Embedded Files
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
AR 23:42 - Baby with edited DNA born in China
In this issue:
CULTURE - is the media "replacing religion as a cultural authority?"
+ how has a "strong dislike for PC culture" contributed to "fatigue with our polarized national conversation?"
GENETICS - has the hunger for fame driven a Chinese scientist to be first in creating babies with edited DNA?
Apologia Report 23:42 (1,408)
December 30, 2018
CULTURE
American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology, by Diana Walsh Pasulka, professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion [1] -- Kirkus (Nov 15 '18): The book "begins by pointing out that religions do not depend on objective reality, so belief in aliens is independent of proof that they exist. ... Pasulka makes a reasonable case that the spirits, angels, divine messengers, manifestations of God, aliens or their spaceships that humans have been reporting since the dawn of history are too numerous to be entirely delusional, so they deserve serious investigation."
Publishers Weekly (Nov 12 '18): "Pasulka compares ufology to more traditional religions, such as Christianity, likening miracles to UFO sightings and faith in God to faith in abduction."
The Oxford University Press promo mentions that Pasulka also "argues that the media is replacing religion as a cultural authority that offers believers answers about non-human intelligent life."
"Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture" by Yascha Mounk, lecturer on government at Harvard University -- profiles the study "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape," by Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon Stephen <www.bit.ly/2V5gXL6> dated Oct 10 '18.
"According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don't belong to either extreme constitute an 'exhausted majority.' Their members 'share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.'
"Most members of the 'exhausted majority,' and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that 'political correctness is a problem in our country.' Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. ...
"Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. ...
"Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem. ...
"While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment. ...
"Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem. ...
"[T]he fact that we are so widely off the mark in our perception of how most people feel about political correctness should probably also make us rethink some of our other basic assumptions about the country. ...
"The study should ... make progressives more self-critical about the way in which speech norms serve as a marker of social distinction. ...
"In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real, when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world." The Atlantic, Oct 10 '18 <www.bit.ly/2ShjW1h>
---
GENETICS
"Babies born with edited DNA stun genetics world" by Alice Park -- in what appears to be a wild example of shameless grandstanding, it began with "a slick video" released on YouTube <www.bit.ly/2CE1VEX> on November 25 in which Chinese scientist He Jiankui claimed that he "had produced the world's first human babies whose genomes had been edited using the technique called CRISPR" and that he had "edited more than a dozen additional embryos that remain frozen. ...
"Because he published on YouTube rather than in a scientific journal, his claims haven't been properly validated. Both the university where He is on the faculty (and has been on leave since February) and the hospital where the births occurred denied even knowing his controversial study was taking place.
"Even more important, nearly all leading genetics experts believe CRISPR - a tool developed in 2012 through which a DNA-protein complex can seek out and remove specific DNA sequences - is not yet safe for use in humans." Time, Dec 10 '18, p19.
Oddly, the above item was not available from Time's web site. Instead, a more recent and lengthy piece by Park takes its place: <www.bit.ly/2GzSrPd>
The Economist (Dec 1 '18, p14) adds that "Mr He claims to have created one baby resistant to HIV infections, and a twin who is not. ... If reproductive cells were affected, any such modifications will be passed on to subsequent generations. There is still uncertainty over what Mr He has done. But it is just a matter of time before someone, somewhere, edits human embryos that are grown into babies. Governments and regulators need to pay heed."
Another item, "A Moment for Reflection," in the same edition of the Economist (p70-71) adds that "On November 26th, the day before The Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing was scheduled to begin in Hong Kong, He, "one of the scheduled speakers ... announced that he had already done it." Then, On November 28th, having disappeared for two days, He explained his version of events to the meeting. ...
"According to Chinese media, the hospital has reported the matter to the police as a potential fraud. ...
"One concern is that Dr He's treatment of the embryos may have resulted in mutations in non-target genes and other undesired changes in the DNA of the babies concerned. ...
"How accurate his sequencing was is a matter of conjecture. ...
"There is also the question of why any one thought genetic modifications might be of help to the children on whom it was performed. ...
"One of the most bizarre aspects of the story is that Dr He has no official training in reproductive research." The first paragraph of this story describes He as "an expert in DNA sequencing at the Southern University of Science and Technology, in Shenzhen."
He "obtained a PhD in biophysics from Rice University, in Texas, and then, at Stanford University, became an expert on DNA sequencing. His website lists no papers on matters reproductive, only of a few conference talks on basic and preclinical research.
"This inexperience has not, apparently, stopped him [from] putting together what is, in effect, a private human-genome editing project. He says the work was paid for in part by his private resources and in part by a startup fund from his university intended to encourage its scientists to be entrepreneurs - though, to reiterate, the university denies any knowledge or involvement."
Dr Zhai Xiaomei, the executive director of the Centre for Bioethics at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, "warns that China might become a fertile ground for such scandals if its regulatory capacity is not greatly strengthened."
Also see: <www.bit.ly/2RmGVL7> and <www.bit.ly/2Vc7SQO>
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology, by Diana Walsh Pasulka (Oxford Univ Prs, February 2019, hardcover, 288 pages) <www.amzn.to/2rOU9C7>
------
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse