Chinese scientists have succeeded in a rudimentary form of “gene editing,” the first step toward the genetic engineering of human embryos, and permanent genomic changes that would flow down through the generations.

Given the eugenic possibilities, the foreseen and unforeseen consequences, and our lack of wisdom in seeking to recreate ourselves, this should be considered an off limits area of human endeavor.

But Big Biotech, government technocrats, and the new eugenicists never say no — although they usually mask their intentions and their mentality — by opposing what can’t be now done anyway, in order to gain our acquiescence to do what now can, or soon may, be done.

Key example: We oppose reproductive cloning, the biotechnocrats say — which can’t yet be done with humans — but we want complete permission to engage in therapeutic cloning.

Cloning is cloning is cloning. Therapeutic cloning is just a different use of the cloned embryo than in reproductive cloning, but the identical cloning technique is employed in both. Moreover, TC is the essential step required to make RC feasible.

The same pretense is now being deployed around gene editing. The Obama Administration, through head science adviser John Holdren, supports science organizations “convening international meetings” — not held at Motel 8, in case you weren’t sure — that would seem to be potentially against gene editing.

But it is a mere feint intended to calm the public, while allowing gene editing research to go forward unimpeded. Holdren writes at the White House Blog, “A Note on Genome Editing” (my emphasis):

The Administration believes that altering the human germline for clinical purposes is a line that should not be crossed at this time.

Ah, the old “at this time” hedge. Holdren is merely saying that edited embryos should not be brought to birth or destroyed for use in medical treatments, for now.

That’s because it can’t be done yet reliably. Holdren’s statement is a meaningless pretense that expresses zero moral opposition to the genetic engineering of the human genome, but merely urges “caution” and “discussion.”

Back to Holdren:

It is important that the NAS’ international summit fully explore the implications of germline editing for the current generation and generations to come across the globe, as well as the potential for alternative technologies that do not require germline alteration to deliver similar medical promise. The Administration looks forward to seeing the results of the scientific community’s discussion.

This is more of the usual Let’s let the scientists tell us what is ethical position, always taken by advisers who are part of the research in-crowd.

No. Something as potentially powerful as germline engineering shouldn’t be up to the people who want to be the germline engineers. Besides, this crowd ultimately never limits themselves permanently.

I can tell you right now what the meeting “consensus” will be: Full speed ahead on embryo research, but don’t try to apply it outside the lab, for now. The usual yadda, yadda, yadda.

Image: � hywards / Dollar Photo Club.

Cross-posted at Human Exceptionalism.