3 Questions. 3 Hints. 3 Answers.
September 22, 2015
1. What recent appeal to recognize people’s right to, and wrongful censorship of, information was tossed out the window?
Hint:
Answer: the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) rejected Google’s informal appeal of a notice requiring the internet giant to comply with name-search delisting requests on all Google domain names — not only its European extensions. This means Google.com is caught in the same web as Google.fr, Google.it, etc. Among its reasons in denying Google’s appeal, CNIL noted that delisted information is still available on the internet (it is only inaccessible via name search) and that the right to delist, or be forgotten, is not absolute: the nature or status of the individual making the takedown request will be considered in all circumstances in order to balance the right to delist with the public’s right to information. Read more here.
2. What recent research application by scientists in the UK has been described as a “troubling and provocative move”?
Hint:
Answer: the UK Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority has the pleasure of considering the first application for embryonic genome editing using CRSPR/Cas9 technology. ASU Law Professor and Director of the Center for Law, Science & Innovation‘s GET Program, Gary Marchant considered the issue a few months ago when researchers in China announced they had fooled around with the same technology on human embryos. While the procedure has its benefits, many scientists and other members of the public feel the application is jumping the gun, especially in jurisdictions, including the U.S., where applicable laws and regulations are lacking. Read the details here.
3. What additional piece of evidence should quell anti-GMO proponents’ fears and beliefs about genetically modified organisms?
Hint:
Answer: how did wasp genes end up in butterflies without human intervention? Does it matter? Not really, is what we have been saying all along. It’s good to know the process but the outcome is what counts. Nature works in mysterious ways but at least is consistent with similar processes going on in the lab where genetic modification is concerned. If the butterflies and the bees are doing it, why shouldn’t salmon, corn, apples, soybeans and so forth? Does it really make sense to reject genetic modification systems as a whole just because some of the modification is going on indoors rather than haphazardly in a field? Read how horizontal gene transfer occurs in nature here.