> On the other hand, if I make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant, with the idea of producing an early-flowering varietal for northern climates, that's entirely safe (assuming no other accidental changes were made).
No, this is not true if someone is pointing a nuclear missile at NYC and will fire it if you "make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant". It's important that you clarify the point by also adding in the caveat excluding this case. I am also told that what you propose is unsafe in the event that there is a terrorist with a bomb who will explode in Penn Station if you make that edit.
It is important that we be precise with safety language since otherwise we may mislead people about the state of the field. Please be more responsible.
This is nonsense, it’s obvious what type of safety OP meant. I have no idea what could be irresponsible about not including contrived, ridiculous scenarios.
It’s like saying he also should have accounted for the possibility fairies will turn you into a newt if you edit a gene, or into a rabbit, or if a wizard will turn you into a newt. You can make up an infinite amount of this bs.
No, this is not true if someone is pointing a nuclear missile at NYC and will fire it if you "make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant". It's important that you clarify the point by also adding in the caveat excluding this case. I am also told that what you propose is unsafe in the event that there is a terrorist with a bomb who will explode in Penn Station if you make that edit.
It is important that we be precise with safety language since otherwise we may mislead people about the state of the field. Please be more responsible.