Nazi-era IG Farben poison chemical company


Monsanto to be acquired by Bayer,

the Nazi-era IG Farben 'crimes

against humanity' poison chemical


It is altogether fitting that Monsanto, the world's most evil corporate monster, is now going to be acquired by Bayer, the Nazi-era war crimes chemical company that committed crimes against humanity.
The price of this demonic acquisition that will spell doom for humanity? A mere $66 billion.

"German drug and crop chemical maker Bayer clinched a $66 billion takeover of U.S. seeds company Monsanto on Wednesday," reports Reuters. "If the deal closes, it will create a company commanding more than a quarter of the combined world market for seeds and pesticides in the fast-consolidating farm supplies industry."

Reuters goes on to explain, "What the newly-formed company would be named is unclear."

Introduced MonSatanFarben

The combined name, of course, should be "MonSatanFarben" because Bayer is an offshoot of Interessengemeinschaft Farben, the Nazi-era chemical company that worked with Adolf Hitler to develop and deploy deadly chemical weapons against humanity.

Via the IG Farben page on Truthwiki:

September of 1939: Germany invades Poland and within two days, France and Britain declare war on Germany. Hitler seized Norway and Denmark for the naval war against British trade supplies from America. Hitler had a war plan like no other in history, and it involved using chemicals against the enemy, even in the war camps. So how did Hitler gain SO MUCH POWER so fast? [By deploying a] cyanide-based pesticide that was invented in the early 1920s in Germany, best known as Zyklon B, and was being used by Nazi Germany to murder over ONE MILLION PEOPLE in gas chambers that Hitler's engineers and architects installed at Auschwitz death camp, the slaughtering headquarter and largest of all the other extermination camps.

In waging World War II, Hitler and the Nazi regime hoped to control the world by force. Today, Monsanto and Bayer have learned that controlling the world by controlling the food supply is far easier in comparison (and relatively few people resist... go figure).

Now, with the Bayer acquisition of Monsanto a near certainty, we can get ready for the obvious next step for humanity's downfall...

Bayer -- MonSatanFarben -- will weaponize control of the food supply to control humanity

The next step in all this is rather obvious. With control over one-quarter of the world's seed supply, MonSatanFarben (Bayer) will very sooner or later exploit its domineering control over the food supply as a means to control entire nations.

Even before that happens, Bayer will be poisoning most of humanity with glyphosate herbicide (RoundUp), which now inundates much of the food supply.

It seems that Bayer's desire to use chemicals to commit crimes against humanity never really ended with the Nazis.
Now, with its acquisition of Monsanto, Bayer is revisiting that dark, demonic history and hoping to wield modern agricultural chemical weapons against all those who once escaped the Zyklon B gas chambers of the Nazi era.

Except this time, they're not just coming for the Jews. They're waging indiscriminate depopulation and hoping to cause widespread infertility, cancer and early death across the entire human population.

When the ashes of modern civilization are sifted through by future scientists, Bayer will be identified as playing a prominent role in the chemical destruction and downfall of humanity.


The World According to Monsanto
Corporate monopolies are not new, but ownership of patented grain seeds connotes that the control of the food supply is in the grasp of a private company. US supreme court rules in favor of Monsanto, "that a farmer in Indiana violated the intellectual property rights of the agricultural biotechnology titan Monsanto when he regrew the company’s genetically modified and herbicide-resistant soybean seeds by planting second-generation seeds."
Dave Murphy, Executive Director and founder of Food Democracy Now, explains the ultimate outcome.
The stats on the prevailing position of this threat, compiled in U.S. and Monsanto Dominate Global Market for GM Seeds, are alarming. If that is not enough, the video The World According to Monsanto along with the Documentary, provides the evidence that has long gone ignored. America lives in the dark ages when it comes to ingesting the poison from GMO designer crops. Ellen Brown provides the proof in, Monsanto, the TPP and Global Food Dominance. Collusion among the courts, regulators, agency administrators, lobbyists (Monsanto Hires Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln As Lobbyist), politicians and the free trade interests, to facilitate the adoption of a biological genetic frankenstein diet is evident in, Why Monsanto Always Wins by Mike Ludwig.

How many times will the merger of corporatist influence with governmental cooperation put the public at risk, before this insidious process is recognized as systemic corruption?

Whatever else you think of former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, he has the guts to confront "The Influence And Corruption Of The Political Process By Monsanto", in a hard hitting video. No wonder he was gerrymandered out of office.

Ms. Brown continues and injects political influence into the equation that will virtually guarantee Monsanto’s profits as they feed poisonous food to the consumer.

The fraud perpetrated in The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming, is an affront to the Creator, even his children are blind to the consequences of designing seeds that require a license to plant.

The article, Genetic Modified Foods - Senate Bill S510, examines the highest of all stakes.

F. William Engdahl in an interview with RT, ‘Monsanto is the metaphor for genetic manipulation, food chain control’, nicely sums up the complicity in creating a NWO food supply.

The Globalist objective to reduce the earthly population coincides with Monsanto’s strategy to strangle the food supply. The world their 'substantial equivalence' envisions has no equality among humans. The roundup has begun and the survivors will be few.

James Hall – January 1, 2014

Human-animal embryo research likened to sci-fi

by David Roach August 10, 2016

NASHVILLE (BP) -- A National Institutes of Health proposal to fund research that inserts human stem cells into animal embryos has provoked warnings from evangelical bioethicists.

The focus of the proposed research would be studying human diseases and growing human organs in animals for transplants. But potential side effects of so-called "chimera research" -- a reference to Greek mythological creatures that were part goat, part snake and part lion --include destruction of human embryos, creation of animals with some semblance of human intelligence and creation of animals with the ability to produce human offspring.

"At the end of the day, it's a means versus ends question," said C. Ben Mitchell, provost and Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University. "Few people will object to the humane use of animals for the creation of discreet human tissues like kidneys or pancreases. But, if the means to that end involves immoral methods or requires the destruction of unborn human beings, the end does not justify the means."

Since September 2015 the National Institutes of Health has upheld a funding moratorium on research that introduces human pluripotent cells, which can develop into all types of cells in the body, into animal embryos prior to an early stage of development known as gastrulation. But in an Aug. 4 blog post, N.I.H. associate director for science policy Carrie Wolinetz announced two proposed changes:

-- Allowing human pluripotent cells to be introduced at an early stage into all animal embryos except non-human primates like monkeys, which are genetically similar to humans. Human stem cells could be added later in embryo development for such creatures.

-- Allowing human cells to be introduced into mammals other than rodents in order to modify the animals' brains.

Even if the new research guidelines were adopted, experiments still would be banned that involve breeding animals with human egg or sperm cells -- which could produce human offspring. However, bioethicists David Prentice and Chuck Donovan noted in a commentary for The Daily Signal that attempts to keep such animals from breeding "would likely not be 100 percent effective -- just ask anyone who has run an animal facility."

The public has 30 days to comment on the N.I.H. proposal. If it is adopted, the agency could begin funding animal-human research projects in early 2017, NPR reported.

Like all N.I.H. proposals, these provisions would apply only to government-funded research. Privately-funded research involving human stem cells and animal embryos would not be prohibited, according to The New York Times.

Charles Patrick, a former biomedical researcher and current vice president for strategic initiatives and communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press the source of pluripotent human stem cells is one concern with human-animal embryo research.

"The cells being considered for injecting are human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)," Patrick said in written comments. "iPSCs are adult stem cells 'tricked' or induced to become pluripotent or hESC-like cells. There are no biblical or ethical issues with these cells.

"However, hESCs are derived from embryos developed via in vitro fertilization. From a biblical perspective, life begins at conception and thus life is being destroyed if hESCs are utilized," said Patrick, whose focus during 13 years at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center was tissue engineering.

Mitchell echoed the concern, categorizing the "cannibalizing human embryos for their stem cells" as "morally reprehensible."

Another concern for Patrick is that inserting human brain tissue into animals could "inadvertently trigger the transfer of human characteristics (such as intelligence, consciousness or speech) into an animal."

Mitchell, editor of Ethics and Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, likewise expressed "worry that the result" of the N.I.H.-proposed research "might be animals with significant amounts of human brain tissue."

"What would this mean? Is this a new species? This sounds like H. G. Wells' 'Island of Dr. Moreau,'" Mitchell told BP, referencing a novel in which a mad scientist creates animals "fused with human genes."

Additionally, Mitchell stated, "if the protocol permits the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos, we have yet another problem. How much human DNA makes an embryo human? How are these embryos to be regarded ethically? Are their harms to unborn human beings? These are profound questions that demand answers before we move forward."

The Bible, Patrick said, "is clear in Genesis that God created man distinct from animals and gave man authority over animals. It would seem prudent to be very careful with technologies that potentially blur the distinction in God's created order."

Federal government to lift ban on

scientists creating part-human,

part-animal embryos




The federal government plans to lift the ban on funding controversial experiments in which researchers use human stem cells to create partially human animal embryos.

After initially imposing a moratorium on the funding for ethical reasons, The National Institutes of Health, abbreviated as NIH, is proposing a new policy.


The new policy would permit scientists to receive federal money to create these embryos, which are known as chimeras, under carefully monitored conditions.

Scientists in favor of the new plan hope to use the study to find cures for disease. They also hope to be able to grow human organs like hearts and livers inside certain animals to be used as transplants for humans.

Other scientists argue these chimeras may unintentionally be created with a part human brain, giving them a semblance of human consciousness and cognitive ability, among other issues.

If the proposal moves forward, NIH could start funding projects by early 2017.



The Original version of the paper-back is still available at AMAZON.CO.UK for the time being.

"OUT OF THE BOTTOMLESS PIT" (back page writing)

This Book about the paranormal is well worth the read & is indeed very intriguing. Once you start to read it you can’t put the book down as the topics are so interesting and the documentations are extremely thorough.

From Joseph Candel (Author and writer of current events)

“It was so enthralling that I simply couldn’t put it down”… Joanna S. (Editor)

A compelling and fascinating collaboration of both unusual and unexplainable happenings as well as the sinister plans underlying them. John B.

A “Survivor’s Guide” in a world of confusion. The historical facts & well researched details from varied, informative sources challenge our basic assumptions about the truths that we think we know. Allan Trenholm (Author of Journey to Tricon & Journey to Gragau)

E-mail address for this site is:

Jurassic Park in real life: The race to modify the DNA of endangered animals and resurrect extinct ones (15.4.15)


It is without irony that some scientists are seriously raising the possibility of bringing back the mammoth from extinction to help prevent our own demise

Jurassic Park has a lot to answer for. It made the idea seem so simple. Take the DNA from a microscopic drop of dinosaur blood, preserved for 65 million years in the gut of a mosquito trapped in fossilised amber. Carry out a bit of jiggery-pokery involving chaos theory and Jeff Goldblum. Insert the dino DNA into the yolk of a crocodile’s egg and leave to incubate. Soon you’ll have a thriving menagerie of once-extinct beasts roaming the jungles of someone’s private theme park. The 1993 Hollywood blockbuster and Michael Crichton novel of the same name may not have invented the idea of “de-extinction” but they certainly put it out there as a concept. And like all good works of science fiction, it showed what goes wrong when scientists get above themselves. A rampant T-rex is, after all, the ultimate invasive species.

De-extinction, or the idea of bringing extinct species back from the dead, has come a long way over the quarter century since Jurassic Park was first published. It has now matured into a quasi-serious science and has even been the subject of its own TEDx conference. Of course, no-one is talking about bringing back dinosaurs – their DNA is lost for good – but some scientists are proposing to resurrect a range of other, more-recently extinct species such as the passenger pigeon and the gastric-brooding frog, both lost within living memory.

There are quite a few animals that have become extinct relatively recently that are potential candidates for de-extinction. They include the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, a large marsupial carnivore wiped out by sheep ranchers a century ago, the Pyrenean ibex which was hunted for sport until the last one fell dead in 2000, and the Steller’s sea cow, a gentle giant annihilated by hungry sailors in the 18th century.

Perhaps the most emblematic of them all is the woolly mammoth. There are few animals that better represent the lost world of the Pleistocene than these huge, shaggy relatives of the modern elephant. Woolly mammoths roamed the vast grassy steppe of Eurasia and North America for hundreds of millennia. The very last individuals were an isolated population of pygmy woolly mammoths that lived on Wrangel Island off northern Russia about 4,500 years ago.

There is no shortage of woolly mammoth tissue, some of it remarkably well preserved in the permafrost of Siberia and some scientists are confident that they can extract its DNA to bring the species back to life, either as clones or as a kind of mammoth-elephant hybrid.


Scientists in South Korea and Russia are collaborating on a project to clone a woolly mammoth by extracting a cell nucleus from frozen mammoth tissue and inserting its entire genetic material into the enucleated egg cell of an Asian elephant, which would also act as a surrogate mother. It’s the same basic cloning technique that led to the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep in 1996, except this time two species are involved rather than one – and one of them has been extinct for thousands of years.

The difficulties facing this particular de-extinction project are immense and few expect it to succeed. For a start, finding a good enough mammoth cell nucleus in preserved tissue is a tall order. Getting it to spark into life as a cloned embryo developing from the egg of another species is even more problematic – and that’s before the difficulties of pregnancy and birth.

At present, the oldest frozen material used to create a cloned mammal has been laboratory-stored cells of mice kept in a fridge for 16 years. Being able to clone a mammoth from tissue cells that have been frozen for thousands of years in less than ideal conditions presents a far more formidable set of obstacles.

Back for good? ‘Jurassic Park’ popularised the idea of de-extinction, which could potentially be used on other species, including mammoths

Another de-extinction approach is to cut and paste large fragments of mammoth DNA into the chromosomes of an Asian elephant, thereby creating a genetically-engineered mammoth-elephant “hybrid”. Scientists involved in this project prefer to think about it as a way of making a cold-adapted Asian elephant with mammoth-like traits, such as hairy skin and layers of subcutaneous fat for good thermal insulation.

Scientists have already managed to sequence about half of the mammoth genome from the many small fragments of DNA isolated from frozen remnants of biological material, such as skin, hair, bone, teeth and even dung. They believe it is only a question of time before they achieve their ultimate de-extinction aim: a living hybrid. “We’re preparing to make a hybrid elephant that would have the best features of modern elephants and the best features of mammoths,” George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, told the TEDx conference on de-extinction, held in Washington two years ago.

Since then, Professor Church has applied a sophisticated and revolutionary “gene editing” technique known as Crispr and has managed to get it working in elephant cells to carry out 14 precise changes to its genome. “We are now working on in vitro organogenesis [organ formation] and embryogenesis [embryo formation],” he told The Independent in an email.

Put to one side for the moment the question of “why would anyone want to do this?” and ask “can Professor Church and his colleagues be serious?” Would it really be possible to bring back mammoths, or at least a creatures resembling and behaving as them, using the synthetic life technology of molecular genetics and cloning?

Beth Shapiro, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz and expert on the ancient DNA of the Arctic, is something of a sceptic – despite writing a book called How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-extinction. She points out the immense technical problems with this kind of work, mostly connected to the degradation of the DNA molecule after thousands of years. She says there are seven steps needed to clone a mammoth, starting with the DNA sequencing of the full mammoth genome, and ending with the birth and rearing of the mammoth hybrid or clone, and we haven’t yet cracked problem number one.

“It’s a hard problem and a problem that probably won’t be solved without new and different biotechnology to what’s available today. But if it’s what we want to do we will eventually learn how to sequence the complete genome of an extinct animal. And then we will have completed step one,” she says.

Tasmanian tiger is a candidate for de-extinction
“While it’s not clear to me that there are compelling reasons to bring exact replicas of extinct species back to life, there may be compelling reasons to develop the technology to genetically manipulate living species. For example, this technology might be useful to provide a genetic “booster” shot for species that are critically endangered. So, instead of using this technology to bring extinct species back to life, we could use this technology to aid in the conservation of living and endangered species or ecosystems,” she says.

Hendrik Poinar, principal investigator at the ancient DNA centre at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, is more optimistic. Like Professor Church, he is excited by the idea of de-extinction. He believes the technical barriers are not necessarily insurmountable. “The revival of an extinct species is actually within reach,” he says. “I do believe it is. How you define ‘extinct’ may be at question. But I have no doubt that at some point we will be very close to having an organism that looks, feels and maybe even at some point behaves as its extinct ancestors did. ”

Which brings us back to the question: why? Even if it were possible to generate enough individuals to produce a viable, breeding population of mammoths or mammoth-elephant hybrids, what would be the point? Some conservationists believe that the entire enterprise is a potentially dangerous distraction from the main job of preserving the many thousands of threatened species we still have left in the world. For years they have argued that “extinction is forever” but if governments and corporations believe that it’s not, then this could fatally undermine efforts to preserve and protect what we have.

Stanley Temple, emeritus professor University of Wisconsin-Madison, believes that even if it works, the de-extinction approach could end up with a net loss of biodiversity, with less charismatic species in particular losing out. “Conservation biologists worry about de-extinction having a destabilising effect. If extinction is not forever, a lot changes... de-extinction might undermine conservation efforts. It could reduce concern over threats to biodiversity by giving us an unfortunate ‘out’,” he says.

Professor Church argues the opposite. He says that creating a cold-adapted Asian elephant would mean that the species could roam further north than its existing, threatened habitat. “Elephants are currently in danger as they overlap with human populations. If they could be readapted to places of minus 50C, where there is low human density, they would stand a higher chance of survival,” he says. Both have suggested that the present-day tundra landscape of Canada or Siberia could accommodate a latter-day population of mammoths. It would be an extreme version of the idea of re-introducing lost species into an ecosystem where they were once expelled, only this time set in the Pleistocene and not in the present.

The currently-extinct passenger pigeon could also see the light of the day again soon (Encyclopaedia Britannica/UIG/REX)
“This landscape would easily be able to house the mammoth and I have to admit that there is a part of me, the child or boy in me, that would love to see these majestic creatures walk across the permafrost once again, but I do have to admit that part of me, the adult in me, sometimes wonders whether or not we should,” Poinar says.

By knowing about the mammoth-elephant genes for oxygen transport in the blood, the genes for body fat and hair growth, and other genes needed for survival, it might be possible to recreate a hybrid elephant-mammoth that is well suited for the conditions of the subarctic tundra, Professor Church believes. Furthermore, the reintroductions of this extinct species could have wider benefits for the Siberian wilderness, he argues, citing the work of Russian scientists who are already trying to recreate the sub-arctic habitat of the Pleistocene.

One such researcher is Sergey Zimov, director of the Northeast Science Station in Cherkii, in the Russian republic of Sakha. Zimov has long had an ambition of bringing back ice-age species and letting them loose in an area of Siberia he has named Pleistocene Park – a vast nature reserve on the Kolyma river in the Russian Far East that aims to recreate the subarctic steppe grassland that was replaced by mossy tundra when the mammoths became extinct.

Zimov articulated his vision 10 years ago in the American journal Science. He argued that recreating the lost Pleistocene habitat could be possible by re-introducing the right combination of animals that helped to shape these landscapes. “If we accept the argument that the pasture landscapes were destroyed because herbivore populations were decimated by human hunting, then it stands to reason that those landscapes can be reconstituted by the judicious return of appropriate herbivore communities,” Zimov wrote.

His vision is to have reindeer, moose, Yakutian horses, musk oxen, hares, marmots and squirrels feeding on the vegetation of Pleistocene Park. These could be kept in check by predators such as wolves, bears, lynxes, wolverines, foxes, polar foxes and sables. Bison could eventually be re-introduced from Canada and even the Amur tiger could be brought in as a predator, once animal densities increase to levels that would sustain such a carnivore, he explained.

If mammoths existed, they would play a role in maintaining the grassy vegetation of the mammoth steppe, which turned from relatively lush grass steppe to mossy tundra once they went extinct. By constantly churning the ground and spreading their manure, mammoths would be the key species that would keep the grassy steppe from being smothered again by mossy tundra. Some experiments have even indicated that a mammoth-trampled tundra would keep the ground colder and prevent it from thawing in a warmer climate.

In Zimov’s vision, returning the tundra to mammoth steppe would help to keep the vast stores of carbon locked away in the Siberian permafrost from escaping as the world gets warmer. “At present, the frozen soils lock up a vast store of organic carbon. With an average carbon content of 2.5 per cent, the soil of the mammoth ecosystem harbours about 500 gigatons of carbon, 2.5 times that of all rainforests combined,” Zimov argues.

“Preventing this scenario from happening could be facilitated by restoring Pleistocene-like conditions in which grasses and their root systems stabilise the soil. The albedo – or ability to reflect incoming sunlight skyward – of such ecosystems is high, so warming from solar radiation also is reduced,” he explains. “And with lots of herbivores present, much of the wintertime snow would be trampled, exposing the ground to colder temperatures that prevent ice from melting. All of this suggests that reconstructed grassland ecosystems... could prevent permafrost from thawing and mitigate some negative consequences of climate warming.”

It is without irony that some scientists are seriously raising the possibility of bringing back the mammoth from extinction to help prevent our own demise. But not everyone is happy with the idea of de-extinction. Some conservationists see it as a distraction from the battle to preserve species teetering on the brink.

“If it works, de-extinction will only target a few species and it’s very expensive. Will it divert conservation dollars from true conservation measures that already work, which are already short of funds?” asks David Ehrenfeld, professor of biology at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “At this moment brave conservationists are already risking their lives to protect dwindling groups of African forest elephants from heavily-armed poachers, and here we are talking about bringing back the woolly mammoth.

Think about it

Why Is The Scientific World Abuzz About An Unpublished Paper?

Because It Could Create Humans That (Once Again) Become “Fit Extensions” For Those Immortals That Tom Horn & Cris Putnam Are Warning About — Will The Human Genetic Code Be Permanently Altered And Bring Back What The Watchers Did In Ancient Times That Caused ‘All Flesh’ To Be Corrupted!


Scientists around the world are anticipating the results of a Chinese study that would mark the first time DNA in a human embryo has been modified in a way that would carry into future generations. SOURCE:-(

The research will mark a significant milestone: the first time human DNA has been altered so substantially that it will change the “germ line” — the eggs or sperm of any child produced from the embryo. This will allow humans to modify their own eggs and sperm as well as offspring. In terms of changing the germ line in this way, “we are very close,” said George Church, a Harvard genetics professor who pioneered genome sequencing in his PhD. “In animal models, you can make animal sperm that has whatever alteration that you want. To say that we’re far away I think would be naive, to embrace it right away without proper testing would also be naive.” With the medical advancements come concerns of “designer babies” or a 21st-century version of eugenics. Germ-line research “does get into deeper questions of eugenics, especially with spectrum disorders,” he said. “We’ve got to take a deep breath because we’re about to alter the human genetic code in a way that it’s never been altered before.”

TO BE CONTINUED: (Steve author of this website)



On April 3 2015, a group of prominent biologists and ethicists writing in Science called for a moratorium on germline gene engineering.

This means modifications to the human genome that will be passed on to future generations. The moratorium would apply to a technology called CRISPR/Cas9, which enables the removal of undesirable genes, insertion of desirable ones, and the broad recoding of nearly any DNA sequence. Such modifications could affect every cell in an adult human being, including germ cells, and therefore be passed down through the generations. Many organisms across the range of biological complexity have already been edited in this way to generate designer bacteria, plants and primates. There is little reason to believe the same could not be done with human eggs, sperm and embryos. Now that the technology to engineer human germlines is here, the advocates for a moratorium declared, it is time to chart a prudent path forward. The experts calling for a moratorium on human germline editing assert that more research must be done before we can judge the ethical propriety of genetically modifying children. Besides, they argue, global publics must be educated by experts before an informed dialogue can take place. But the problem is not simply a lack of technical knowledge. The answer to how we should act does not lie in the technological details of CRISPR. It is our responsibility to decide, as parents and citizens, whether our current genetic preferences should be edited, for all time, into our children and our children’s children

Complete story follows:-

Human genetic engineering demands more than a moratorium



Expert calls for a moratorium on germline gene engineering are no substitute for richer public debate on the ethics and politics of our biotechnological futures.



On April 3 2015, a group of prominent biologists and ethicists writing in Science called for a moratorium on germline gene engineering; modifications to the human genome that will be passed on to future generations. The moratorium would apply to a technology called CRISPR/Cas9, which enables the removal of undesirable genes, insertion of desirable ones, and the broad recoding of nearly any DNA sequence.

Such modifications could affect every cell in an adult human being, including germ cells, and therefore be passed down through the generations. Many organisms across the range of biological complexity have already been edited in this way to generate designer bacteria, plants and primates. There is little reason to believe the same could not be done with human eggs, sperm and embryos. Now that the technology to engineer human germlines is here, the advocates for a moratorium declared, it is time to chart a prudent path forward. They recommend four actions: a hold on clinical applications; creation of expert forums; transparent research; and a globally representative group to recommend policy approaches.

If these recommendations seem familiar, it is because this is not the first time science leaders have responded to a similar problem. In calling for a moratorium on germline modification, the group invoked a famous precedent: the 1975 meeting at Asilomar, California on recombinant DNA. Two years before that meeting, scientists declared a voluntary moratorium on experiments that they worried might endanger human health and the environment. The moratorium allowed for a period of reflection to ensure that scientific progress would proceed without putting society’s wellbeing at risk.

Asilomar is remembered as a great success because it defused public anxiety and opened up the market for biotechnology. It is frequently cited when people are uncertain about what is at stake in emerging scientific domains. Asilomar offers an easy recipe for public policy: a research moratorium followed by an expert assessment of which risks are acceptable and which warrant regulation. It is a tonic to cure public anxiety and create safe spaces for science.

But how good is the Asilomar model for governing controversial biotechnological advances? The answers are ambiguous at best. The Asilomar meeting achieved agreement in part by bracketing off three serious concerns: environmental release of engineered organisms; biosecurity; and ethical and social aspects of human genetic engineering. Decades later, these are precisely the issues we are still wrestling with in the public domain.

The molecular biologists at Asilomar sidestepped ecological concerns by prohibiting the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. A few years later, scientists on the US Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee unilaterally tried to end the prohibition on release of genetically modified (GM) organisms into the environment without asking for an environmental impact assessment. They judged the issues to be purely technical, to be resolved by scientific expertise alone. But history suggests their confidence was misplaced. Persistent controversy over GM crops and foods, longstanding in Europe and on the rise in the United States, indicate that legitimate public concerns about the benefits of these technologies could not simply be wished away.

Biosecurity came back to haunt us in 2012 when a Dutch researcher at Erasmus University used research funding from the US National Institutes of Health to create an H5N1 flu virus that could cause a pandemic. He sought to publish the results, raising sudden concern that this knowledge could be used as a tool of bioterrorism. Yet multiple rounds of scientific peer review had essentially failed to question whether the research itself was beneficial or appropriate.

Ethical questions, too, continue to swirl around genetic engineering and embryo research. Rumors that genes of human embryos have already been edited resurrect anxieties that the Asilomar scientists neither defused nor eliminated.

The experts calling for a moratorium on human germline editing assert that more research must be done before we can judge the ethical propriety of genetically modifying children. Besides, they argue, global publics must be educated by experts before an informed dialogue can take place. But the problem is not simply a lack of technical knowledge. The answer to how we should act does not lie in the technological details of CRISPR. It is our responsibility to decide, as parents and citizens, whether our current genetic preferences should be edited, for all time, into our children and our children’s children.

A moratorium without provisions for ongoing public deliberation narrows our understanding of risks and bypasses democracy. Regrettably, we have not yet developed the habits of deliberation that could guide research agendas before technological innovation renders neglected ethical questions immediate and urgent. Even in technologically advanced societies, we tend to defer to expert judgments about which risks are reasonable to worry about, and which are not. This is a democratic deficit. It inhibits our capacity to participate thoughtfully in imagining the futures we want and governing technological change accordingly.

An effective moratorium must be grounded in the principle that the power to modify the human genome demands serious engagement not only from scientists and ethicists but from all citizens. We need a more complex architecture for public deliberation, built on the recognition that we, as citizens, have a duty to participate in shaping our biotechnological futures, just as governments have a duty to empower us to participate in that process. Decisions such as whether or not to edit human genes should not be left to elite and invisible experts, whether in universities, ad hoc commissions, or parliamentary advisory committees. Nor should public deliberation be temporally limited by the span of a moratorium or narrowed to topics that experts deem reasonable to debate.

Education has a vital role to play in remedying the democratic deficit, but what citizens need is not simply more STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) courses. Knowing science does not teach us how to live well with its power. Our universities need to devote more resources to teaching the relationship between science, technology and society so as to produce the citizens, the concepts, and the conversations capable of guiding our common future.

Prudence demands that we marshal the full force of democracy to imagine the lives we want. Otherwise we will find ourselves governed by technologies whose implications we did not foresee and whose development we chose to neglect.

Sheila Jasanoff (@SJasanoff) is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School. J. Benjamin Hurlbut is assistant professor of bioscience ethics in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University. Krishanu Saha (@sahakris) is assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.