- Comment Link
Tuesday, 12 February 2013 07:05 posted by michel GO GENETICS GO!
- Comment Link
Saturday, 09 February 2013 21:12 posted by Lily Would Steve Hawking have been born if his parents could choose otherwise?
- Comment Link
Saturday, 09 February 2013 20:14 posted by P The question is should we have "unfettered access" to this technology. I think the technology will benefit the world greatly, but it must be controlled (regulated).
I have very little faith in business, in that, it will not regulate itself before society demands it. I believe businesses will always choose profit over the well being of the community it serves. Of course businesses will correct itself when society demands change, but until then, the people are just a means to an end (their bottom line). - Comment Link
Wednesday, 06 February 2013 10:58 posted by T The genie is already out of the bottle. There are enough diseases beginning with diabetes that genetic tinkering might fix that few would argue against it. The problem is that we can't look into a crystal ball and see all the unintended consequences. Extending and saving lives will contribute to overpopulation, increase demand for food and water in a world of limited resources. Not to worry though, nature has its way of controlling her balance. I discovered, as a child, that you can only put so many rats in a box before they eat each other and balance is restored.
- Comment Link
Tuesday, 05 February 2013 14:38 posted by janille I am reminded of the movie Jurassic Park and this (rough) quote: "We were so busy trying to see if we could do it we didn't stop to think if we should." Human nature being what it is, the concept of 'designer babies' for the rich, even genetic disease cures (still only for the rich) will be taken too far and we will suffer the consequences of it in the long term.
- Comment Link
Thursday, 31 January 2013 21:23 posted by greg Genetically modified to change nature..
Sure, why not? after all we live in, "A Brave New World" - Comment Link
Tuesday, 29 January 2013 03:15 posted by Jake I think it is necessary to differentiate between using genetic engineering to cure a known genetic disease, and using genetic engineering simply to try and "improve" people. The reason for this is that while our knowledge of the the human genome and its workings has grown exponentially over the past decade or so, we are far from completely understanding how we work. the potential for causing children to be born with horrible genetic defects is great enough that there appears to be little justification for taking that risk simply to fulfill the whims of parents.
In a society that has enacted strict laws regarding the care and ethical treatment of lab animals, laws based upon the idea that experimentation on animals must be limited to cases of great necessity for research, it seems strange that we would have no problem performing these sort of experiments on a human baby, simply to fulfill his or her parents desires.
In the cases of serious monogenetic diseases, where the genetic mutation is known and easy to correct, I see no difference between genetic engineering and conventional medicine, each one having its own advantages and disadvantages.
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.
