No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?
If we could honestly promise young couples that we knew how to give them offspring with superior character, why should we assume they would decline? Common sense tells us that if scientists find ways to greatly improve human capabilities, there will no stopping the public from happily seizing them.
Interpretation
What this quote means
The quote suggests that people would embrace scientific advancements to enhance human traits if promised superior outcomes.
James D. Watson's quote emphasizes the inherent human desire for improvement and progress. It posits that if it were possible to guarantee better character traits and capabilities for future generations through scientific means, couples would likely accept such advancements without hesitation. This reflects a broader discussion about the ethical implications and public acceptance of genetic engineering and enhancement technologies.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
During a lecture on genetic engineering, this quote can be used to illustrate public interest in scientific advancements.
More from James D. Watson
All quotes →I think the reason people are dealing with science less well now than 50 years ago is that it has become so complicated.
Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans favour research using embryonic stem cells and yet politicians continue to pander to the outspoken religious minority that is hampering efforts to develop this potentially valuable technology.
DNA was my only gold rush. I regarded DNA as worth a gold rush.
Science has always been my preoccupation and when you think a breakthrough is possible, it is terribly exciting.
If you go into science, I think you better go in with a dream that maybe you, too, will get a Nobel Prize. It's not that I went in and I thought I was very bright and I was going to get one, but I'll confess, you know, I knew what it was.
Similar quotes
There is a reward structure in science that is very interesting: Our highest honors go to those who disprove the findings of the most revered among us. So Einstein is revered not just because he made so many fundamental contributions to science, but because he found an imperfection in the fundamental contribution of Isaac Newton.
The idea of atomic energy is illusionary but it has taken so powerful a hold on the minds, that although I have preached against it for twenty-five years, there are still some who believe it to be realizable.
Emissions of greenhouse gases warm the planet, altering the carbon and water cycles. A warmer ocean stores more heat, providing more fuel for hurricanes. A warmer atmosphere holds more water, bringing dangerous deluges. Rising sea levels threaten coastal zones.
The true scientific understanding of the nature of existence is so utterly fascinating; how could you not want people to share it? Carl Sagan, I think, said 'when you're in love, you want to tell the world.' And who, on understanding a scientific view of reality, would not, as it were, fall in love and want to tell the world.
The strongest affection and utmost zeal should, I think, promote the studies concerned with the most beautiful objects, most deserving to be known.
It was remarkable to see from space how predictable people are. Our homes and towns are almost all in places with moderate temperatures, and they generally have the same shape - a thinly occupied outer blob of suburb surrounding a densely populated core, all based around a ready source of water.