Hi there, this is Tim Cannon from Grindhouse. I just want­ed to weigh in on this issue, and I did­n’t want to kind of flood—write a giant dis­ser­ta­tion. So either way, I think when it comes to gene edit­ing and these sort of tech­nolo­gies, and that the bar­ri­er for entry kind of falling out— I think that this is a very good thing. I think that it depends on the con­text that we’re try­ing to imple­ment it. I think that when it comes to med­ical ther­a­pies and stuff, there are plen­ty of reg­u­la­tions there and I think that those are all per­fect­ly fine. And the rig­or­ous process­es that med­i­cine has to go through to be declared safe I think are absolute­ly fine.

That said, I think when you start using this tech­nol­o­gy for enhance­ment, that’s when you start to get into the domain of bio­hack­ing and kind of human aug­men­ta­tion. Well, I believe that this is a very fer­tile ground for peo­ple to explore, and I think that this involves will­ing par­tic­i­pants who are try­ing to find out more about the world around them and try­ing to enhance the human expe­ri­ence. And I think we need to allow that inno­va­tion to take place.

Now, that does­n’t mean I’m opposed to reg­u­la­tion; I’m not say­ing just let it hap­pen. Some peo­ple in Grindhouse are very much against reg­u­la­tion. I’m not exact­ly against rea­son­able reg­u­la­tion. However, it needs to be under­stood that bio­hack­ing and human aug­men­ta­tion and going above and beyond are dif­fer­ent aca­d­e­m­ic dis­ci­plines, with some over­lap­ping con­cepts and some over­lap­ping toolsets. However they’re not the same thing. And there­fore we need to forge an eth­i­cal code of con­duct so that we can begin to talk about reg­u­la­tion. And we need to come to a con­sen­sus on what the eth­i­cal code of con­duct is in terms of begin­ning to research these ideas and how that research is imple­ment­ed, and how we can use the ben­e­fits of that research in med­i­cine, for exam­ple. Because you have will­ing par­tic­i­pants try­ing to learn more about the expe­ri­ence, but that data can then be applied to medicine.

So I think the hard­est thing to to tack­le is that we need to come to con­sen­sus on the eth­i­cal code of con­duct for the research into human aug­men­ta­tion, and from there we could talk about how to make rea­son­able leg­is­la­tion that does­n’t dis­cour­age inno­va­tion and does­n’t set the bar too high—or bar­ri­er for entry—for inno­va­tion in this sort of thing. I under­stand why that bar­ri­er exists for med­i­cine, but this is not med­i­cine. The things that I do are not med­i­cine. The things that peo­ple that are exper­i­ment­ing with genet­ic tech­nolo­gies, is not nec­es­sar­i­ly medicine.

So we need to kind of come to terms with that and kind of sep­a­rate this research into its own aca­d­e­m­ic dis­ci­pline, and begin to come up with a con­sen­sus for a code of con­duct before we can talk about any of the ways to leg­is­late it. Because if you ban it, it will just hap­pen in back alleys and oth­er coun­tries, and that’s not what we want. That’s not work­ing for the drug war, it won’t work for this. But we also don’t want to gov­ern it under med­i­cine, because that’s too restric­tive and it applies ethics that aren’t nec­es­sary, because you’re not prey­ing on sick or ill peo­ple, and you’re not talk­ing about restorative—quality of life issues don’t real­ly fac­tor in. If I was wor­ried about my qual­i­ty of life, I would­n’t sew cir­cuits into my skin. People that are mak­ing these sorts of tests are not nec­es­sar­i­ly— That’s not their high­est pri­or­i­ty. Obviously I want a good qual­i­ty of life, but qual­i­ty of life is a much larg­er con­cern in med­i­cine than it is in say bio­hack­ing and human aug­men­ta­tion. So that’s just my two cents.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.