How to explore Scott Alexander's work and his 1500+ blog posts? This unaffiliated fan website lets you sort and do semantic search through the whole codex. Enjoy!

See also Top Posts and All Tags.

Tag: bioethics

Minutes:
Blog:
Year:
Show all filters

5 posts found
Aug 20, 2025
acx
Read on
23 min 3,515 words Comments pending podcast (19 min)
Scott responds to three concerns about embryo selection: embryo personhood rights, loss of trait diversity, and the ethics of preventing disabilities, arguing that none of these objections are fatal to the technology. Longer summary
Scott Alexander responds to three major concerns about embryo selection raised in response to a previous post. First, he addresses whether embryos have personhood rights, arguing that embryos lack the qualities (consciousness, intelligence, etc) that make humans morally valuable. He refutes various counterarguments about potential personhood and responds to edge cases like sleeping hermits. Second, he discusses concerns about trait diversity, arguing that the technology's limited power and slow adoption mean diversity concerns are premature. Third, he addresses the ethics of telling disabled people you'd prefer they didn't exist, comparing it to other situations where we try to prevent certain conditions without devaluing existing people. Shorter summary
Jul 31, 2025
acx
Read on
56 min 8,609 words 806 comments 354 likes podcast (60 min)
Scott analyzes the sudden emergence of commercial trait-based embryo selection services, discussing both the scientific validity and ethical implications of selecting embryos for health outcomes, intelligence, and physical traits. Longer summary
Scott examines the recent development of commercial embryo selection services, particularly focusing on companies like Genomic Prediction, Orchid Health, Nucleus, and Herasight. He explains how the technology works, comparing different companies' claims and methodologies, and discusses both scientific challenges and ethical concerns. The post explores the potential benefits, like reduced disease risk and increased IQ, while acknowledging issues around cost, racial disparities, and social implications. A significant portion focuses on Herasight's critique of competitor Nucleus's scientific claims. The post concludes by placing this technology in the broader context of human enhancement and future technological developments. Shorter summary
Jun 12, 2024
acx
Read on
9 min 1,374 words 964 comments 297 likes podcast (9 min)
Scott Alexander discusses the concept of genetic and personal inferiority, arguing that while objective differences exist, framing comparisons in terms of inferiority is unproductive and potentially harmful. Longer summary
Scott Alexander explores the concept of genetic inferiority, using cystic fibrosis as an example to distinguish between scientific/bioethical questions and potentially harmful social comparisons. He then extends this reasoning to personal comparisons, arguing that while objective differences between individuals exist, framing these as questions of superiority or inferiority is unproductive and potentially harmful. The post suggests that rejecting the framing of such comparisons is more beneficial than attempting to argue for equality in all aspects. Shorter summary
Dec 18, 2019
ssc
Read on
38 min 5,826 words 84 comments podcast (40 min)
This post examines the pros and cons of using gene editing technologies in humans, discussing scientific, medical, and ethical considerations. Longer summary
This post discusses the potential uses, risks, and ethical implications of gene editing technologies in humans. It covers the science behind CRISPR, its safety and efficiency, the relationship between genetics and disease, and potential applications in treating conditions like cancer and HIV. The authors explore complex questions around genetic enhancement and 'designer babies', highlighting both the promise and perils of this technology. They conclude that while gene editing holds great potential, especially for certain genetic diseases, its use must be carefully regulated and ethically considered. Shorter summary
Feb 06, 2015
ssc
Read on
5 min 719 words 595 comments
A satirical future op-ed argues that not giving children 'super-enhancement gene therapy' is child abuse, mirroring current pro-vaccination arguments. Longer summary
This satirical post, written as if from the future year 2065, critiques current anti-vaccination arguments by applying them to a hypothetical future technology: super-enhancement designer baby gene therapy. The author, posing as a bioethicist, argues that not giving children this therapy is child abuse and a public health issue. The post mimics common pro-vaccination arguments, citing increased crime rates, car accidents, and disease outbreaks as consequences of not enhancing children. It concludes by calling for severe restrictions on unenhanced children and punishment for parents who refuse the therapy. The satire aims to highlight the absurdity of current anti-vaccination arguments by applying similar logic to a more extreme scenario. Shorter summary