Apparently, scientists want to synthesize the entire human genome. What could go wrong?
Obtaining that ability would have an unquantifiable impact on human life, culture, medicine, and the values of society.
It could bring amazing medical cures, while also unleashing a vicious eugenics regime that would make Master Race enthusiasts sigh in ecstasy.
In short, we all have a stake in this research–and it seems to me–should have a say in establishing acceptable research parameters and into questions about the role of public funding to pay the costs.
But some of those working in the field don’t want us to know what they are up to. That would certainly seem to be the point of a secret meeting arranged at Stanford that included strict instructions that attendees keep their mouths shut. From Inverse column by Jacqueline Ronson:
Scientists’ distrust of journalists reached a high water mark this week when attendees of a meeting to talk about research into synthesizing a human genome were allegedly given a broad gag-order prohibiting them from even saying publicly that the meeting was happening…
It’s easy to see their point. Journalists don’t always meet high standards of accuracy and integrity when reporting on science, as John Oliver pointed out this week.
Synthesizing human genomes seems like a particularly sensitive area of research, one that could lend itself easily to sensationalism and misinterpretation.
It’s not that they distrust journalists. Many–I would say most–science reporters are more camp followers than journalists, scribes who are utterly biased in favor of whatever “the scientists” say they want to do.
No, “the scientists” actually distrust us, we who might impede what they want to do based on our “outdated” views on the sanctity of human life and/or, what scientists often denigrate as the “yuck” factor.
Ronson reports that at least a few invitees pushed back against the closed and locked doors:
Drew Endy — presumably the same Drew Endy who teaches bioengineering at Stanford — tweeted a screen grab of the marching orders, along with this comment: “If you need secrecy to discuss your proposed research (synthesizing a human genome) you are doing something wrong.”
This statement, however brief, resonated in the policy and journalism communities. If science is pursued for its own sake in service of the public good, surely the public, however fickle it may be, deserves some information.
My take: The great embryonic stem cell debate taught scientists a lesson: The less we know, the more they can do what they want–which is why the fact that human cloning has now been done, was so stunningly downplayed by the scientists to the popular media.
Ronson has this exactly right:
Of course scientists should have spaces for private conversations, but, in the age of radical transparency, secrecy implies guilt. Why not instruct meeting attendees instead to avoid representing the words or positions of others, and take care in representing their own?
An all-out publication ban gives the distinct impression that something sketchy is happening behind closed doors. If an area of research is so sensitive that even acknowledging its existence becomes a problem, maybe that’s a sign that an honest public conversation needs to happen before research continues in earnest.
They don’t want an “honest public conversation.” You see, “the scientists” want to decide what is ethical in science. They just want us to write those checks and mind our own business.
Scientists often disagree about many things. But apparently not about what they don’t want you to know. Glad to see there remains some push back against the secrecy agenda.
Scientists Don't Want Us to Know