I’m not even a Real Scientist but this is a very good example of poor scientific literacy. The authors are ethicists. This is a philosophy paper. Do all the trolley problem posts mean trolleys are weapons of mass destruction?
Also it’s hilarious.
Bioethics is pretty philosophical. But this seems like a lot more than a hypothetical because it’s dealing with a real illness spread by real ticks and the authors point out it’s “presently feasible to genetically edit the disease‐carrying capacity of ticks” while presenting an argument we have an obligation to do such a thing.
Bioethics is pretty philosophical.
It is literally philosophy.
But this seems like a lot more than a hypothetical because it’s dealing with a real illness spread by real ticks and the authors point out it’s “presently feasible to genetically edit the disease‐carrying capacity of ticks” while presenting an argument we have an obligation to do such a thing.
Are hypotheticals only things that could not happen? What’s the value of discussing them and their ethics if they are impossible?
I think many people would argue that there is a moral obligation to protect human rights, including the right to food, water and shelter. It’s certainly feasible. Still waiting for that to materialize…
Also, did you read the part where they also said:
The primary obstacle to the permissibility of our recommendation is that lone star ticks can transmit other conditions, which can cause serious harm, including death. Primarily, in addition to tularemia and ehrlichiosis, the lone star tick can transmit diseases that cause mild infections and rashes, which, though rather ordinary and common in the scope of human disease, still count.
…
The permissibility of our recommendation depends on the feasibility of genetically editing the lone star tick in several ways: (a) engineer the lone star tick to carry AGS; (b) engineer the lone star tick so that it can survive and proliferate in more widespread conditions; and © engineer the lone star tick so that it does not transmit other diseases, primarily tularemia and ehrlichiosis.
Sorry, I missed where scientist are editing ticks to not carry serious and potentially fatal pathogens, breeding them on an industrial scale and releasing them to the wild to out compete populations that do still carry them. Seems pretty hypothetical to me.
Don’t worry, the animal exploitation industry is already working on a way to protect their means of deriving wealth from exploiting animals. That’s an actual gene editing research paper, not a philosophical discussion btw.
Genetic editing of ticks would require ethics approval. Ethics approval is more likely if there are ethicists arguing that we’re morally obliged to do this sort of things. This is step one of the process. Stop being a pedant.
I’ll stop being pedantic when people stop giving me a reason to. The link you posted was full of people misrepresenting the discipline and purpose of the paper. That’s what I was replying to.
If this post was just a link to the paper itself, there would be no misrepresentation.
I don’t see how it was misrepresented. The X post didn’t claim this was being done already and clearly states it was an argument in a bioethics journal. It seems to me the paper’s authors are not just presenting an interesting argument somebody could make but an argument they actually support so I don’t think it would be right to treat it as a purely hypothetical argument.
Ethics professors are some of the most unethical people around.
Sounds like a pretty modest proposal
I was going to make that joke but I was afraid someone would “out pedantic” me and point out that A Modest Proposal is generally considered satire and not a philosophical exercise 🤭
This just sounds like getting
unethicalmad scientists lynched with extra steps.I’d rather get ticks engineered to make people allergic to being fat. Appetite-killer-ticks.
if it helps any; there are big-pharma drug versions already available with artificially high price tags. lol
As a carnivore, I can’t even argue against this if the “ethics” of a “perfectly as-intended out-come” were the only points of concern*, but as a pragmatist and person with an often tenuous grasp on reality(at least in-so-far as “is how I feel in this monent even remotely appropriate or useful”), I gotta say; WOAH DUDE! LEAVE SOME CRAZY FOR THE REST OF US!!
.
*admitedly, I’m not fixated on my personal diet choices so much as, have you seen the costs of complete and healthy vegetarian food options? Has this author considered killing meat and poultry subsidies first? … oh wait, the genetic-engineering of super-ticks is cheaper and less resource-intensive than fighting those lobbies in this reality. Well, FUCK.
