They note that in the paper, but the setting up of those meetings is also not just a scientific process. How concerned we need to be depends on whose concerns matter and who has authority to do something about them. Those are the debates that are needed.

A ‘Second Tree of Life’ Could Wreak Havoc, Scientists Warn (Gift Article) Research on so-called mirror cells, which defy fundamental properties of living organisms, should be prohibited as too dangerous, biologists said.

So many of these scientists know social scientists who could have engaged productively with these ideas as they were forming, but it seems like they wanted to roll out the old playbook of scientists acting independently. This isn’t just scientists decision to make.

www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/s...

STS scholars – Science & Technology Studies
by @anthrobite.bsky.social

bsky.app/starter-pack...

Public interest technology starter pack
by @merbroussard.bsky.social

bsky.app/starter-pack...

AI promises incredible benefits, but also terrible risks. It’s not luddism to rein it in | Sonia S... Safeguards are vital even if artificial technology helps unlock the answers to our biggest questions

I’m so tired of this benefits/risks framework, with no accounting for *who* benefits/is harmed, and whether those with the power care. How does anyone find this helpful, other than to enable those with power to keep it? www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Love that my first post over here is a screenshot of my kids school email. So many happenings! What are they?! Nobody knows 👻