If you take the tweet literally, then you have to take it literally all the way: I only ban talking about 'designer babies', talking about gene editing is OK. But that wasn't the message of the tweet. Here's some background:https://twitter.com/cecilejanssens/status/672452941165514752 …
-
-
-
Why do you make the leap from "editing intelligence will be hard" to "it won't work"? Absolute statements like that would seem to easily set you up for being wrong.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
[meanwhile in China]
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought the government wasn’t supposed to tell women what to do with their bodies
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is how free speech works. Someone makes a suggestion and someone else disagrees. Anyway, a moratorium is not a ban but a postponement or agreed suspension...for 3 years in this case. I doubt if it will happen but it's not wrong to suggest it.
-
It's a really good way to get more people talking about what you didn't want them to talk about.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As if a ban on speaking has ever worked, anywhere.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Did she get the idea from the UN trying to ban commentary on immigration? A trend starting?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Best way to get the ball rolling is to say, you can’t roll that ball
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I am reminded of the quote by one Dr Ian Malcolm: "Scientists were so busy trying to see if they could, the didn't stop to think about whether they should". Or something like that. Talk about it all you want, but best leave it at that.
-
valid point but one can do both.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.