In the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though, of course, they would not have used that phrase.
Interpretation
The quote suggests that the concept of manipulating genetics, or 'designer babies,' was not viewed as dangerous by scientists of the past, despite varying political beliefs.
Richard Dawkins points out that during the early to mid-20th century, scientists, regardless of their political affiliations, did not perceive the notion of creating genetically designed humans as particularly perilous. This highlights how societal and ethical concerns evolve over time, reflecting the changing complexities surrounding genetic engineering and its implications in modern society.
In practice
Discussing ethical considerations in a biotechnology seminar.
No educated person believes the Adam and Eve myth nowadays, but it's surprising how many parents think that it's somehow fun to pass on this falsehood to their children...I would want to argue that the truth of evolution is more interesting and more poetic
If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worst than ignorant, they are the deluded to the point of perversity.
The population of the U.S. is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the U.S. leads the world by miles.
When you make machines that are capable of obeying instructions slavishly, and among those instructions are 'duplicate me' instructions, then of course the system is wide open to exploitation by parasites.
Even if not a single fossil has ever been found, the evidence from surviving animals would still overwhelmingly force the conclusion that Darwin was right.
The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the historic homeland of the Jews.
The art of doing mathematics consists in finding that special case which contains all the germs of generality.
Fortunately, there's another handy driver that has manifested itself throughout the history of cultures. The urge to want to gain wealth. That is almost as potent a driver as the urge to maintain your security. And that is how I view NASA going forward - as an investment in our economy.
Science is objective. And in my view we cannot take any experimental results seriously except in the light of good explanations of them.
Time travel was once considered scientific heresy, and I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled a 'crank.'
As a scientist, I want to go to Mars and back to asteroids and the Moon because I'm a scientist. But I can tell you, I'm not so naive a scientist to think that the nation might not have geopolitical reasons for going into space.
People are going to buy cheap fertilizer so they can grow enough crops to feed themselves, which will be increasingly difficult with climate change.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.