Artificial life

Scientists have created an artificial virus. (Well, at least they're admitting it this time.)

But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous: Should we be playing God? Does the potential for good that new life forms may have outweigh the harm they could do?

Arthur Caplan, who heads the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, says yes. This technology "is impressive. It's powerful and it should be treated with humility and caution," Caplan says, "But we should do it." article

Okay, people. Let's get real, as they say.

We have been playing god for as long as we've been here. (In fact, I assure you, we ARE god, but that's for a different blog.)

The potential for good is a subjective consideration. And, even though we are certainly keen on "risk-assessment", we are not known for concerning ourselves with the ethics involved - it's purely a matter of gain vs. harm, not good.

And touché Mr. Caplan: "But we should do it." Like there is ever any other answer for a scientist.

The researchers chose to put the new technology into the public domain for all scientists to use. It will appear in the next few weeks on the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The technology raises safety issues, says David Magnus of Stanford's Center for Biomedical Ethics. Even putting it in the public domain is "a double-edged sword," he says. That presumes that allowing everyone access will keep the good guys ahead of the bad guys. "It's a gamble. ... It's a bet that everyone has a stake in," he says.

We are never going to grow up as a race until we get over this "good guys/bad guys" view of the world.

And if I were you, I'd get prepared for a serious right-wing, fundamentalist, conservative attack.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.