News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
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.