The following is a slightly modified GOOGLE-translation of the Danish language site
Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.

Have we already passed the red line?

Evidence suggests that it does not last long before, for better or worse, we will manipulate/improve also human genes.
The three following references is the latest I’ve found. It concentrate more on the positive aspects of genetic engineering – also of humans.

Lars Kongsbak

A very long article on the Danish language paper The engineer he tries to do away with some of the many contradictions that dominate the debate.
(Lars Kongsbak is a molecular biologist and executive director of the company Exiqon working in the market for genetic analysis.)

The Economist

Designer Babies 20 August 2015 the topic was addressed with an editorial article: Editing humanity.
Here is discussed the practical and philosophical aspects that naturally occurs in connection with the use of CRISPR technology and the controversial topic:
Designer Babies.

In the same edition, you will also find two other very interesting, but for many also alarming articles:
The age of the red pen.
It describes how only three years of development has turned upside down for ways to treat inherited diseases.

The most selfish genes.
Here you can see how it is possible to insert genes that will quickly spread in nature and, for example, can cause ALL mosquitoes can not spread malaria.
This would surely be great!
It should of course be surrounded with much caution as a means to work with something where circumventing Mendel’s Laws and where there is no way back.

On a Danish language paper in (December 2015, itself a translation form an English language paper.) you can find another controversial post, concluding that:
We are morally obliged to genetically manipulate humans.
The following excerpt is obviously influenced by my views.

  • We are virtually all in favor when it comes to technological advances that can alleviate suffering, promote health and prevent disease.
    (For instance, vaccinations and anesthesia in surgery.)

    BUT new advances in technology, where you are messing with human genes. There is an exception.
  • The task is difficult and dangerous.
    It is impossible to know exactly what editing genomes in human embryos may lead to.
    It is only after the baby is born, you can see what effect it has had.

    BUT strictly: Risk and uncertainty two different concepts and it is against the rules of logic to require 100% security.
    Editing genomes can easily lead to more, partly unpredictable benefits than harm.
    It does not necessarily mean that it is dangerous – rather it is unpredictable and that we must learn to assess the opportunities we have been given.
    AND If you make a child “naturally” you don’t know what you will get.
    There is also a risk / uncertainty, which we accept.
    Of course results of animal tests should be part of the assessment.
  • It is coming out of a slippery slope on the way to eugenics and designer babies.
    The question can actually be turned upside down and you could say: If you could design healthy babies.
    Where is the moral justification for not doing so?
    If we could help future generations to avoid serious disorders such as hemophilia or gens to be albino.
    So what?
    Fear of a slippery slope is in itself a slippery slope that is often used to stop progress.
    If there is a slippery slope that leads to better life for people, we should very carefully get up along it.
  • It interferes in nature, and plays god.
    But we both vaccinates and build dams in order to change the course of nature and God’s creation.
  • This will exacerbate social inequality.
    We want our children to have a good future, for example by giving them a good school.
    Although we thus increase the existing inequality, there are few who are against.
  • We have to hold us back and see.
    Meanwhile, innocent people will continue to live with unnecessary hardship or suffering.
    While we wait, irresponsible clinics, or states will use the vacuum and abuse the technique.

To all this, of course comes a warning that shows that there are different partially unknown hazards.
The real troubling aspect is perhaps that the problem is only mentioned when one considers that there is a solution on the way.

GM people From I have the following link, which also predicts that we are close to being able to genetically engineer human embryos.

Imagine that we combine procedures for one patient, for example, a woman with a disease-causing mutation which she does not wish to transfer to her child.
It begins by taking one of her skin cells that is reprogrammed into a primordial germ cell whose DNA subsequently is edited, so the mutation gene removed.
The primordial germ cells develop into an egg and later an embryo which, after screening is transplanted to the uterus.
The child and descendants are now not carriers of the mutated gene.

As can be expected is one from Christian side gently against.

There is talk of course much about the unborn child’s right to life.
After many years in Africa, I would add that the first priority should go to the children already born and thereafter being left to a life that is certainly not worthy of humans.
Many will ‘just so’ die.
Maybe it’s the lucky – they will get peace in their graves, although they may not get a grave.
I’ve done a little and tried a lot but not met much more than a “God help you – I do not want to.”
Generally, I have learned that the more you have, the harder it is to let go just a little.

Acquired characteristics are inherited!

Lushenko and Stalin Maybe you remember how Stalin’s favorite biologist Lysenko denied existing science and claimed to have shown that acquired characteristics could be inherited.
At that time, his ‘research’ was politically motivated forgery and was very harmful for the development.

And now:
In 2015, there are comming results on something that colorfully is described as Ghost Genes.
The prestigious journal TheScientist and many others, refer to research and delicately refers to cases where acquired properties, such as obesity and post-traumatic stress; but not all acquired characteristics are not only inherited from the mother, but also through the father’s sperm, and without any other contact!
Both in animal experiments and in humans.
Epigenetics has thus become a reality. Even if an explanation apparently missing.
The discussion, both technically and morally, is working full time.

The dreadful realities

From a broadcast from BBC radio, I recall the following:
An English woman should receive a fertilized egg.
“I want a white child.”
– – – “But you are black, so you should have a black child.”
“No, I do not want my child to be discriminated against as – -.”
I do not know anymore.
Draw your own conclusions

See also:
Greenpeace and GMO
Greenpeace and nuclear
About demonstrations and defectors.

I would be very grateful for comments and corrections – including misspellings.
Write to
Greetings from Thorkil Søe