Secret DNA Meeting Held At Harvard, Screams Bond Villains

Secret DNA Meeting Held At Harvard, Screams Bond Villains

In what just screams cabal(?), roughly 150 researchers, lawyers, ethicists, engineers and government representatives met last week in a windowless room in Harvard to discuss the future of mankind and its DNA. I wish I was making this up but the human genome and the potential for its (re)building from scratch was the order of the day.

Play Quizzes 4

DNA tech is there, now it’s in the hands of 150?

The privilege of attending this meeting came with a number of caveats, but the primary one was that those “allowed” or “invited” to attend had to sign serious non-disclosure agreements. So while I’ll speculate on what was discussed, I truly don’t know anything as those in attendance were specifically banned from speaking to any media outlets and discussing, well, the “discussion.”

How Value Investors Can Win With Tech And “Fallen” Growth Stocks

Valuation Present ValueMany value investors have given up on their strategy over the last 15 years amid concerns that value investing no longer worked. However, some made small adjustments to their strategy but remained value investors to the core. Now all of the value investors who held fast to their investment philosophy are being rewarded as value Read More

This closed door policy had a few invitees speaking out about the conference and publicly talking to their reasons for non-attendance.

Notably, Synthetic biologist Drew Endy of Stanford University, who was invited to attend, declined and when to the press with his concerns. His understanding was that this wasn’t to be a discussion as much as a plan to get people to simply sign off the group’s ideas.

“It became apparent that the event was not about discussing whether to pursue the project, but rather to conscript others,” he told New Scientist. “Should something so monumental be organized and launched in such a fashion?”

“The creation of new human life is one of the last human-associated processes that has not yet been industrialized or fully commodified. It remains an act of faith, joy, and hope,” wrote Endy, a bioengineering professor at Stanford University along with his colleague Laurie Zoloth, a medical ethics professor at Northwestern University in criticizing the arrogance of the meeting.

Hence, the conspiracy theories

The meeting, held at Harvard Medical School in Boston, was convened to discuss the synthesizing of the human genome from scratch. While that may take a decade or more, the fact that it could be done in a decade, presumably, was the reason this meeting was convened. While NASA would like to put “a man” on Mars in the 2030s, Elon Musk wants to land a rocket there next year. This is the speed at which we live and technology advances. It’s not simply Moore’s law that determines when you buy a new laptop, it’s an age where technology which was deemed impractical two years ago becomes both usable and economical in five years.

What frightens many is that it’s not simply a conversation of building the human genome itself but the fact that building the “perfect human” is also on the table.

“For example, could scientists synthesize a modified human genome that is resistant to all natural viruses?” asked Zoloth and Endy.

“They likely could, for purely beneficial purposes, but what if others then sought to synthesise modified viruses that overcame such resistance? Might doing so start a genome-engineering arms race?,” the two wrote.

One of the organizers of the meeting was Harvard biologist George Church. Church, like the church, is not without his controversies and has spoken to his desire to bring back the woolly mammoth as well as introducing edited pig genes for human transplant.

Church maintains that there was nothing secret about the meeting  but rather simply in line with the upcoming publication of a journal piece that doesn’t allow for conversation ahead of going to press. He maintains that this particular major scientific journal insists on peer-review rather than “science by press release” according to statements he made to the Washington Post.

“It wasn’t secret. There was nothing secret or private about it,” said Church in conversation with the Washington Post.

The good doctor also told the WP that the group was not speaking to the creation of humans simply a conversation about the goal that “would be to synthesize a complete human genome in a cell line within a period of 10 years.”

I don’t, per se, have a problem with my food be genetically engineered but there exists an ethical question about gene modification in humans that is not being explored nearly as quickly as gene modification techniques are becoming affordable.

Quite simply, scientists are already hard at work on modifying the human genome but gene editing is limited. Given a synthetic human genome in its entirety presents a new opportunity to truly “play God.” While that argument and discussion is indeed happening, it’s happening behind closed doors and veiled in non-disclosure agreements.

Updated on

While studying economics, Brendan found himself comfortably falling down the rabbit hole of restaurant work, ultimately opening a consulting business and working as a private wine buyer. On a whim, he moved to China, and in his first week following a triumphant pub quiz victory, he found himself bleeding on the floor based on his arrogance. The same man who put him there offered him a job lecturing for the University of Wales in various sister universities throughout the Middle Kingdom. While primarily lecturing in descriptive and comparative statistics, Brendan simultaneously earned an Msc in Banking and International Finance from the University of Wales-Bangor. He's presently doing something he hates, respecting French people. Well, two, his wife and her mother in the lovely town of Antigua, Guatemala. <i>To contact Brendan or give him an exclusive, please contact him at</i>
Previous article Liquid Wire Material Inspired By Spider Silk
Next article Noble Group, Its Risk And Its Circularity With The Energy Commodity Prices

No posts to display


  1. whats the difference between telling scientists they cant experiment with human genes, and telling races they cannot interbreed? nothing, they are both eugenics. let scientists do what they want, its non of your buisiness when other people want to have a baby their way, they don’t have to conform to your ethics, its their kid, their dna, their choice.

  2. He is still in the rabbit hole. They are meeting . . . no windows . . . can’t talk about it . . . oh know a cabal!!! Hell I had to sign a similar agreement to make diapers years ago never thought it was a cabal. Smokey keep it within the realms of observable facts, keep the sci-fi for dime novels.

  3. Either with this esteemed group’s blessing or not, the future of our evolution is out of the realm of natural selection and in the hands of the best connected, moneyed, lawyered and intelligent. All we can hope for is, at some benign level, we as a species are judged us to be of intrinsic value.

Comments are closed.