DRAFT: Ban on Using Genome Editing as a Weapon

[Araraukar]

Ban on Using Genome Editing as a Weapon

Category: Global Disarmament
Strengt: Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging evolution as a natural process in which organisms with the genes that are best at adapting to their environment have a breeding advantage over organisms with less suitable genes,

Aware of the concept of "selfish gene", which is a gene that is more likely to be inherited from a parent to an offspring due to a process in which the gene causes a disruption in the DNA code of the competing form of the gene, which the DNA regulation system then repairs by creating a copy of the selfish gene,

Concerned that the artificial creation of such selfish genes, for the purposes of, for example, better pest control methods, could also be used maliciously on sapient beings, livestock and other important organisms, through the editing of inherited genome,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. a "gene drive" as an artificially created selfish gene,
2. "inherited genome" as the genetic code passed from a parent to an offspring,
3. "important organism" as an orgamism that is sapient, farmed by sapients or belongs to a keystone species for an ecosystem,

2. Forbids the use of gene drives as weapons,

3. Forbids using gene drives to edit the inherited genome of an important organism, unless it is done for one or more of the following reasons:

1. removing a faulty gene responsible for a disease, condition or syndrome that markedly reduces the quality of life of the organism,
2. a controlled scientific experiment, which, when done on a sapient organism, qualifies as a medical procedure and requires the fully informed consent of the individual,
3. improving the chances of survival of the important organism, such as by introducing a gene to create resistance to a disease or pest,

4. Explicitly leaves it to member nations to decide whether or not to allow the creation and use of gene drives within their borders,

5. However, imposes the following restrictions on all use of gene drives:

1. creation of gene drives that can easily jump from species to species through various naturally existing methods is forbidden, unless the informed consent of all the nations on the same planet or other such enclosed ecosphere can be obtained, or all possible precautions are taken to avoid the release of such gene drives into the wild,
2. using gene drives to edit the inherited genome of a migratory species is forbidden, unless the informed consent of the nations along the natural migration routes of the species can be obtained,

6. Requires that unintentional breaches of the restrictions to clause five are immediately reported to the involved nations,

7. Encourages the member nations to share scientific information on gene drives with the World Assembly Science Program, World Assembly Patent Office and World Assembly Commission on Biological Agents, to further general knowledge and public understanding of what gene drives are and how they can be used responsibly.

OOC: Thank you to Libraria and Ausitoria for giving me this idea.

[Araraukar]

1. Doesn't GA #242, Biological Warfare Convention already cover this?

GA #242 defines biological agents as "any disease-producing bacterium, virus, prion, or other microorganism with the capacity to be used effectively in an act of biological terrorism or biological warfare". While you might need a virus or a prion to get the artificial gene into the cell, a gene drive itself, as used in this proposal, is simply an artificially-created selfish gene, a piece of DNA.

2. Then why is this only Mild strength?

Partially because this is still a new technological development in Real Life, and thus, with most nations being Modern Tech nations, most likely new to them as well and thus not in prevalent use yet. And partially because it is about a very narrow possibility of weapon use and creation, since the bioweapons ban catches a lot of the biotechnology surrounding gene drives.

3. Why are you calling them "gene drives" anyway?

That's pretty much what they are called in Real Life. I've just narrowed the definition down a bit more, for the purposes of WA legislation. Also, it's easier to give people a proper search word, if they want to look up more information on the subject, than giving everyone a lecture on molecular biology and biotechnology within the proposal.

4. But you kinda do that in the preamble anyway.

Is this a question? I explain what a selfish gene is, so that people will understand what the body of the proposal is all about. And I'm doing so in the preamble, because the concept here matches the concept in Real Life, rather than being a specific version of the word's RL use. (I personally think that knowledge of what a selfish gene is, is common knowledge, but I've long since learned that my understanding of common knowledge tends to be, well, uncommon.)

5. Why are you only banning meddling with the inherited genome?

Selfish genes propagate themselves through populations only when they are introduced into the inherited genome - in humans that means egg and sperm cells. It also requires that individual to procreate, to have children or offspring, otherwise the genes are sitting in a dead end host, with no chance of spreading elsewhere.

6. Is that why 5.a. forbids the creation of species-jumping selfish genes?

Pretty much. I also didn't want to accidentally ban gene therapy, in which a single individual is affected. Also, this still allows using gene drives as a way to use gene therapy on inherited genomes, it just needs to be done for the right reasons.

7. But isn't requiring informed consent from all the nations on your planet a bit too much?

Not really, if you think about it. If you created a gene that, let's say, made a plant species resistant to the most common herbicides, and there was a way for it to easily jump from one plant species to another, you would very quickly end up with unkillable weeds, and that's definitely something that would affect all the nations on your planet.

8. So you're banning the creation of super-soldiers?

Well, not necessarily. 3.b. and 3.c., when taken together, still make that technically possible. (Should I worry about why you wanted to know that?)

9. Why are you involving all those committees in clause 7?

I'm attempting to make the information about gene drives to be publicly available (WASP), non-patentable (WAPO), and give the WA a prewarning on potential bioweapon use (WACBA).

That is based in part on a Real Life source on gene drives, which states "we are confident that the responsible development of RNA-guided gene drive technology is best served by full transparency and early engagement with the public." That, to me at least, implies that such technology as this is less likely to be used maliciously if it is public domain information.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

"important organism" as an orgamism that is sapient, farmed by sapients or belongs to a keystone species for an ecosystem,

Typo.

3. Forbids using gene drives to edit the inherited genome of an important organism, unless it is done for one or more of the following reasons:

1. removing a faulty gene responsible for a disease, condition or syndrome that markedly reduces the quality of life of the organism,
2. a controlled scientific experiment, which, when done on a sapient organism, qualifies as a medical procedure and requires the fully informed consent of the individual,
3. improving the chances of survival of the important organism, such as by introducing a gene to create resistance to a disease or pest,

This would make use of gene-drive for yield-improving GMOs illegal (Since yield is not simply improving survivability through e.g. pest or disease resistance)? If so, Attempted Socialism would be against.

4. Explicitly leaves it to member nations to decide whether or not to allow the creation and use of gene drives within their borders,

Fair.

5. However, imposes the following restrictions on all use of gene drives:

1. creation of gene drives that can easily jump from species to species through various naturally existing methods is forbidden, unless the informed consent of all the nations on the same planet or other such enclosed ecosphere can be obtained, or all possible precautions are taken to avoid the release of such gene drives into the wild,
2. using gene drives to edit the inherited genome of a migratory species is forbidden, unless the informed consent of the nations along the natural migration routes of the species can be obtained,

Errr... wouldn't this be tantamount to making any gene drive that "can easily jump from species to species" illegal? I don't see why a complicated intermediary step of seeking informed consent is required here, the effect will pretty much be the same (Barring the "all possible precautions" subclause)?


Edit: Completely forgot: "Category: Global Disarmament" based on a single clause (#2) out of 7? Unless you think the other clauses are related to GD, this seems like a stretch.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Typo.

OOC: Thank you, will be corrected in the next draft.

This would make use of gene-drive for yield-improving GMOs illegal (Since yield is not simply improving survivability through e.g. pest or disease resistance)? If so, Attempted Socialism would be against.

Why would you need to use a gene drive (an artificial selfish gene) rather than regular genome editing (inserting the genes you want where you want) into the inherited genome? But I'll try to think of a way to make this more obvious in the text.

Errr... wouldn't this be tantamount to making any gene drive that "can easily jump from species to species" illegal? I don't see why a complicated intermediary step of seeking informed consent is required here, the effect will pretty much be the same (Barring the "all possible precautions" subclause)?

Errr, nope. It's just a really bad idea to create and release such a thing into the wild, and really bad ideas should require a lot of annoying bureaucracy and diplomacy, to prevent people from acting on them. Do you want this question to be added to the Q&A? (EDIT: Note to self, change "all possible" to "all available".)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I can't get into this in depth right now, but my very first reaction is to suggest a phrase other than "selfish gene" - for English-speaking sophisticated laymen, this term actually refers to the process by which altruistic behavior, disadvantageous at the level of the organism, nevertheless spreads through the population because the genes that select for it are more likely to survive in the relatives of the individual who (e.g.) just got eaten trying to distract that predator over there away from said relatives.

More substantive (and in-character) observations forthcoming.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I can't get into this in depth right now, but my very first reaction is to suggest a phrase other than "selfish gene" - for English-speaking sophisticated laymen, this term actually refers to the process by which altruistic behavior,

OOC: It's based on the wording in the source material (and used as a headline here, for example, for gene drives). Also it's used of very non-altruistic things as well, so I think the sophisticated laymen need to update their understanding of the term.

By the way, your link is to a book by that name (a book, that, during this year, becomes 42 years old), not the concept. The theory of selfish gene is just another name for gene-centered evolutionary model. As you can see, Dawkins' book is just one of the ways the words are used these days.

Very many edits are due to more links added.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

This would make use of gene-drive for yield-improving GMOs illegal (Since yield is not simply improving survivability through e.g. pest or disease resistance)? If so, Attempted Socialism would be against.

Why would you need to use a gene drive (an artificial selfish gene) rather than regular genome editing (inserting the genes you want where you want) into the inherited genome? But I'll try to think of a way to make this more obvious in the text.

Not a biologist, so I can be (And likely am) wrong, but it is my understanding that regular genome editing will only be for that generation; each new planting season you would have to get new GMO seeds. I was lead to believe that one of the controversies around this technology was the potential use of reproductive GMO crops.
If I'm wrong then just correct me, if I'm right then please tell me if and how this resolution would change the use of GMO crops.

Errr... wouldn't this be tantamount to making any gene drive that "can easily jump from species to species" illegal? I don't see why a complicated intermediary step of seeking informed consent is required here, the effect will pretty much be the same (Barring the "all possible precautions" subclause)?

Errr, nope. It's just a really bad idea to create and release such a thing into the wild, and really bad ideas should require a lot of annoying bureaucracy and diplomacy, to prevent people from acting on them. Do you want this question to be added to the Q&A? (EDIT: Note to self, change "all possible" to "all available".)

If it's a bad idea that ought to require a lot of annoying bureaucracy and diplomacy, why not make it a bad idea that is banned? My argument isn't against the idea that releasing dominant, species-jumping modified genes out into the wild ought to be limited (I, too, have seen Jurassic Park ) but why the intermediary step is necessary. If these ideas are so bad that an entire planet worth of nations need to accept the use of them, they are bad enough to ban ... at least, that's my logic.
I guess my question would be "under what circumstances would an entire planet worth of nations give the green light for the release of dominant, species-jumping modified genes into the wild?"
If there are no scenarios where that would happen, then it's functionally a ban with an intermediary step.

Last, I know I likely edited in my question after you clicked quote, but I'd like a respond to this bit as well:

Edit: Completely forgot: "Category: Global Disarmament" based on a single clause (#2) out of 7? Unless you think the other clauses are related to GD, this seems like a stretch.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not a biologist, so I can be (And likely am) wrong, but it is my understanding that regular genome editing will only be for that generation; each new planting season you would have to get new GMO seeds. I was lead to believe that one of the controversies around this technology was the potential use of reproductive GMO crops.

OOC: In the Real Life world the "having to buy new GMO seeds each planting season" is usually because the plants have been engineered to not produce viable seeds. Or because Monsanto the producer of the GMO variant will only sell you the seeds if you sign a contract promising to not to keep any for the next planting season. That is fucking messed up and should never be encouraged.

However, unless the genetic modification (note that this "modification" may be as simple as cross-breeding between related species) is such that the plant simply cannot produce viable seeds (usually due to some mismatch in its polyploidism), once you edit the originating plant so that it will express the edits in its seeds, you've got a self-propagating GMO plant. Such edits are usually done by using a harmless virus that, instead of its own viral DNA code, carries the wanted edit into the cell.

A gene drive in RL has a slightly less strict definition than what I'm using in the proposal, but it's like the evil twin of a gene, "killing" the competing gene in another chromosome, forcing the cell to repair it by using the only existing copy - the evil twin - as a blueprint. That makes it more likely for the "evil twin" to end up carried into the offspring, if the process happens in the inherited line of cells (in humans, sperm and egg cells). I don't know if there's a word for them in English that isn't "sex cells", so I kind of made one up for the proposal.

There are some natural genome expression-regulating ways (at least in diploid RL mammals) with which the choice is made by the cells on which copy of a chromosome they'll read when making molecules based on the code. Some are more likely to be read when they come from the mother, others when they come from the father. The sex chromosomes, X and Y, are an extreme case of this, but it happens in the other chromosomes as well. Thus, an "evil twin" gene will also make sure that it's the one that's getting expressed.

Of course, the "evil twin" isn't necessarily better for the organism that has it in its genome, than the other one that gets eliminated. It really is a selfish gene that way, as it doesn't care about the survivability of its carrier, it only cares about itself. And that's also why I use the words "selfish gene" in the proposal.

if I'm right then please tell me if and how this resolution would change the use of GMO crops.

Unless gene drives are used, it doesn't change anything. If gene drives are used, the restrictions in clauses 3 and 5 apply, and nations can choose to not allow their use, but other than that, it changes nothing.

If it's a bad idea that ought to require a lot of annoying bureaucracy and diplomacy, why not make it a bad idea that is banned?

Because while it may be a bad idea to drive faster than the speed limit, and you can get in serious trouble for doing that, if you were the patient aboard an ambulance and needed to get to the hospital ASAP, you'd want the driver to ignore speed limits where it was safe to do so, right? That's why I'm leaving it in as a possibility, but one that you really shouldn't get to do easily just because it was an idea you thought up at 2 am after the seventh beer and it felt like the Best Idea Ever at the time.

If these ideas are so bad that an entire planet worth of nations need to accept the use of them, they are bad enough to ban ... at least, that's my logic.

Nuclear weapons are a Really Bad Idea and should be banned, and in Real Life currently only North Korea Russia USA an insane tinpot dictatorship would even consider actually using one. That's my logic for wanting to ban them. But try and repeal NAPA and see what happens.

I guess my question would be "under what circumstances would an entire planet worth of nations give the green light for the release of dominant, species-jumping modified genes into the wild?"

Under circumstances where it was that or the end of the world. Or, at least, the end of the world for that sapient species. Or even directly their own extinction. You don't need to be much of a Mad Scientist^TM to be able to think up such scenarios.

If there are no scenarios where that would happen, then it's functionally a ban with an intermediary step.

If it's functionally a ban and you want it to be banned, then goal achieved?

Last, I know I likely edited in my question after you clicked quote, but I'd like a respond to this bit as well:

Edit: Completely forgot: "Category: Global Disarmament" based on a single clause (#2) out of 7? Unless you think the other clauses are related to GD, this seems like a stretch.

Well, it's banning the use of them as weapons, so that's GD, but it's allowing them to be used, with restrictions, in non-offensive ways. That's what the chemical weapons ban resolution does, too (allows their use defensively). And very close to what the bioweapons ban (you can't use them but you can own them for scientific study purposes) does, as well.

It's not about scientific study (the few mentions don't actually require educational boost), nor is it bioethics (at least not the way the AoE is introduced - healthcare and research standards - in the Categories list). It's not about healthcare or international aid, so Health category is out. It's not about environmental protection at the cost of industry (unless you RP as one specializing on gene drives, but that's going to be a very small number of nations, I'd say), so that's not right either. It's not about banning individuals, specifically, from doing stuff, so it's not moral decency. It doesn't cause funding demands on police or military (labs might want to hire some goons to keep nosy people out, but that's not police/military), so it's not IS. It's definitely not human rights or social justice. It certainly doesn't reduce barriers to free trade and commerce. Has nothing to do with democracy or politics in general. Nor gun/drugs control or gambling. Advancement of Industry doesn't have a suitable category, plus this allows nations to ban their use if they want.

International Security and Global Disarmament are polar opposites to one another, their combined definition says "these categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by a nation's police or military", and while of my two model resolutions Chemical Weapons Accord is in IS, the other, Biological Warfare Convention is in GD. I could make this IS, and that would likely be easier to "sell" to voters, but it's really about banning their use as weapons while allowing their sensible peaceful use, so GD it is. (The "sensible" part is why there are so many clauses in addition to clause 2. )

[Imperium Anglorum]

The conception of the effect of terminator genes above is full of crap.

[The First German Order]

OOC: I have no idea what I've read and I bet many other WA nations will feel the same. Also, you do realize this is requiring medieval and fantasy tech WA nations to accept "gene drives" as part of their nation, right? Seems kind of messed up if you ask me.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Also, you do realize this is requiring medieval and fantasy tech WA nations to accept "gene drives" as part of their nation, right?

OOC: There are many resolutions that mention computers and even computer networks, there is a resolution that specifically allows nations to own nuclear weapons, there is a resolution that talks about satellite launches, there's a resolution that bans biological weapons, there's a resolution that bans radiological (not nuclear) weapons, there's a resolution about having to give artificial intelligences human rights (and another with the same for non-human organic sapients aka aliens), there is at least one that mentions automobiles...

...so all in all there are a lot of things already in the resolutions that make no sense to a medieval or other Past Tech nations. The beauty of roleplaying is that if your nation doesn't have X, then a resolution that deals with X has no effect in your nation. (Except the patent and copyright ones. Those still apply. )

Besides, clause 4 lets you ban them in your nation.

The conception of the effect of terminator genes above is full of crap.

OOC: Which is interesting as I never mentioned terminator genes. Feel free to contribute with a non-crap version of the information. I made a tiny edit on what I think you may have confused with terminator genes.

[Bears Armed]

if the process happens in the inherited line of cells (in humans, sperm and egg cells). I don't know if there's a word for them in English that isn't "sex cells", so I kind of made one up for the proposal.

OOC: referring to them as the 'germline' is fairly standard.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Not a biologist, so I can be (And likely am) wrong, but it is my understanding that regular genome editing will only be for that generation; each new planting season you would have to get new GMO seeds. I was lead to believe that one of the controversies around this technology was the potential use of reproductive GMO crops.

OOC: In the Real Life world the "having to buy new GMO seeds each planting season" is usually because the plants have been engineered to not produce viable seeds. Or because Monsanto the producer of the GMO variant will only sell you the seeds if you sign a contract promising to not to keep any for the next planting season. That is fucking messed up and should never be encouraged.

However, unless the genetic modification (note that this "modification" may be as simple as cross-breeding between related species) is such that the plant simply cannot produce viable seeds (usually due to some mismatch in its polyploidism), once you edit the originating plant so that it will express the edits in its seeds, you've got a self-propagating GMO plant. Such edits are usually done by using a harmless virus that, instead of its own viral DNA code, carries the wanted edit into the cell.

A gene drive in RL has a slightly less strict definition than what I'm using in the proposal, but it's like the evil twin of a gene, "killing" the competing gene in another chromosome, forcing the cell to repair it by using the only existing copy - the evil twin - as a blueprint. That makes it more likely for the "evil twin" to end up carried into the offspring, if the process happens in the inherited line of cells (in humans, sperm and egg cells). I don't know if there's a word for them in English that isn't "sex cells", so I kind of made one up for the proposal.

There are some natural genome expression-regulating ways (at least in diploid RL mammals) with which the choice is made by the cells on which copy of a chromosome they'll read when making molecules based on the code. Some are more likely to be read when they come from the mother, others when they come from the father. The sex chromosomes, X and Y, are an extreme case of this, but it happens in the other chromosomes as well. Thus, an "evil twin" gene will also make sure that it's the one that's getting expressed.

Of course, the "evil twin" isn't necessarily better for the organism that has it in its genome, than the other one that gets eliminated. It really is a selfish gene that way, as it doesn't care about the survivability of its carrier, it only cares about itself. And that's also why I use the words "selfish gene" in the proposal.

if I'm right then please tell me if and how this resolution would change the use of GMO crops.

Unless gene drives are used, it doesn't change anything. If gene drives are used, the restrictions in clauses 3 and 5 apply, and nations can choose to not allow their use, but other than that, it changes nothing.

If it's a bad idea that ought to require a lot of annoying bureaucracy and diplomacy, why not make it a bad idea that is banned?

Because while it may be a bad idea to drive faster than the speed limit, and you can get in serious trouble for doing that, if you were the patient aboard an ambulance and needed to get to the hospital ASAP, you'd want the driver to ignore speed limits where it was safe to do so, right? That's why I'm leaving it in as a possibility, but one that you really shouldn't get to do easily just because it was an idea you thought up at 2 am after the seventh beer and it felt like the Best Idea Ever at the time.

If these ideas are so bad that an entire planet worth of nations need to accept the use of them, they are bad enough to ban ... at least, that's my logic.

Nuclear weapons are a Really Bad Idea and should be banned, and in Real Life currently only North Korea Russia USA an insane tinpot dictatorship would even consider actually using one. That's my logic for wanting to ban them. But try and repeal NAPA and see what happens.

I guess my question would be "under what circumstances would an entire planet worth of nations give the green light for the release of dominant, species-jumping modified genes into the wild?"

Under circumstances where it was that or the end of the world. Or, at least, the end of the world for that sapient species. Or even directly their own extinction. You don't need to be much of a Mad Scientist^TM to be able to think up such scenarios.

If there are no scenarios where that would happen, then it's functionally a ban with an intermediary step.

If it's functionally a ban and you want it to be banned, then goal achieved?

Last, I know I likely edited in my question after you clicked quote, but I'd like a respond to this bit as well:

Well, it's banning the use of them as weapons, so that's GD, but it's allowing them to be used, with restrictions, in non-offensive ways. That's what the chemical weapons ban resolution does, too (allows their use defensively). And very close to what the bioweapons ban (you can't use them but you can own them for scientific study purposes) does, as well.

It's not about scientific study (the few mentions don't actually require educational boost), nor is it bioethics (at least not the way the AoE is introduced - healthcare and research standards - in the Categories list). It's not about healthcare or international aid, so Health category is out. It's not about environmental protection at the cost of industry (unless you RP as one specializing on gene drives, but that's going to be a very small number of nations, I'd say), so that's not right either. It's not about banning individuals, specifically, from doing stuff, so it's not moral decency. It doesn't cause funding demands on police or military (labs might want to hire some goons to keep nosy people out, but that's not police/military), so it's not IS. It's definitely not human rights or social justice. It certainly doesn't reduce barriers to free trade and commerce. Has nothing to do with democracy or politics in general. Nor gun/drugs control or gambling. Advancement of Industry doesn't have a suitable category, plus this allows nations to ban their use if they want.

International Security and Global Disarmament are polar opposites to one another, their combined definition says "these categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by a nation's police or military", and while of my two model resolutions Chemical Weapons Accord is in IS, the other, Biological Warfare Convention is in GD. I could make this IS, and that would likely be easier to "sell" to voters, but it's really about banning their use as weapons while allowing their sensible peaceful use, so GD it is. (The "sensible" part is why there are so many clauses in addition to clause 2. )

OOC: Thank you for the comprehensive answer. I recognise that my concerns are answered and will take that into account when deciding whether to vote for or against.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm also against this very classless stealing of someone's idea, even if you attribute it in the bottom. Unless you have some kind of proof, in a medium that is not entirely unverifiable like telegrams (so maybe that is why people love using them!), that it wasn't stolen, I won't support this.

[Araraukar]

I'm also against this very classless stealing of someone's idea, even if you attribute it in the bottom. Unless you have some kind of proof, in a medium that is not entirely unverifiable like telegrams (so maybe that is why people love using them!), that it wasn't stolen, I won't support this.

OOC: I honestly wouldn't expect you to support anything I write anyway.

As for stealing an idea, ideas are stealable. LaA didn't come up with gene drives on his own. He got the idea from Real Life, a commercial scientific magazine, at that. Ideas aren't owned by anyone. It's only actual text that's not ok to steal. That's why we've had so many competing ones on any given subject in the last... what, 6 or 8 months? I didn't see you grumping at everyone who was trying to write their own version of the marriage or voter antidiscrimination things or, for that matter, He Qixin "stealing" the "against food waste" idea from other people (and in which case you can't blame me for stealing that idea either, as I offered my version of that draft to the original writer, but they decided to go for a different angle, and I moved mine into its own thread to avoid cluttering up theirs).

And I originally wrote the first draft here to be suggested to LaA as a co-op draft, but as they were so vehemently against using any definitions, and as it also seemed that we were disagreeing on what would be sensible requirement, on so many levels, it became clear that it was better if I took my ideas into my own drafting thread, rather than continue to argue with him on his.

Also, telegrams can and have been in the past, verfied by mods. Hells, I still have the permission TG for the quote in my signature, in case it was ever needed!

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Do you intend to also ban voluntary genetic modification through gene drives or did it just skip your mind? As written, Clause 3 doesn't take voluntary procedures into account where the procedure is already proven safe, and while gene drives are rarely used in the process cosmetic genetic modification is a somewhat common practice in the Greater Siriusian Domain."

[Araraukar]

Teran Saber: "Do you intend to also ban voluntary genetic modification through gene drives or did it just skip your mind? As written, Clause 3 doesn't take voluntary procedures into account where the procedure is already proven safe, and while gene drives are rarely used in the process cosmetic genetic modification is a somewhat common practice in the Greater Siriusian Domain."

"If it's genetic modification that doesn't affect the inherited part of the genome, then within the restrictions laid out by clause five, feel free to do as you wish," Johan explained. "If you're talking about messing with the genes that will be passed on to your offspring for merely cosmetic effects, then yes, you definitely should be banned from doing it!"

OOC: In thinking about the cosmetic inheritable changes, don't think "changing hair colour for fun", think "changing skin colour to avoid/increase chances of offspring getting shunned" as well as "racial purity", to the tune of the human experimentations of the Nazis where they tried to make people look more "Aryan"; if they could've messed with the genetics, they would've. People shouldn't play with the appearances of their children just for teh lulz. That's why I dislike the Patient's Rights Act, as it gives parents the right to make their children undergo cosmetic surgery without it being medically necessary and without the child having any say in the matter (PRA clause VIII).

Also OOC: Please note that the IC reply is the opinion of the character, and doesn't mean I didn't take the feedback into account for the next draft (which probably won't come until next week).