<html><head></head><body><span title="foozler83@gmail.com">William Flynn Wallace</span><span class="detail"> <foozler83@gmail.com></span> , 31/1/2014 2:52 PM:<br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-color: blue; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="mcnt"><div class="mcntgmail_default" style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; font-size: large; color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">Agreed - but it's all theoretically possible now. My view of engineers and other tech people is that is they know it can be done they will eventually find a way. I don't have to tell this crowd that human beings are tinkers, endlessly worrying at something until they get what they want. <br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>As a society, we seem to take a dim view of people tinkering with each other's organs. Maybe wrongly - I do think medicine would advance far faster if people were allowed to experiment more. But we better gather all the data to learn from the mistakes.</div><div><br></div><div>Getting cells to do cool things in the lab is one thing. Getting them to do it in animals - living, breathing, idiosyncratic animals that are moral patients - is another thing. Getting the data and figuring out how to do it better is tricky. And getting this to work safely enough in humans even worse. There is a reason we can move forward so quickly in software and inorganic making, while medicine is stickier. </div><br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-color: blue; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="mcnt"><div></div></div></blockquote><br>Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University</body></html>