nhaliday + abortion-contraception-embryo   20

Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells
The data show that regular churchgoing non-Catholics also have very conservative positions on moral issues. In fact, on most of the issues tested, regular churchgoers who are not Catholic are more conservative (i.e., less likely to find a given practice morally acceptable) than Catholic churchgoers.
news  org:data  poll  data  values  religion  christianity  protestant-catholic  comparison  morality  gender  sex  sexuality  time  density  theos  pro-rata  frequency  demographics  abortion-contraception-embryo  sanctity-degradation 
march 2019 by nhaliday
The Power of Abortion Policy - Marginal REVOLUTION
I provide new evidence on the relative “powers” of contraception and abortion policy in effecting the dramatic social transformations of the 1960s and 1970s. Trends in sexual behavior suggest that young women’s increased access to the birth control pill fueled the sexual revolution, but neither these trends nor difference-in-difference estimates support the view that this also led to substantial changes in family formation. Rather, the estimates robustly suggest that it was liberalized access to abortion that allowed large numbers of women to delay marriage and motherhood.
econotariat  marginal-rev  commentary  study  summary  economics  policy  intervention  sociology  gender  sex  fertility  demographics  demographic-transition  history  mostly-modern  cold-war  rot  roots  explanans  technology  microfoundations  nitty-gritty  sexuality  modernity  the-bones  general-survey  endogenous-exogenous  control  life-history  social-norms  medicine  abortion-contraception-embryo  nascent-state 
december 2017 by nhaliday
The Political Typology: Beyond Red vs. Blue | Pew Research Center
The new typology has eight groups: Three are strongly ideological, highly politically engaged and overwhelmingly partisan – two on the right and one on the left. Steadfast Conservatives are staunch critics of government and the social safety net and are very socially conservative. Business Conservatives share Steadfast Conservatives’ preference for limited government, but differ in their support for Wall Street and business, as well as immigration reform. And Business Conservatives are far more moderate on social issues than are Steadfast Conservatives.

At the other end of the spectrum, Solid Liberals express liberal attitudes across almost every realm – government, the economy and business and foreign policy, as well as on race, homosexuality and abortion – and are reliable and loyal Democratic voters.

Taken together, these three groups form the electoral base of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and their influence on American politics is strong. While Solid Liberals, Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives collectively make up only 36% of the American public, they represent 43% of registered voters and fully 57% of the more politically engaged segment of the American public: those who regularly vote and routinely follow government and public affairs.

The other typology groups are less partisan, less predictable and have little in common with each other or the groups at either end of the political spectrum. The one thing they do share is that they are less engaged politically than the groups on the right or left.

Young Outsiders lean Republican but do not have a strong allegiance to the Republican Party; in fact they tend to dislike both political parties. On many issues, from their support for environmental regulation to their liberal views on social issues, they diverge from traditional GOP orthodoxy. Yet in their support for limited government, Young Outsiders are firmly in the Republicans’ camp.

Hard-Pressed Skeptics have been battered by the struggling economy, and their difficult financial circumstances have left them resentful of both government and business. Despite their criticism of government performance, they back more generous government support for the poor and needy. Most Hard-Pressed Skeptics say they voted for Obama in 2012, though fewer than half approve of his job performance today.

The Next Generation Left are young, relatively affluent and very liberal on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. But they have reservations about the cost of social programs. And while most of the Next Generation Left support affirmative action, they decisively reject the idea that racial discrimination is the main reason why many blacks are unable to get ahead.

The Faith and Family Left lean Democratic, based on their confidence in government and support for federal programs to address the nation’s problems. But this very religious, racially and ethnically diverse group is uncomfortable with the pace of societal change, including the acceptance of homosexuality and non-traditional family structures.

And finally, an eighth group, the Bystanders, representing 10% of the public, are on the sidelines of the political process. They are not registered to vote and pay very little attention to politics.

...

The Faith and Family Left is by far the most racially and ethnically diverse group in the typology: In fact, just 41% are white non-Hispanic; 30% are black, 19% are Hispanic and 8% are other or mixed race. The Faith and Family Left also is less affluent and less educated than the other Democratically-oriented groups, and is older as well.

They also have strong religious convictions, which distinguishes them from Solid Liberals and the Next Generation Left. Fully 91% say “it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.” No more than about one-in-ten in the other Democratically-oriented groups agree. And the Faith and Family Left have much more conservative positions on social issues. Just 37% favor same-sex marriage, less than half the share of the other two groups on the left.

The Faith and Family Left support activist government and a strong social safety net, though by less overwhelming margins than Solid Liberals. And while the Faith and Family Left support affirmative action programs, just 31% believe that “racial discrimination is the main reason many black people can’t get ahead these days.” Among the much less racially diverse Solid Liberals, 80% think racial discrimination is the main barrier to black progress.

...

First, Steadfast Conservatives take very conservative views on key social issues like homosexuality and immigration, while Business Conservatives are less conservative – if not actually progressive – on these issues. Nearly three-quarters of Steadfast Conservatives (74%) believe that homosexuality should be discouraged by society. Among Business Conservatives, just 31% think homosexuality should be discouraged; 58% believe it should be accepted.

Business Conservatives have generally positive attitudes toward immigrants and 72% favor a “path to citizenship” for those in the U.S. illegally, if they meet certain conditions. Steadfast Conservatives are more critical of immigrants; 50% support a path to citizenship, the lowest share of any typology group.

Second, just as Steadfast Conservatives are opposed to big government, they also are skeptical of big business. They believe that large corporations have too much power, and nearly half (48%) say the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests. By contrast, as their name suggests, Business Conservatives are far more positive about the free market, and overwhelmingly regard business – and Wall Street – positively.

group profiles (including demographics): http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/appendix-1-typology-group-profiles/

2017 redux:
Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left: http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/political-typology-reveals-deep-fissures-on-the-right-and-left/
Nearly a year after Donald Trump was elected president, the Republican coalition is deeply divided on such major issues as immigration, America’s role in the world and the fundamental fairness of the U.S. economic system.

The Democratic coalition is largely united in staunch opposition to President Trump. Yet, while Trump’s election has triggered a wave of political activism within the party’s sizable liberal bloc, the liberals’ sky-high political energy is not nearly as evident among other segments in the Democratic base. And Democrats also are internally divided over U.S. global involvement, as well as some religious and social issues.

...

Divisions on the right

The political typology finds two distinctly different groups on the right – Core Conservatives and Country First Conservatives, who both overwhelmingly approve of Trump, but disagree on much else – including immigration and whether it benefits the U.S. to be active internationally.

Core Conservatives, who are in many ways the most traditional group of Republicans, have an outsized influence on the GOP coalition; while they make up just 13% of the public – and about a third (31%) of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents – they constitute a much larger share (43%) of politically engaged Republicans.

This financially comfortable, male-dominated group overwhelmingly supports smaller government, lower corporate tax rates and believes in the fairness of the nation’s economic system. And a large majority of Core Conservatives (68%) express a positive view of U.S. involvement in the global economy “because it provides the U.S. with new markets and opportunities for growth.”

Country First Conservatives, a much smaller segment of the GOP base, are older and less educated than other Republican-leaning typology groups. Unlike Core Conservatives, Country First Conservatives are unhappy with the nation’s course, highly critical of immigrants and deeply wary of U.S. global involvement.

Nearly two-thirds of Country First Conservatives (64%) – the highest share of any typology group, right or left – say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”

A third Republican group, Market Skeptic Republicans, sharply diverges from the GOP’s traditional support for business and lower taxes. Only about a third of Market Skeptic Republicans (34%) say banks and other financial institutions have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, lowest among Republican-leaning typology groups.

Alone among the groups in the GOP coalition, a majority of Market Skeptic Republicans support raising tax rates on corporations and large businesses. An overwhelming share (94%) say the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests, which places the view of Market Skeptic Republicans on this issue much closer to Solid Liberals (99% mostly unfair) than Core Conservatives (21%).

In contrast to Market Skeptic Republicans, New Era Enterprisers are fundamentally optimistic about the state of the nation and its future. They are more likely than any other typology group to say the next generation of Americans will have it better than people today. Younger and somewhat less overwhelmingly white than the other GOP-leaning groups, New Era Enterprisers are strongly pro-business and generally think that immigrants strengthen, rather than burden, the country.

Divisions on the left

...

While there have long been racial, ethnic and income differences within the Democratic coalition, these gaps are especially striking today. Reflecting the changing demographic composition of the Democratic base, for the first time there are two majority-minority Democratic-leaning typology groups, along with two more affluent, mostly white groups.

Solid Liberals are the largest group in the Democratic coalition, and they make up close to half (48%) of politically engaged Democrats and Democratic-leaning … [more]
news  org:data  data  analysis  database  white-paper  politics  polisci  sociology  ideology  coalitions  things  phalanges  exploratory  distribution  poll  values  polarization  policy  populism  vampire-squid  migration  obama  gender  sex  sexuality  corporation  finance  foreign-policy  trade  diversity  race  demographics  religion  inequality  envy  left-wing  right-wing  africa  descriptive  discrimination  identity-politics  trust  institutions  quiz  business  regulation  redistribution  welfare-state  usa  government  civil-liberty  market-power  rent-seeking  nationalism-globalism  age-generation  chart  nl-and-so-can-you  🎩  homo-hetero  trump  2016-election  postmortem  charity  money  class  class-warfare  elections  multi  let-me-see  fertility  theos  geography  urban  art  drugs  opioids  flux-stasis  entrepreneurialism  2014  2017  urban-rural  twitter  social  discussion  commentary  backup  journos-pundits  study  impetus  trends  tradition  culture  society  christianity  pdf  article  sentiment  abortion-contraception-embryo 
october 2017 by nhaliday
Genomic analysis of family data reveals additional genetic effects on intelligence and personality | bioRxiv
methodology:
Using Extended Genealogy to Estimate Components of Heritability for 23 Quantitative and Dichotomous Traits: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003520
Pedigree- and SNP-Associated Genetics and Recent Environment are the Major Contributors to Anthropometric and Cardiometabolic Trait Variation: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005804

Missing Heritability – found?: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/missing-heritability-found/
There is an interesting new paper out on genetics and IQ. The claim is that they have found the missing heritability – in rare variants, generally different in each family.

Some of the variants, the ones we find with GWAS, are fairly common and fitness-neutral: the variant that slightly increases IQ confers the same fitness (or very close to the same) as the one that slightly decreases IQ – presumably because of other effects it has. If this weren’t the case, it would be impossible for both of the variants to remain common.

The rare variants that affect IQ will generally decrease IQ – and since pleiotropy is the norm, usually they’ll be deleterious in other ways as well. Genetic load.

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/happy-families-are-all-alike-every-unhappy-family-is-unhappy-in-its-own-way/
It now looks as if the majority of the genetic variance in IQ is the product of mutational load, and the same may be true for many psychological traits. To the extent this is the case, a lot of human psychological variation must be non-adaptive. Maybe some personality variation fulfills an evolutionary function, but a lot does not. Being a dumb asshole may be a bug, rather than a feature. More generally, this kind of analysis could show us whether particular low-fitness syndromes, like autism, were ever strategies – I suspect not.

It’s bad new news for medicine and psychiatry, though. It would suggest that what we call a given type of mental illness, like schizophrenia, is really a grab-bag of many different syndromes. The ultimate causes are extremely varied: at best, there may be shared intermediate causal factors. Not good news for drug development: individualized medicine is a threat, not a promise.

see also comment at: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:a6ab4034b0d0

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/5sldfa/genomic_analysis_of_family_data_reveals/
So the big implication here is that it's better than I had dared hope - like Yang/Visscher/Hsu have argued, the old GCTA estimate of ~0.3 is indeed a rather loose lower bound on additive genetic variants, and the rest of the missing heritability is just the relatively uncommon additive variants (ie <1% frequency), and so, like Yang demonstrated with height, using much more comprehensive imputation of SNP scores or using whole-genomes will be able to explain almost all of the genetic contribution. In other words, with better imputation panels, we can go back and squeeze out better polygenic scores from old GWASes, new GWASes will be able to reach and break the 0.3 upper bound, and eventually we can feasibly predict 0.5-0.8. Between the expanding sample sizes from biobanks, the still-falling price of whole genomes, the gradual development of better regression methods (informative priors, biological annotation information, networks, genetic correlations), and better imputation, the future of GWAS polygenic scores is bright. Which obviously will be extremely helpful for embryo selection/genome synthesis.

The argument that this supports mutation-selection balance is weaker but plausible. I hope that it's true, because if that's why there is so much genetic variation in intelligence, then that strongly encourages genetic engineering - there is no good reason or Chesterton fence for intelligence variants being non-fixed, it's just that evolution is too slow to purge the constantly-accumulating bad variants. And we can do better.
https://rubenarslan.github.io/generation_scotland_pedigree_gcta/

The surprising implications of familial association in disease risk: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00014
https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/personalized-medicine-wont-work-but-race-based-medicine-probably-will/
As Greg Cochran has pointed out, this probably isn’t going to work. There are a few genes like BRCA1 (which makes you more likely to get breast and ovarian cancer) that we can detect and might affect treatment, but an awful lot of disease turns out to be just the result of random chance and deleterious mutation. This means that you can’t easily tailor disease treatment to people’s genes, because everybody is fucked up in their own special way. If Johnny is schizophrenic because of 100 random errors in the genes that code for his neurons, and Jack is schizophrenic because of 100 other random errors, there’s very little way to test a drug to work for either of them- they’re the only one in the world, most likely, with that specific pattern of errors. This is, presumably why the incidence of schizophrenia and autism rises in populations when dads get older- more random errors in sperm formation mean more random errors in the baby’s genes, and more things that go wrong down the line.

The looming crisis in human genetics: http://www.economist.com/node/14742737
Some awkward news ahead
- Geoffrey Miller

Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

2009!
study  preprint  bio  biodet  behavioral-gen  GWAS  missing-heritability  QTL  🌞  scaling-up  replication  iq  education  spearhead  sib-study  multi  west-hunter  scitariat  genetic-load  mutation  medicine  meta:medicine  stylized-facts  ratty  unaffiliated  commentary  rhetoric  wonkish  genetics  genomics  race  pop-structure  poast  population-genetics  psychiatry  aphorism  homo-hetero  generalization  scale  state-of-art  ssc  reddit  social  summary  gwern  methodology  personality  britain  anglo  enhancement  roots  s:*  2017  data  visualization  database  let-me-see  bioinformatics  news  org:rec  org:anglo  org:biz  track-record  prediction  identity-politics  pop-diff  recent-selection  westminster  inequality  egalitarianism-hierarchy  high-dimension  applications  dimensionality  ideas  no-go  volo-avolo  magnitude  variance-components  GCTA  tradeoffs  counter-revolution  org:mat  dysgenics  paternal-age  distribution  chart  abortion-contraception-embryo 
june 2017 by nhaliday
What are the big deals when linking demographics and politics? | We the Pleeple
You can see in the chart that religion/church (the black bars) and race/immigrant (the green bars) are just way bigger deals than education, age, gender, income, and region/density. Further, there are some kinds of items where race/immigrant variables are particularly big deals (party identification along with views on rich-poor issues, immigration, gun regulation, racial issues, and white nationalism, which combines views on immigration, race, etc.), while there are other kinds of items where religion/church variables are clearly the dominant demographic predictors (self-labelled liberal/conservative ideology along with views on homosexuality, abortion, marijuana legalization, environmental regulation, and Middle Eastern conflicts).
org:data  wonkish  data  analysis  politics  polisci  stylized-facts  demographics  race  migration  religion  top-n  list  chart  roots  coalitions  poll  values  variance-components  correlation  regression  phalanges  sociology  ethnocentrism  identity-politics  ideology  impetus  objektbuch  metabuch  class  redistribution  gender  sex  sexuality  arms  regulation  law  drugs  environment  crosstab  egalitarianism-hierarchy  compensation  money  urban  population  density  urban-rural  hari-seldon  abortion-contraception-embryo 
may 2017 by nhaliday
The Mob Vetoes Ann Coulter | The American Conservative
The idea that the government can shut down speech requiring physical protection has failed court tests in cases involving speech as diverse as Occupy protests and a Christian group bringing a pig’s head to an Islamic arts festival. Both sides in the abortion debate have slapped down the need-to-maintain-public-order argument outside clinics in defense of their right to speak. Any of those situations is at least as volatile as whatever Ann Coulter has been saying publicly since her first book came out in 1998, or Milo Yiannopoulos’ junior-high-school-level homophobic slurs.

The courts have also long held that mobs should not be allowed to exercise the so-called Heckler’s Veto—the practice of shouting down speakers, where whoever can literally “speak” the loudest gets to choose what is said. The natural end of such thinking is mob rule, where Speaker A gets a bigger gang together to shout down the gang Speaker B controls. Or, in Coulter and Yiannopoulos cases, simply threatens to do so.

Allowing a Heckler’s Veto to keep unpopular speakers from expressing their views, as Berkeley and NYU have basically done, does damage far beyond two conservative speakers in 2017. Allowing the veto not only stifles a specific idea, but threatens to chill public discourse generally by discouraging others with controversial ideas from sharing them. Who wants to stand up only to be shouted down by a mob while the administration and law enforcement stand aside?

The Supreme Court has concluded that the government’s responsibility in such circumstances is to control those who threaten or act out disruption, rather than sacrifice the speaker’s free-speech rights. Berkeley and NYU chose a different route.
news  org:mag  right-wing  civil-liberty  law  history  mostly-modern  censorship  current-events  exit-voice  abortion-contraception-embryo 
april 2017 by nhaliday
Embryo editing for intelligence - Gwern.net
https://twitter.com/pnin1957/status/917693229608337408
My hunch is CRISPR/Cas9 will not play a big role in intelligence enhancement. You'd have to edit so many loci b/c of small effect sizes, increasing errors. Embryo selection is much more promising. Peoples with high avg genetic values, of course, have an in-built advantage there.
ratty  gwern  enhancement  scaling-up  genetics  genomics  iq  🌞  CRISPR  futurism  biodet  new-religion  nibble  intervention  🔬  behavioral-gen  faq  chart  ideas  article  multi  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  prediction  accuracy  technology  QTL  biotech  selection  comparison  scale  magnitude  hard-tech  skunkworks  speedometer  abortion-contraception-embryo  estimate 
february 2017 by nhaliday
The Stupidity of Dignity | New Republic
Conservative bioethics' latest, most dangerous ploy.
This spring, the President's Council on Bioethics released a 555-page report, titled Human Dignity and Bioethics. The Council, created in 2001 by George W. Bush, is a panel of scholars charged with advising the president and exploring policy issues related to the ethics of biomedical innovation, including drugs that would enhance cognition, genetic manipulation of animals or humans, therapies that could extend the lifespan, and embryonic stem cells and so-called "therapeutic cloning" that could furnish replacements for diseased tissue and organs. Advances like these, if translated into freely undertaken treatments, could make millions of people better off and no one worse off. So what's not to like? The advances do not raise the traditional concerns of bioethics, which focuses on potential harm and coercion of patients or research subjects. What, then, are the ethical concerns that call for a presidential council?

Many people are vaguely disquieted by developments (real or imagined) that could alter minds and bodies in novel ways. Romantics and Greens tend to idealize the natural and demonize technology. Traditionalists and conservatives by temperament distrust radical change. Egalitarians worry about an arms race in enhancement techniques. And anyone is likely to have a "yuck" response when contemplating unprecedented manipulations of our biology. The President's Council has become a forum for the airing of this disquiet, and the concept of "dignity" a rubric for expounding on it. This collection of essays is the culmination of a long effort by the Council to place dignity at the center of bioethics. The general feeling is that, even if a new technology would improve life and health and decrease suffering and waste, it might have to be rejected, or even outlawed, if it affronted human dignity.

Whatever that is. The problem is that "dignity" is a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it. The bioethicist Ruth Macklin, who had been fed up with loose talk about dignity intended to squelch research and therapy, threw down the gauntlet in a 2003 editorial, "Dignity Is a Useless Concept." Macklin argued that bioethics has done just fine with the principle of personal autonomy--the idea that, because all humans have the same minimum capacity to suffer, prosper, reason, and choose, no human has the right to impinge on the life, body, or freedom of another. This is why informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice, and it clearly rules out the kinds of abuses that led to the birth of bioethics in the first place, such as Mengele's sadistic pseudoexperiments in Nazi Germany and the withholding of treatment to indigent black patients in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study. Once you recognize the principle of autonomy, Macklin argued, "dignity" adds nothing.
news  org:mag  politics  values  morality  biotech  ethics  rhetoric  contrarianism  essay  religion  christianity  error  critique  westminster  policy  enhancement  dennett  civil-liberty  rant  philosophy  pinker  ideology  🌞  🔬  current-events  dignity  theos  formal-values  statesmen  abortion-contraception-embryo 
january 2017 by nhaliday
The Future of Genetic Enhancement is Not in the West | Quillette
https://qz.com/750908/the-future-of-genetic-enhancement-is-in-china-and-india/

If it becomes possible to safely genetically increase babies’ IQ, it will become inevitable: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/14/if-it-becomes-possible-to-safely-genetically-increase-babies-iq-it-will-become-inevitable/

Baby Genome Sequencing for Sale in China: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608086/baby-genome-sequencing-for-sale-in-china/
Chinese parents can now decode the genomes of their healthy newborns, revealing disease risks as well as the likelihood of physical traits like male-pattern baldness.
https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/06/16/the-cultural-revolution-that-will-happen-in-china/
https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/07/26/the-future-will-be-genetically-engineered/
http://www.nature.com/news/china-s-embrace-of-embryo-selection-raises-thorny-questions-1.22468
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/08/embryo-selection-in-china-nature.html

China launches massive genome research initiative: https://news.cgtn.com/news/7767544e34637a6333566d54/share_p.html

research ethics:
First results of CRISPR gene editing of normal embryos released: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released/
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32530334
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us-mit.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14912382
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23305.html
caveats: https://ipscell.com/2017/08/4-reasons-mitalipov-paper-doesnt-herald-safe-crispr-human-genetic-modification/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-crispr-human-clinical-trial-gets-a-green-light-from-the-u-s/
http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-gene-editing-tested-in-a-person-for-the-first-time-1.20988
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12960844
So this title is a bit misleading; something like, "cells edited with CRISPR injected into a person for the first time" would be better. While CRISPR is promising for topological treatments, that's not what happened here.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinese-scientists-to-pioneer-first-human-crispr-trial/
China sprints ahead in CRISPR therapy race: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/20
China, Unhampered by Rules, Races Ahead in Gene-Editing Trials: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-unhampered-by-rules-races-ahead-in-gene-editing-trials-1516562360
U.S. scientists helped devise the Crispr biotechnology tool. First to test it in humans are Chinese doctors
https://twitter.com/mr_scientism/status/955207026333929472
https://archive.is/lJ761

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/24/579925801/chinese-scientists-clone-monkeys-using-method-that-created-dolly-the-sheep
https://twitter.com/0xa59a2d/status/956344998626242560
https://archive.is/azH4S
https://twitter.com/AngloRemnant/status/956348983303114753
https://archive.is/RclJG
https://twitter.com/AngloRemnant/status/956352891287228416
https://archive.is/BfHuV

http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/07/did-gene-therapy-cure-sickle-cell-disease-10950

lol: http://www.theonion.com/infographic/pros-and-cons-gene-editing-56740

Japan set to allow gene editing in human embryos [ed.: (for research)]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06847-7
Draft guidelines permit gene-editing tools for research into early human development.
futurism  prediction  enhancement  biotech  essay  china  asia  culture  poll  len:short  new-religion  accelerationism  letters  news  org:mag  org:popup  🌞  sinosphere  🔬  sanctity-degradation  morality  values  democracy  authoritarianism  genetics  CRISPR  scaling-up  orient  multi  org:lite  india  competition  speedometer  org:rec  right-wing  rhetoric  slippery-slope  iq  usa  incentives  technology  org:nat  org:sci  org:biz  trends  current-events  genomics  gnxp  scitariat  commentary  hsu  org:foreign  volo-avolo  regulation  coordination  cooperate-defect  moloch  popsci  announcement  politics  government  policy  science  ethics  :/  org:anglo  cancer  medicine  hn  tech  immune  sapiens  study  summary  bio  disease  critique  regularizer  accuracy  lol  comedy  hard-tech  skunkworks  twitter  social  backup  gnon  🐸  randy-ayndy  civil-liberty  FDA  duplication  left-wing  chart  abortion-contraception-embryo 
august 2016 by nhaliday

related tags

2016-election  :/  abortion-contraception-embryo  accelerationism  accuracy  africa  age-generation  agriculture  analysis  anglo  announcement  anthropology  aphorism  applications  aristos  arms  art  article  asia  authoritarianism  backup  behavioral-gen  big-peeps  bio  biodet  bioinformatics  biotech  bostrom  brands  britain  business  cancer  censorship  charity  chart  china  christianity  civil-liberty  class  class-warfare  coalitions  cold-war  comedy  commentary  comparison  compensation  competition  contrarianism  control  convexity-curvature  cooperate-defect  coordination  corporation  correlation  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  counterfactual  crime  criminology  CRISPR  critique  crosstab  cultural-dynamics  culture  current-events  curvature  data  data-science  database  debate  definite-planning  democracy  demographic-transition  demographics  dennett  density  dependence-independence  descriptive  dignity  dimensionality  discrimination  discussion  disease  distribution  diversity  drugs  duplication  dysgenics  economics  econotariat  education  egalitarianism-hierarchy  elections  elite  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  enhancement  entrepreneurialism  environment  envy  epidemiology  error  essay  estimate  ethics  ethnocentrism  exit-voice  explanans  explanation  exploratory  extrema  faq  FDA  fertility  finance  fisher  flux-stasis  foreign-policy  formal-values  frequency  frontier  futurism  GCTA  gender  general-survey  generalization  genetic-correlation  genetic-load  genetics  genomics  geography  giants  gnon  gnxp  government  guide  GWAS  gwern  hard-tech  hari-seldon  high-dimension  history  hmm  hn  homo-hetero  hsu  human-capital  ideas  identity-politics  ideology  idk  immune  impact  impetus  incentives  india  inequality  innovation  institutions  intervention  intricacy  iq  iteration-recursion  journos-pundits  law  left-wing  len:short  let-me-see  letters  life-history  list  literature  lol  macro  magnitude  marginal-rev  market-power  medicine  mendel-randomization  meta:medicine  metabuch  methodology  microfoundations  migration  missing-heritability  modernity  moloch  moments  money  morality  mostly-modern  multi  mutation  nascent-state  nationalism-globalism  new-religion  news  nibble  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  no-go  nonlinearity  obama  objektbuch  old-anglo  opioids  org:anglo  org:biz  org:data  org:foreign  org:lite  org:mag  org:mat  org:nat  org:ngo  org:popup  org:rec  org:sci  org:theos  organization  orient  parenting  paternal-age  pdf  people  personality  phalanges  philosophy  pinker  poast  poetry  polarization  policy  polisci  politics  poll  pop-diff  pop-structure  popsci  population  population-genetics  populism  postmortem  pre-ww2  prediction  prediction-markets  preprint  priors-posteriors  pro-rata  protestant-catholic  psychiatry  public-health  QTL  quiz  quotes  race  randy-ayndy  rant  ratty  realness  recent-selection  reddit  redistribution  reference  regression  regularizer  regulation  religion  rent-seeking  replication  rhetoric  right-wing  roots  rot  s:*  s:***  sanctity-degradation  sapiens  scale  scaling-up  science  scitariat  selection  sentiment  sex  sexuality  sib-study  singularity  sinosphere  skunkworks  slippery-slope  social  social-norms  social-structure  society  sociology  spearhead  speedometer  ssc  startups  state-of-art  statesmen  stream  study  stylized-facts  summary  systematic-ad-hoc  tails  tech  technology  the-bones  theos  things  time  top-n  track-record  tracker  trade  tradeoffs  tradition  trends  trump  trust  twitter  unaffiliated  urban  urban-rural  usa  values  vampire-squid  variance-components  visualization  volo-avolo  welfare-state  west-hunter  westminster  white-paper  wiki  wonkish  world  world-war  zeitgeist  🌞  🎩  🐸  🔬 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: