News
After Court Restores Research Funding, Trump Still Has Paths to Target Harvard
News
‘Honestly, I’m Fine with It’: Eliot Residents Settle In to the Inn as Renovations Begin
News
He Represented Paul Toner. Now, He’s the Fundraising Frontrunner in Cambridge’s Municipal Elections.
News
Harvard College Laundry Prices Increase by 25 Cents
News
DOJ Sues Boston and Mayor Michelle Wu ’07 Over Sanctuary City Policy
To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
I would like to commend your reporter for his summary, in the issue of March 27, of my article on genetic intervention. One point, however, seems worth correcting, since a Polyannish attitude clearly would undermine the credibility of my effort to develop a realistic appraisal of our prospects. I did not argue that "by the time it is possible to change human personality by changing genes, society will have developed methods of preventing abuse of science." On the contrary, I am deeply pessimistic about our tolerance for self-destruction and our limited capacity for focussing on long-range consequences of our actions; but I do not see that impairing the flow of new scientific knowledge will help us to acquire social wisdom.
My article states that "... we shall have to struggle, in a crowded and unsettled world, to prevent a horrifying misuse of science and to preserve and promote the ideal of universal human dignity. If we succeed in developing suitable controls [of techniques available now or in the near future] we can expect to apply them to any later developments in genetics. If we fail-as we may-limitations on the progress of genetics will not help."
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.