Letter: Scientific origins of 'genetic pornography'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lewis Wolpert complains of "genetic pornography" (Hypotheses, Review, 12 May) but does not stop to consider who the pornographers might be. In the case he cites of the mouse with a human ear-shaped piece of tissue on its back, it is surely the scientists themselves who are to blame.
It is curious that while Wolpert celebrates the "clinical geneticists" who work on the blood disease thalassemia, he manages to phrase the mouse anecdote in such a way that one might believe no people were responsible for this tasteless and scientifically worthless publicity stunt.
Hugh Aldersey-Williams
London N19
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments