From the reaction he solicited, you’d think He Jiankui had genetically modified that giant steer Knickers — then stepped in its 40-pound droppings.

Instead, he “genetically edited” the embryonic genes of twins born to Chinese parents, one stricken with the HIV virus. 

The outrage was swift and gasoline soaked. Jiankui faced a scientific backlash that ranged from accusations of playing God to opening the door to boutique babies.

My question: why?

I suppose its natural for humans to fear science. Look at our historical reaction to it: We executed scientists who dared suggest we weren’t the center of the universe, or that epilepsy wasn’t a demon curse. From Y2K to Artificial Intelligence to Genetically Modified Organisms to our president’s rejection of his scientists’ findings on global warming, our instinct appears to be shoot first and learn later.

Bioethicists, in particular, are enjoying their rare day in the media sun. More than 700 incensed scientists packed the 2nd International Summit On Human Genome Editing last week to give Jiankiui the what for.

And, to his credit, Jiankui accepted the heat, apologizing that his work was not peer reviewed beforehand, and acknowledging that details of his (government approved) work should have never been leaked on  YouTube.

But the reaction on both sides, while vitriolic, demonstrates the beauty of science. Imagine similar outrage within the same cult of Catholicism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, where pedophilia runs rampant and poses a far graver threat to humanity. Their solution is not to solve the epidemic, but to secretively move  priests and elders to a fresh set of victims.

That’s not the scientific way, though the perverted logic tracks similarly. Let’s look at a few criticisms of gene editing.

University of Wisconsin bioethicist Alta Charo, who helped organize the summit, issued the harshest critique of He’s work, calling it “misguided, premature, unnecessary and largely useless.”

“The children were already at virtually no risk of contracting HIV, because it was the father and not the mother who was infected,” she said.

According to a recent UNICEF study, globally, it is estimated that more than 1,000 babies are born with HIV every day.  Try comforting those parents with gender-based probabilities.

Next comes the “playing God” argument. Marcy Darnovsky, Ph.D.,  executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society recently wrote an op-ed piece for National Geographic. This was her summary conclusion paragraph:

“Permitting human germline gene editing for any reason would likely lead to its escape from regulatory limits, to its adoption for enhancement purposes, and to the emergence of a market-based eugenics that would exacerbate already existing discrimination, inequality, and conflict. We need not and should not risk these outcomes.”

The “could” argument is perhaps the most specious defense in human dialectics. The argument that a venture could go wrong negates any risk of venture. Had it held sway years before, would we have eradicated smallpox, malaria, polio and dozens of other diseases I don’t know shit about, but were apparently significant human threats (Rinderpest, Dracunculiasis, Hookworm, Yaws, Lymphatic filariasis, etc.). And the notion that we “should not” allow research is, at best, Orwellian. 

Next, boutique babies. What the hell that does that even mean? That we’d  scientifically engineer our babies to be taller, stronger, have blue eyes? Who gives a shit? We want ’em shorter and weaker? We socially try to create boutique babies everyday, from elite educations to space camps to “faith-based” initiatives to de-program our kids from being gay. Don’t believe in our love of boutique babies? Walk into a Baby Gap store.

We’re already fully immersed in genetic alterations. More than 40% of the sugar the U.S. consumes has GMOs to battle pesticides — a genetic modification we embrace so bugs don’t eat our food before we do. The E. coli outbreak of romaine lettuce was caused by tainted irrigation water, not test tube tomfoolery.

Finally, and most importantly, the arguments against genetic tinkering are founded on a precariously flimsy assumption: that natural is good. Tsunamis are natural. So are earthquakes. We surely exacerbate natural threats, but we don’t predate them. Nature created AIDS (in 1959, scientists agree, when an HIV-infected chimp bit a man from Léopoldville in the Belgian Congo). Damn you, monkey scientists!

The legitimate criticisms of Jiankui’s discovery are based in practice, not principle. And even he agrees the practice should be more transparent, more peer-reviewed. But there’s no jamming Pandora back in her box.

Oh, and Knickers? He wasn’t genetically modified. Just a big-ass neutered male cow. Let’s try not stepping in his pies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8