Science and Inquiry discussion

For August 2021 we will be reading Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity by Jamie Metzl.

Please use this thread to post questions, comments, and reviews, at any time.

Has anyone read this book? I'm in the middle of it. I'm enjoying it, but there's been an awful lot going on in the world distracting me from reading.

Jamie Metzl's objective with his book, 'Hacking Darwin', is to inform the reader of the significant positive and negative issues associated with the current gene modification revolution and to strongly advocate for an informed society-wide discussion. Most folks are unaware of this major ongoing, global change. One point he makes is that the argument, made by some people, that inheritable genetic modification ain't natural is weak. Humans have been modifying the genes of plants and animals for thousands of years. Is a Labrador Retriever or an ear of corn natural? How about an antibiotic drug or a vaccine? Read this book for a basic introduction to the issue before you get flattened by the coming steam roller.

Betsy wrote: "Has anyone read this book? I'm in the middle of it. I'm enjoying it, but there's been an awful lot going on in the world distracting me from reading."

I did manage to finish this book but not without some struggle. The author has some obvious bias against religious people, Trump voters and anti-vaxxers, that really distracted me from the topic at hand every time he decided it was time to get a dig in against one of these groups. It also made me wonder if he was clear headed enough to present objective findings. However, I did persist to the end and found that the book had some redeeming qualities that made it worth the time. If you are having a lot of trouble finishing, I recommend skipping to Chapter 8 as I thought that did a good job of presenting the arguments for and against genetically enhanced humans.

Jessica wrote: "The author has some obvious bias against religious people, Trump voters and anti-vaxxers"

I did not notice that bias, but I think he did display some bias against people who denied scientific evidence, including Greenpeace.

Betsy wrote: "Jessica wrote: "The author has some obvious bias against religious people, Trump voters and anti-vaxxers"

I did not notice that bias, but I think he did display some bias against people who denied scientific evidence, including Greepeace."

I forgot about that but you are right, I noticed that too. I think there should be a debate with people who deny scientific evidence, but this book lumped people in groups and seemed to label them as science deniers just for being in that group. Once you disparage a group of people (or groups of people) the way this author did, they get their back up and stop listening. That's not the way to get an audience. He should have presented the information and let his intelligent, rational readers come to their own conclusions.

I should note that I read a newer, paperback version of this book that was obviously edited and had footnotes in it specifically intended to slam religious people. The footnotes may not be in the original version.

I just got this book today & it's next on my list, but I can understand the bias against science deniers after trying to talk to a guy at work about his refusal to get vaccinated which led into other areas including him saying masks don't work at all & touting Ivermectin as a cure. Apparently the chiropractor he is listening to told him that it kills prions which are the same as viruses. My attempts stopped at that point. Besides, he said we were arguing while I thought we were discussing.

While I agree with Jessica's point about disparaging groups, I'm an atheist & firm believer in the scientific method who lives in an area which is Christian fundamentalist & generally poorly educated in the sciences. I'm sure my attempts at pointing out facts can come off as condescending & I tend to dismiss anything except hard scientific data, too. I think I go too far in that respect & I'm fairly sure I've never changed anyone's mind.

The book I'm reading now, Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science, has a really good take on part of this problem. He points out how people need hope, not just just cold facts. He illustrates it well with doctor visits where we endure indignities that we wouldn't put up with in any other situation for the possibility of a cure by means that few of us really understand. We're often treated impersonally & quickly, just another statistic.

Faith & 'natural' healers' appeal is in their humanization of us, the appeal to our emotions. That often helps our spirits enough to help us cure ourselves even though they're selling snake oil. I think it would be a boon to medicine if real doctors could afford to take the same amount of time & show the same amount of care. I guess some do, but not at my income level.

Anyway, that sort of attitude from scientists would help sell their points much better. Sam Harris, Hitchens, & Dawkins all have great arguments, but no 'believer' will honestly listen to them. The most popular scientists have always been somewhat empathetic & often are showmen. Feynman, Tyson, & Nye are all like that & probably do more for teaching the general public than all the rest combined. Nye's showdown with Hamm probably didn't change a single adult mind, but hopefully it helps some of the younger ones.

Jim wrote: "Sam Harris, Hitchens, & Dawkins all have great arguments, but no 'believer' will honestly listen to them."

I am a religious person and also a believer in the scientific method so maybe that's why I was more sensitive to being lumped into the group of people the author considered stupid.

I have listened to Sam Harris and have done some of the meditations on his "waking up" app. I think that being a believer who listens to atheists is more about open-mindedness than religion. I'm also a big fan of Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying. Their attention to detail is exceptional and they are extremely careful with their words so as to not jump to conclusions that aren't really there. Not sure if they are atheists or not and don't really care.

Jessica wrote: "Jim wrote: "Sam Harris, Hitchens, & Dawkins all have great arguments, but no 'believer' will honestly listen to them."

I am a religious person and also a believer in the scientific method so maybe..."

Me too Jim. I try to be open minded but when you get stereotyped because of your religious beliefs, that's not productive.

I just finished this book. I'm tempted to say I enjoyed it, but "enjoy" is not quite the right word. In some ways it's a frightening book. I have mixed feelings about genetic engineering. But I agree with Metzl that we need to be discussing the ethical considerations to a much greater degree. Here is my review.

I'm on chapter 8 now & enjoying it. I like the way he tackles subjects from the simplest forms up to the complex issues they raise. The woman visiting her doctor & deciding on which fertilized cells to raise was really good. It really made the moral/ethical questions for picking randomly created, 'natural' humans & led into the realm of tailoring very well.

He hasn't made any mention of the dangers of a monoculture. I expect that seems pretty far out since we're so complex, but the seeds are there. For instance, getting rid of the sickle cell gene could seem like a good idea, but then no one has that protection against malaria. What if we get rid of some other gene or complex that gives us protection against something else that we just don't realize yet? Yes, he has pointed out repeatedly that it's early days yet & our ignorance is immense, but a monoculture wasn't one of the dangers.

Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity was a pretty good primer on the current state of genetic engineering & the questions we need to ask ourselves. It's definitely Sunday supplement level, but very well presented & interesting. I gave it a 4 star review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I was reminded of a comedy sketch from Dave Chapelle where he comments giving some caucasian girls "a pinch of black genes so they can do this" and they proceed to sing a soulful melody. I think this book lays out the path to this very probable future.

Not sure why I missed this one back when the group read it. Perhaps I was reading the Isaacson book about Jennifer Doudna at the time and didn't want to read something similar.

But for those who did read it I'm wondering if anyone did any research on the NNM supplement for increasing NAD+ that he discussed. I've done a little and it sounds intriguing.