- MIT Technology Review article on polygenic embryo screening is criticized as scientifically naïve; participants argue the engineering is already feasible and the “science isn’t there” claim reflects misunderstanding rather than technical limits.  
- Vision.org interview with Richard Hayes warns of “new techno-eugenics,” continuing the channel’s debate on germline engineering ethics and public perception.  
- eGenesis closed a $100 M Series B to use CRISPR editing to knock out porcine endogenous retroviruses and make pig organs safe for human xenotransplantation.  
- A newly approved beta-thalassemia gene-therapy drug is priced at ~$2 M per treatment; participants suggest plotting such prices to investors to illustrate the economic “holy grail” of ultra-expensive genomic medicines.  
- Pre-print on bioRxiv describes how genealogical DNA uploads can be weaponized to infer identities and compromise genetic privacy, highlighting emerging attack vectors against open genetic databases.  
- Russian scientist Denis Rebrikov is moving forward with plans for gene-edited babies despite global controversy, as reported by Science Magazine.  
- Benjamin Hurlbut’s MIT TR video talk on human genome editing is circulated for its framing of governance and societal limits.  
- Peripheral discussion links resources for stenotype and chorded keyboard learning (Plover, Typey-Type, Art of Chording, Ergodox-EZ) as examples of open-source human-interface augmentation.