On 3/3/19 2:00 PM, Neal Gafter wrote:
> Do we believe this work was legally permitted when and where it occurred?
I haven't seen any claims that that was the case, and my impression is
that most reporters and scientists at least believe the opposite. I just
looked at the claim, and there's nothing about this work's legality has
any bearing on the claim.
The last line of the Judge's statement does say "there has to be some
reasonable evidence that the individual can biologically (and legally)
have progeny that inherit that modification", but that's not going to be
an issue for more than a decade. I think it's pretty clear that there's
no legal prohibition **at this point** on Lulu and Nene having kids.
protecting privacy in the computer age is
like trying to change a tire on a moving car.