Inquiry should not be forbidden. Knowledge is not evil. Action can bring about injury. Adults should be responsible for the results of their actions, but not limited by 'what ifs'. Feeding people last year's experiment without their knowledge, I think, should be criminal, if it isn't.

The philosophers of antiquity explained how morality was used as another method of control.  As the state changes, so does the morality of the people.  We've been under a major shift in what is perceived to be acceptable state conduct and governance for some time, so it's inevitable our overall morality as a people will see a shift also, as I believe we already have seen some significant changes over the last 10-15 years.

you can bet your booty, all this and more are full steem ahead, when you have individuals sitting on Billions of dollars, with endless money to spend, no one is going to stop them.
 And its not technology that they are going to share, most likely be patented and buried, like so many other earth and life saving inventions.
 they may be looking for immortality, but its only for a chosen few.
There game is lowering the population :-)

This article makes me think of my opposition to Ripple costing me thousands in profits. (A drunken night of "morality" had me sell 30000 XRP at 6 cents for a small profit...)

The only real way to accomplish anything in this country is to vote with your dollars.  Education in this country long long ago actually taught children how to be proprietors.  Today it teaches them to keep their heads down and to tow the company line--regardless of the consequences or immorality of their employers.  This article seems fear-based.   In this particular area, advancing with caution and extensive study beforehand is the only way to proceed, IMO.  'Science' tends to be blinded by $$'s, and almost without exception dives right into a half-run experiment on the population--sometimes conveniently subsidized by the government.

Good article and it's been an issue that has been brewing for a while. It's why countries like South Korea and Singapore have been able to lure top biotech talent away from the United States. 

It's not just jobs however, but potentially millions of lives, that could be at stake as well.

not only a matter of 'morals,' but fear vs. intelligence - or rather a trust in the laws of science versus resistance to change & growth in awareness...

> The United States has always become wealthier primarily because they have adopted new technology, embraced it without heavy regulation and let companies work freely.

This is not my understanding of things. The US is far from relaxed in terms of regulations. In fact, most industries have been regulated to the point where only the big players have an opportunity to thrive.  The US is the land of monopolies, and each one of those monopolies came about as a result of government regulation(which was lobbied for by the corporations who now hold those monopolies).

Regulations sound like a good thing on paper..  And perhaps they once were. But, they are no longer about protecting people from being swindled, or about encouraging competition in the market. For the past couple of decades, at the very least, regulations have been utilised as a means of crippling small business owners, so that the biggest corporations out there can continue to dominate the market.

> If we didn’t pursue better military vehicles, or if we didn’t pursue nuclear weapons, someone else eventually would have. This is the key part of the debate that people don’t seem to understand. Stopping something in the short term doesn’t mean in the long term it won’t be released.

If you were walking home from a nightclub at 3AM in the morning and there was a paralytic female, laid on the ground unconscious, wearing a very short skirt.. Would you rape her? It might be immoral to do so, but, if you don't, chances are, someone with less morality than you will come along and do it before long anyway. Why should some other party obtain some sexual gratification simply because you were too slow to "evolve" into an immoral being?

The point I am getting at, is that just because someone else might do something they shouldn't do, is not an excuse for you to do that thing you should not do before they get the chance. It is perhaps irrelevant anyway, because it is not the US who profits from the manufacturing of weapons for US soldiers. That *costs* the US, or more appropriately, the US tax-payer, ***a lot*** of money. The ones who profit are the weapons manufacturers, and if you believe that they hold any sort of allegiance to the US, or any other sovereign state, then you would be mistaken. If they cared about the US, they would not perpetuate wars that  have taken the lives of many Americans, all so that they can sell more weapons and make more profits.

> In the United States, due to mainly religious ideology, we are having pushback against the genetics and stem cell research fields.

I don't know if it is mainly religious people who are to blame for the push-back, but I do feel the need to stress that there are plenty of non-religious people-- myself included--who have a serious problem with the immoral actions of many of today's industries. 

> We have already lost years of potential estimated research time due to lobbying, protesting and anger from civilians. Eventually though, if we continue to give into the demands of a group of people who are against the progress of human evolution, we will lose the scientific advantage to other countries.

To me, this is one of the most insane things I have ever read. I do not mean to insinuate that you, yourself are insane. More that, it is insane how surreal it feels to discover how differently we view the world. 

You think that morality is hindering the progression of our species, but I believe that the progression of our species ought to be measured in morality. If we create 7 billion jobs, one for each of us on this Earth, yet in the process, we forget what is right and what is wrong, then I can only view such an occurrence as a *regression.*

I would love to know, if you don't mind telling me, how you would measure our progress as a species.

> The biotech industry is still in its complete infancy and has the potential to become a trillion dollar market that could extend average lifespans by decades in the future,

I think you may be correct here. But, should any type of pills or injections become available that can extend human life to such an extent, I would bet my penis that it would not be made available to the general public. Unless you are a billionaire, you won't have access to such technology. They are already telling us the world is overpopulated(which it is not), so they're not going to help us overpopulate it even more. 

> If you break your neck say horseback riding and become paralyzed, there is a real chance that today you can use stem cell research to fix the problem, but it would cost you millions of dollars. This is because getting stem cells in the United States is extremely hard and expensive.

If someone breaks their neck while riding a horse, then they're an idiot who deserves a broken neck. If someone mounted you and tried to *ride* you, what would you do? My guess is that you would throw them off of your back. So when a person gets thrown off the back of a creature that did not want them to be on top of it in the first place, no one should really be surprised or even disappointed. Really though, perhaps it costs millions for stem cell research because they don't want me or you having access to it. Much like I just stated in the previous paragraph in regards to life-extending drugs.

> We could supply the industry with more than enough if we used unorthodox methods, but the government is protecting the interests of a small group of people.

This doesn't sound believable to me, but I'm not a single-minded man, so if you could provide me with a link that shows just this, I would be very grateful, as well as open to having my mind changed.

The reason I have a hard time believing it, is because 29 years of living in this world has shown me that government and big business are effectively the very same thing(Interestingly, this could have been revealed in the latest US election where we now have a big-business figure taking the helm at the oval, as if there is no difference in job role). It makes no sense then, for the government to hinder the progress of big business, especially for the sake of "morality," which is a moot point when speaking of an organization that funds itself through extortion. 

>  We need to continue research and avoid regulation on industries that are the future, even if some people don’t approve of them.

As far as I can see, they are still continuing their research. People have been campaigning for a stop to animal cruelty for decades at least, yet, there is still over 100 million animals killed every year in the name of science. (And that's just in the US alone, and not including the 56 billion that are murdered for "food.")

If you think morality has gotten in the way of business at any time ever in this world, then I envy your mindset. I would love to live in a world where what is right is more important than what will make a profit. 
***
#### Forgive the very long reply. Your article inspired a lot of thought. I apologise in advance if any of my comment sounds combative. I have been informed previously that when I type, I can sound harsh. I want to be clear that I do not hold anything against you, as we all have different views. I just felt the need to share my opinion, and provide an opportunity for some healthy debate.

upvote and RS for u