#julian savulescu
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
“I believe that to be human is to be better. Or, at least, to strive to be better."
- Julian Savulescu. New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance
#quotes#julian savulescu#Very Important to note#I don't really agree with his argument#my whole paper that I had talked about on my blog before was opposing his conclusion#and like saying one of his arguments does not have as much merit as it should#i'm not going to get into it but yeah#academia#my professor used this quote for when discussing the module on the ethics of genetic enhancement#and i think this quote goes hard#like if not for the whole GE thing this quote is rather lovely imo#philosophy#like fully 100% I don't think I agree with the conclusion that we as humans have a moral obligation to genetically enhance#but like divorced from that context i thoroughly enjoy that quote
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
ISBN: 978-960-02-4181-5 Συγγραφέας: Ελίνα Κ. Καραματζιάνη Εκδότης: Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση Σελίδες: 294 Ημερομηνία Έκδοσης: 2024-01-29 Διαστάσεις: 21x14 Εξώφυλλο: Μαλακό εξώφυλλο
0 notes
Text
Week 1 / Day 5 - Couch to 80k
To be a good writer, you first need to read plenty! Here is a list of books I would like to read, as research for my novel which includes space travel, artificial intelligence and the meaning of being human.
Fiction
Klara and the Sun by Kazuo Ishiguro
The Verifiersby Jane Pek
Neuromancer by William Gibson
Machines Like Me by Ian McEwan
Daemon by Daniel Suarez
The Mother Code by Carole Stivers
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick
Hyperion by Dan Simmons
Robopocalypse by Daniel H. Wilson
Speak by Louisa Hall
House of Suns by Alastair Reynolds
Non-fiction
Human Enhancement by Julian Savulescu (Editor), Nick Bostrom
Making Sense: Conversations on Consciousness, Morality and the Future of Humanity by Sam Harris
A World Without Work By Daniel Susskind
Genius Makers By Cade Metz
The Alignment Problem By Brian Christian
Four Futures By Peter Frase
0 notes
Text
¿Y si Putin hubiera tomado oxitocina?
¿Y si Putin hubiera tomado oxitocina?
La oxitocina es una hormona y un neurotransmisor sintetizado en el hipotálamo y liberado al organismo a través de la neurohipófisis. Multitud de estudios le otorgan un gran papel en las relaciones sociales humanas, en la creación de vínculos afectivos, ligándola significativamente con la capacidad de empatía. Las mujeres la liberan en grandes cantidades durante el parto y en la lactancia con…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Photo

The rest of the quote from Jennifer Douda is: “...Or will I wish I'd never discovered how it works?”
The scenario for this episode: It’s possible now to select traits for your child.
Episode Highlights:
Charlie: Julian, is it ethical to design a baby the way you design a house?
Julian: Well, you could start by looking at dispositions to disease. So, all of us carry lots of mutations that mean that we're disposed to getting cancer or Parkinson's disease...diabetes...or Alzheimer's disease. So you could start by looking at those things which are uncontroversially bad diseases.
Annabel: But this stuff's talking about hair colour and eye colour and stuff that seems like frippery to me.
Nazeem: What about, like, just weird social things? Like, you know, like, some people stand too close. Like if you could...
[Laughter]
Nazeem: If you could just edit that out of their genetic code, why wouldn't you?
Charlie: Is it a moral imperative to remove close talkers from the gene pool?
[Laughter]
Annabel: If you could do something with the mansplainers I'd be interested.
Charlie: What? Men?
Annabel: No, just mansplaining...I'll be quiet now.
————————-
Julian: ...or more resistance to aging. I mean that's what I'd want.
Nazeem: Oh that's pretty good. So, what, you can have a gene where you live forever?
Annabel: Oh no!
Julian: There's a thing called the Methuselah Mouse. It lives twice as long as a normal mouse, so...
Nazeem: What does it eat? Is that a supplement or something? Weet-Bix?
Julian: No, no, no, it's been gene-edited. So, you could actually increase human longevity and delay ageing.And that's something I think that, you know, we should give children, and I'd want for myself.
Annabel: But that sounds so tiring though.
Nazeem: Yeah, but do we have, like, a death gene that you could just delete? Is there something in our genetic code that means you die at some point?
Julian: Well, the estimate is the maximum human life span is about 1,200 years. So if you aged at the kind of age a 10-yea-old is ageing, you could potentially live 1,200 years. I don't know complete immortality, but you could certainly live much longer than we do now.
Annabel: We're really going to need to review out aged care policy, I think...
[laughter]
Annabel: ...before we step into this.
#TV#ABC#Tomorrow Tonight#Gene Editing#Designer Babies#Nazeem Hussain#Meredith Young#Julian Savulescu#The Perfect Baby#Season#Comedy#Debate#The Future#Charlie Pickering#Fiction#Geoffrey Robertson's Hypotheticals#Annabel Crabb#Season 1 Episode 2#S01E02#S1E2#Mansplaining#Immortality#Longevity
1 note
·
View note
Link
Oxford University panjandrum and philosopher Julian Savulescu has spent most of his career advancing positions that push the envelope of acceptable medical practice. He has told us, for instance, that we are morally obligated to genetically engineer our babies under a principle he terms “procreative beneficence.” His efforts often strike one as having the seeming intent of giving the IVF and biotechnology industries cover under a supposedly ethical flag. No surprise, then, to find him advocating for us to engage in “extreme altruism” in the time of COVID-19.
In a recent post on the Practical Ethics blog with co-author Dominic Wilkinson, also at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Savulescu argues in favor of allowing (or even perhaps encouraging) acts of extreme altruism in the time of coronavirus. The response to the pandemic has already revealed some unsettling realities about how we differentially value lives, with politicians and others directing medical and fiscal resources toward the young , the white, and the well-to-do, as Black , indigenous , and people of color, or those with disabilities are shortchanged. The argument Savulescu and Wilkinson make is thus all the more disquieting as a rationalization for such actions.
…
All this breezy offering up of patients’ lives is highly problematic. In cases 1 and 4, the authors say participants might benefit, which is a bit of a stretch, given that they also might be hurt or killed; in cases 2 and 3, patients are on death’s door and stand to profit not at all from having tissues or organs taken from them, while they forgo any chance, however slight, of recovery.
…
As for mustering nursing home residents to the fight against COVID-19, the scheme bears more than a whiff of Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens, the Nazi program of destroying “lives unworthy of life.” This widespread euthanization effort predated the death camps and targeted institutionalized Germans, including frail or physically impaired older people and those with disabilities and chronic ailments.
Bizarrely, the authors imply that we perpetrate a kind of ageism in preventing nursing home residents from volunteering for risky medical experiments given “that challenge studies using the SARS-COV2 virus (which causes COVID-19) would be ethical […] in healthy young adults.” Why, then, shouldn’t those in nursing or care facilities have the same option?
…
In the end, one wonders why the authors even bothered to assemble their argument, as it seems difficult to imagine how such extreme altruism would play out. Who, actually, will be tasked with evaluating whether a person in a care facility genuinely understands what they are agreeing to when they volunteer out of an excess of care for their fellow human beings or in a desire to advance scientific understanding? Is someone sedated heavily on a ventilator capable of assessing whether they should allow their organs to be harvested in advance of their death? Does it seem likely that healthcare workers who have made a yeoman’s effort to save a patient’s life would voluntarily switch gears at the last minute to offer them the chance to serve as experimental fodder?
Savulescu and Wilkinson opine that “…there is a constant national emergency: we are all aging and slowly dying. There is a war against aging and death: we are fighting it with medicine. And people should be able [to] sacrifice their interests or lives in this war.” The use of this militaristic language obscures the fact that aging and dying are inevitabilities that medicine cannot ultimately address. Especially in a time of pandemic, we need to be especially clear about making false promises in that regard. Certainly, we should not be deploying rhetorical claptrap based on tired tropes to justify using vulnerable populations as sacrificial victims.
0 notes
Text
Un biòleg rus pretén crear 5 nadons modificats genèticament per evitar-los la sordesa
Un biòleg rus pretén crear 5 nadons modificats genèticament per evitar-los la sordesa
El biòleg rus, Denís Rébrikov, que en declaracions a la revista Nature fa unes setmanes va anunciar que té intenció.[…][…] (abc.es)
View On WordPress
#Clínica de Investigación Ginecológica Kulakov de Moscú#Denís Rébrikov#He Jiangkui#Julian Savulescu#Rusia
0 notes
Text
Pezzi di ricambio cercansi tra le vittime di eutanasia
Pezzi di ricambio cercansi tra le vittime di eutanasia
Poche vittime di eutanasia donano gli organi e, per alcuni dottori belgi e olandesi, questa realtà va cambiata, incrementando le donazioni. In questo modo viene stravolto il concetto di donazione di organi, che è un atto “nobile e meritorio” dopo morte certa. Ma che in questo contesto resta una mera ricerca di pezzi di ricambio. E chi non chiedesse l’eutanasia oppure la chiedesse senza donare gli…
View On WordPress
#bioetica#commercio#euromassoneria#eutanasia#finestra di Overton#ideologie#Julian Savulescu#malati#morte#organi#propaganda#sanità#tratta di esseri umani#vita#vittime
0 notes
Text
Tweeted
RT @techreview: This research “raises the possibility that you’re creating an enhanced rat that might have cognitive capacities greater than an ordinary rat,” says bioethicist Julian Savulescu. https://t.co/5ITwhakUUT
— ⚕ ᑕᕼᖇIS ⚕ (@kicka11) Oct 13, 2022
0 notes
Text
Human brain cells transplanted into baby rats’ brains grow and form connections
Human brain cells transplanted into baby rats’ brains grow and form connections
“It’s an important step forward in progress into [understanding and treating] brain diseases,” says Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist at the National University of Singapore, who was not involved in the study. But the development also raises ethical questions, he says, particularly surrounding what it means to “humanize” animals. Sergiu Pașca at the University of Stanford has been working for more…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Link
Ed Yong, The Atlantic:
Before last week, few people had heard the name He Jiankui. But on November 25, the young Chinese researcher became the center of a global firestorm when it emerged that he had allegedly made the first crispr-edited babies, twin girls named Lulu and Nana. Antonio Regalado broke the story for MIT Technology Review, and He himself described the experiment at an international gene-editing summit in Hong Kong. After his talk, He revealed that another early pregnancy is under way.
It is still unclear if He did what he claims to have done. Nonetheless, the reaction was swift and negative. The crispr pioneer Jennifer Doudna says she was "horrified," NIH Director Francis Collins said the experiment was "profoundly disturbing," and even Julian Savulescu, an ethicist who has described gene-editing research as "a moral necessity," described He's work as "monstrous."
Those are the kinds of rave reviews that a scientist craves
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
References
Alonso, Marcos, Jonathan Anomaly and Julian Savulescu. 2020. "Gene Editing: Medicine or Enhancement?" Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics (11): 259-276.
Boland, Julia, and Elena Nedelcu. 2020. “CRISPR/Cas9 for the Clinician: Current uses of gene editing and applications for new therapeutics in oncology” The Permanente journal (24):1-3
Flinter, Frances A., 2001. “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis”. National Library of Medicine 322(7293): 1008–1009.
Garland-Thompson, Rosemarie. 2020. “How We Got to CRISPR: The Dilemma of Being Human.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 63(1):28-43
Gumer, Jennifer M., 2019. “The Wisdom of Germline Editing: An Ethical Analysis of the Use of CRISPR-Cas9 to Edit Human Embryos” The New Bioethics (25)2: 137-152
Neumann-Held, Eva M., 2001. “Can it be a 'sin' to understand disease? On 'genes' and 'eugenics' and an 'unconnected connection”. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (4): 5-17.
Redman, Melody, Andrew King, Caroline Watson, and David King. 2016. “What is Crispr/Cas9?” Archives of disease in childhood. Education and practice edition 101(4): 213–215
Rulli, Tina. 2019. “Reproductive CRISPR does not cure disease”. 2022. Bioethics 33(9): 1072-1082
Stern, Alexandra M. PhD, Nicole L. Novak PhD., Natalie Lira PhD., Kate O'Connor MPH, Siobán Harlow PhD. and Sharon Kardia PhD. 2017. "California's Sterilization Survivors: An Estimate and Call for Redress." American Journal of Public Health 107(1):50-54
0 notes
Text

Go Ahead .. Fuck Around And See
Human Cells Grown In Monkey Embryos
Spark Ethical Debate.
From The Article
Monkey embryos containing human cells have been made in a laboratory, a study has confirmed.
The research, by a US-Chinese team, has sparked fresh debate into the ethics of such experiments.
The scientists injected human stem cells - cells that have the ability to develop into many different body tissues - into macaque embryos.
The developing embryos were studied for up to 20 days.
Other so-called mixed-species embryos, or chimeras, have been produced in the past, with human cells implanted into sheep and pig embryos.
The scientists were led by Prof Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte of the Salk Institute in the US, who, in 2017, helped make the first human-pig hybrid.
Human-pig 'chimera embryos' detailed
First 'mixed embryo' monkeys born
Their work could pave the way in addressing the severe shortage in transplantable organs as well as help understand more about early human development, disease progression and ageing, he said.
"These chimeric approaches could be really very useful for advancing biomedical research not just at the very earliest stage of life, but also the latest stage of life."
He maintained that the study, published in the journal Cell, had met the current ethical and legal guidelines.
"Ultimately, we conduct these studies to understand and improve human health," he said.
'Ethical challenges'
Some scientists have, however, raised concerns about the experiment, arguing that while the embryos in this case were destroyed at 20 days, others could try to take the work further.
They are calling for public debate over the implications of creating part human/part nonhuman chimeras.
Commenting on the research, Dr Anna Smajdor, lecturer and researcher in biomedical ethics at the University of East Anglia's Norwich Medical School, said it posed "significant ethical and legal challenges".
She added: "The scientists behind this research state that these chimeric embryos offer new opportunities, because 'we are unable to conduct certain types of experiments in humans'. But whether these embryos are human or not is open to question."
Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and co-director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, said the research "opens Pandora's box to human-nonhuman chimeras".
He added: "These embryos were destroyed at 20 days of development but it is only a matter of time before human-nonhuman chimeras are successfully developed, perhaps as a source of organs for humans. That is one of the long-term goals of this research."
Sarah Norcross, director of the Progress Educational Trust, said that while "substantial advances" are being made in embryo and stem cell research, which could bring equally substantial benefits, "there is a clear need for public discussion and debate about the ethical and regulatory challenges raised".
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56767517.amp
0 notes
Text
Not recommending AstraZeneca vaccine for the elderly risks the lives of the most vulnerable – Watts Up With That?
Not recommending AstraZeneca vaccine for the elderly risks the lives of the most vulnerable – Watts Up With That?
Jonathan Pugh, University of Oxford and Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford Regulators in Europe are at odds over whether the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine should be given to the elderly. In the UK, the vaccine has been approved for use in adults aged 18 and up, but France, Germany, Sweden and Austria say the vaccine should be prioritised for those under the age of 65. Poland only recommends it…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Link
Written by Julian Savulescu and Jonathan Pugh The current UK approach to allocating limited life-saving resources is on the basis of need. Guidance issued by The General Medical Council states that all doctors must “Make sure that decisions about setting priorities that affect...
0 notes
Text
Intention is Different from Impact
Alonso, Marcos, Jonathan Anomaly and Julian Savulescu. 2020. "Gene Editing: Medicine or Enhancement?" Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics (11):259-276.
“CRISPR has already raised many debates, especially in the US. In 2015, after some calls for a moratorium, Francis Collins, Director of the US National Institutes of Health, condemned the use of CRISPR to edit human embryos by stating that the agency would not fund that kind of controversial research.” (Alonso, 2020)
“Later in 2015, an important gathering of institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences and U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the UK Royal Society and the Chinese Academy of Sciences came to a more nuanced position, claiming that even if germline editing is still not ready for clinical use, it is also true that "as scientific knowledge advances and societal views evolve, the clinical use of germline editing should be revisited on a regular basis." (Alonso, 2020)
This “revisitation” of germ-line editing that was stated back in 2015 and considering that we are now in 2022, these contributions to medicine have inched closer to normalization of gene editing and strayed from original arguments of ethics and morality.
The author also suggests that gene editing could be the solution to “cognitive upskilling” for individuals lacking standard literacy skills, especially marginalized groups (Alonso, 2020). Although this may be seen as a benefit to the US as a whole, contributing primarily to educational purposes, this questions the accessibility of education we have towards marginalized individuals.
The author further suggests that “Gene editing could be used for physical, cognitive or moral enhancement” (Alonso, 2020). Again, this displaces the origins of use for life threatening illnesses and serves to cater to elites that seek to create a future with “designer babies.” Just as we see inaccessibility in terms of education or in public spaces for those with disabilities, CRISPR will ultimately become inaccessible to those that suffer under lethal disease and will rather be placed into the hands of the elites.
1 note
·
View note