I’m a physician.
I’m a father.
I’m a husband.
I’m human.
I did not create the genetic architecture of life. Human beings did not create the genetic architecture of life. We inherited a biosphere of immeasurable complexity—an interconnected system refined through billions of years of evolution. Yet a comparatively small group of scientists, corporations, military agencies, governments and private foundations has assumed the authority to cut, recombine, delete, insert, synthesise and redesign the genetic material of living organisms.
I did not give them permission to do so. They do this without the informed consent of humanity. They do it without the consent of future generations. They do it despite being unable to predict all the biological, ecological and evolutionary consequences. And they do it knowing that a single mistake involving a replication-competent organism will be impossible to recall.
I believe the time has come to confront the fundamental question that biotechnology has carefully avoided:
Does any person, laboratory, corporation, military program or philanthropic foundation possess the moral right to create new forms of self-replicating biological life whose descendants may escape, evolve, spread and alter the shared biosphere?
My answer is no!!!
The deliberate genetic manipulation of viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants, animals and other replication-competent organisms should be prohibited internationally. This prohibition should include gain-of-function and loss-of-function engineering, recombinant and chimeric organisms, reverse genetics, synthetic genomes, gene drives, artificial chromosomes, transmissible genetic systems, the reconstruction of extinct pathogens, AI-assisted genome design and every attempt to create self-replicating “mirror life.”
This is a more sweeping position than current scientific policy. But current policy begins with the presumption that genetic manipulation should continue unless a particular experiment can be shown to be too dangerous. I believe that presumption must be reversed. When an experiment can create an evolving, reproducing agent, the burden should rest upon the researcher to prove that catastrophic harm is impossible—not merely unlikely.
That burden cannot be met!!!
Living organisms are not programmable machines
The biotechnology industry frequently describes DNA as though it were computer code. Genes are “edited,” biological systems are “programmed,” organisms become “platforms,” and unwanted characteristics are supposedly “deleted.”
A living organism is not a static machine executing a simple program. Genes interact with other genes, regulatory sequences, proteins, metabolites, immune systems, microbial communities and environmental conditions. The effect of a genetic alteration may change across tissues, species, generations and environments. A modification that appears stable in a controlled laboratory may behave differently under heat, nutritional stress, competition, infection, mutation, stress or exposure to another organism.
One gene can affect multiple biological characteristics. Multiple genes can contribute to the same characteristic. A change intended to produce one benefit may create numerous secondary effects that were never anticipated. Even when a genetic edit occurs at the intended location, the process can produce large deletions, rearrangements, chromosomal damage and other unintended outcomes. Research involving CRISPR-Cas9 has documented significant on-target damage as well as conventional off-target effects. Evidence of large deletions and complex rearrangements.