This actually raised an interesting thought to mind about the long-term ethical implications of lowering the barrier to entry for genetic engineering. What happens when anyone with a little know-how and $10K can use the techniques?
The barrier to entry for genetic engineering is already zero; but it has much less sexy names like "washing your hands" and "sex". DNA synthesis is just a matter of being more specific and deliberate about which biological organisms you keep around. Anyone is capable of selectively breeding bacteria, fungi, molds, or anything else. I think the reverse(?) question needs to be asked as well, which is what are the ethical implications of trying to restrict the ability to make DNA?
I should have been more specific, when I said 'genetic engineering' I was referring to using techniques like CRISPR to perform gene modifications in animals and humans.
No one with the resources required currently would surreptitiously test a new gene on another human, what happens when the resource and knowledge barrier drop?
Comments
The barrier to entry for genetic engineering is already zero; but it has much less sexy names like "washing your hands" and "sex". DNA synthesis is just a matter of being more specific and deliberate about which biological organisms you keep around. Anyone is capable of selectively breeding bacteria, fungi, molds, or anything else. I think the reverse(?) question needs to be asked as well, which is what are the ethical implications of trying to restrict the ability to make DNA?
Here's some infotainment I guess: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/diybio/faq/news/
I should have been more specific, when I said 'genetic engineering' I was referring to using techniques like CRISPR to perform gene modifications in animals and humans.
No one with the resources required currently would surreptitiously test a new gene on another human, what happens when the resource and knowledge barrier drop?