Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker, quoted in the article:

A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.” Nor should it thwart research that has likely benefits now or in the near future by sowing panic about speculative harms in the distant future… Of course, individuals must be protected from identifiable harm, but we already have ample safeguards for the safety and informed consent of patients and research subjects.

If generals are always fighting the last war, are scientists always excusing the last atrocity?

Here is the wind-up that leads into that horror movie monologue above:

Biomedical research, then, promises vast increases in life, health, and flourishing. Just imagine how much happier you would be if a prematurely deceased loved one were alive, or a debilitated one were vigorous — and multiply that good by several billion, in perpetuity. Given this potential bonanza, the primary moral goal for today’s bioethics can be summarized in a single sentence.

Get out of the way.

No pressure then, yeah?

Making heritable changes to the human genome has risks. If the motivation for doing so is extending lifespan, conquering disease. and defeating death, those risks must be more carefully weighed, not less. Just how desperate is Pinker to pretend otherwise? Bonanza? What a strange word to choose.