If a technology could eliminate hereditary disease forever, would using it be a moral obligation or a moral hazard?
When scientists edit the genes of an unborn child, who exactly gave consent to that decision?
Is there a meaningful difference between «correcting» a genetic defect and simply deciding what kind of person should exist?
If wealthy countries develop gene-editing therapies first, does that close the gap on global health inequality or widen it?
The same tool that could help crops survive climate change could also hand corporations permanent control over the food supply. So who do you trust with that power?
For our Watch & Talk sessions, this video sparks discussion around medical ethics, corporate responsibility, inequality and access, environmental risk, and the boundaries of human intervention.
Ready to wrestle with the questions science can answer but society hasn’t figured out yet? This one will stay with you.
Watch the video here (but it’s always more interesting to talk about it 😉):
