<style type="text/css"> @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin-left: 3.18cm; margin-right: 3.18cm; margin-top: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 2.54cm } p { direction: ltr; widows: 0; orphans: 0; margin-bottom: 0.25cm; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background: transparent } a:link { color: #000080; text-decoration: underline } </style>

“To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children…” (King James Version, Gen. 3:16). Before the popularization of chloroform during childbirth, this verdict, written in the pain and blood of countless mothers, long overmatched any attempt to relieve the pain of birth. Due to nothing but an interpretation of the Bible, the Church could regard the technology of painless childbirth as evil, risky, and unnatural. According to their understanding, this technology endangered human development and the social order, and therefore should be opposed. However, this article argues that such restrictions are often unjustified: technologies that may have catastrophic consequences are often too indispensable as solutions to current threats, making it difficult to regulate them precisely. Moreover, they are usually distorted by the interests of those in power. This article does not advocate for completely unrestricted technological development; rather, it fully takes into account the various restrictions imposed by real conditions.

The Unquestionable Allure of Key Technologies

As far as we know, the energy shortage is a pressing problem for most of the countries in the world. Although many people recognize that fission power generation has the potential to be catastrophic, it produces radiation, remains unstable, and requires highly scarce raw materials that encourage monopoly, not to mention concrete events such as the Chornobyl nuclear accident and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. However, in 2025, the US started the Nuclear Power Revival Project, and 900 million dollars were invested in improving the small modular reactor (U.S. Department of Energy). In the early part of 2026, the German chancellor Merz acknowledged the restrictive policy they had previously adopted (the Overall Abandonment of nuclear power in 2023) was a serious strategic failure, and now the government clearly indicates its support for the new construction of nuclear power plants (Marsh and Rose).

So why are these countries all trying hard to improve nuclear fission technology? Honestly, a one-million-kilowatt nuclear power plant consumes about 30 tons of nuclear fuel annually, whereas a coal-fired power plant of equivalent capacity requires millions of tons of coal (U.S. Energy Information Administration). To be sure, fission power generation is a highly risky technology, but its high productivity is more tempting compared to the possible consequences it might cause. Facing this type of technology, the authorities have little ground to restrict its development; on the contrary, most of the time, supporting it is a smarter choice.

Moreover, Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) illustrates a technology with no viable alternative, which makes it too necessary to restrict, even at the cost of future risk. CCUS is a new kind of technology in progress, which captures carbon dioxide and converts it into usable products or compresses and injects it into deep geological formations. We who decide today will enjoy the climate benefits - avoiding global warming, stabilized ecosystems, and fewer concerns about carbon emissions. Nevertheless, it has already received plenty of profound environmental justice concerns, especially the risk of leaking back into the atmosphere or contaminating groundwater. These claims are equitable, precise, and reasonable. However, since there’s no better solution, people cannot remain indifferent in the face of the growing trend of carbon emissions. As the International Energy Agency (IEA) argues, in its Net Zero Emissions scenario, CCUS is a critical component of the mitigation portfolio (International Energy Agency). The IEA estimates that to reach net zero by 2050, CCUS development must scale up to roughly one hundred times current levels. Academic analyses confirm that among currently practicable plans, CCUS is the one technology that can limit global warming to the scale between 1.5-2℃ (Kazlou et al. 1047). Without CCUS, the cost of temperature maintenance will rise sharply. As a result, CCUS cannot be restricted, even though the technology might cause future ethical concerns, because humanity requires CCUS as the only means to prevent irreversible global warming and ecological collapse, at least for now.

The Imprecision of Restrictive Measures

Even if we accept that certain high-risk technologies are too vital to suppress, one might still argue that careful restriction is acceptable. It assumes that restrictions can be written with precision, while history suggests they rarely are. Consider the case of Jiankui He’s gene-edited babies as a starting point. In 2018, a Chinese researcher illegally edited the CCR5 gene of the two twin girls (LePage). The manipulation attempted to mimic a natural mutation that provides resistance to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This event sparked a significant response in the academic community. But the response to this case has actually resulted in a trend of restrictions that contain fields far broader than the gene editing of infants itself.

For instance, editing human embryos for implantation is one type of gene editing. However, editing somatic cells in adults for therapy is entirely another. But the proposed bans often use the term “human gene editing” without further distinction, as if modifying a liver cell and modifying a human germline belonged to the same moral category. The main source of confusion is conceptual overreach. When people hear gene editing, they would probably imagine crazy scientists in basements. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories travel faster than technical distinctions. A single irresponsible clinical trial can make the entire field look like a rogue enterprise, which it is not. Therefore, risky technologies should not be completely deregulated, but governments should clearly define the scope of restricted technologies rather than crudely turning an entire industry into a gray area.

The similar problem of overreach applies when restrictions fail to distinguish between unethical clinical trials and legitimate research. For example, there is a difference between implanting an edited embryo and conducting basic research on an animal’s fertilized egg in a petri dish. But proposed restrictions often collapse these distinctions. A law that bans “embryo editing” without further qualification might criminalize a graduate student who alters a single-celled zygote to study the function of an early developmental gene, even if that zygote is never intended for implantation.

Instead of blanket bans, we should adopt a tiered regulatory framework. At the bottom tier, theoretical discussion and computer modeling should remain completely free - no restriction at all. The second tier, in vitro research on embryos up to the commonly applied fourteen days old, should be permitted under ethics review and with informed consent from gamete donors. The third tier, animal studies involving heritable gene modifications, should be permitted with strict oversight but not banned. The fourth tier, human implantation trials, should be the only category subject to a presumptive ban unless extraordinary conditions are met - and even then, only through an international oversight body, not a single national committee. Generally, this tiered approach can better respect the vast differences in risk between a computer simulation and a human pregnancy.

Moreover, in order to further support my idea, we should also consider countries that have not participated in gene-editing legislation. For example, in Russia and areas in sub-Saharan Africa, no laws specifically regulate human germline editing(“Russia: Germline / Embryonic”). So researchers who cannot conduct embryo gene-editing research in Germany or the United Kingdom may simply move to areas where the law is incomplete.

Thus, we should take actions to prevent this unbalanced legal system. For instance, we can create a licensing system: countries that allow embryo gene editing for reproductive purposes could be barred from international research collaboration and from publishing their experimental results in this field, removing the incentive for researchers to relocate to more permissive jurisdictions. Importantly, this is not a blanket ban but a narrowly scoped, coordinated measure consistent with the tiered framework proposed above: it constrains only the single highest-risk category, reproductive human embryo editing, while leaving theoretical modeling, in vitro study, and animal research entirely free. This would be a strong catalyst for the active yet safe development of potentially catastrophic technology.

The Ethics of Authority over Technology Assessment

Let us temporarily set aside the apparent irrationality and ineffectiveness of restrictive policies, and look into the topic at a deeper level: Who has the authority to decide which technologies are catastrophic enough to warrant restriction, and according to which ethical perspective are they doing so? When we examine the decision-making mechanisms of policy construction, we might find a discomforting phenomenon. Sometimes, a minority group of people who have disproportionately greater power is actually the true decision makers, acting largely according to their own interests and perspectives.

Take human in-vitro fertilization as a telling example. In the twentieth century, the “test-tube baby” was a popular horror trope among people. The prevailing cognition of the time indicated that sexual intercourse was the only natural way to produce a baby. Producing a zygote in a petri dish was an almost unthinkable proposition at that time. But what made people so hostile towards in-vitro fertilization technology? People are more likely to defer to those in authority when their own understanding is uncertain, which leads to deeper misunderstanding.In the religious narrative, procreation is always achieved through the sexual union and never through any other means. Procreation is a channel of God’s blessing, not a medical procedure that can be arbitrarily replaced by technological means. By interpreting the Bible through canonical doctrine, the ecclesia of the time actually regarded in-vitro fertilization as an unnatural technology. In 1897, the Holy See was asked: “May artificial fecundation of a woman be permitted?” The response, approved by Pope Leo XIII on March 26 of that year, was unequivocal: “No” (Denzinger and Hünermann 3323). Thus, given the clear rejection by the religious authority, the development of technology in the biological field was effectively restricted at that time. Is human in-vitro fertilization really a catastrophic technology? Actually, since 1978, in-vitro fertilization has helped about 13-17 million infants to be born healthily (UNSW Sydney Newsroom). Around 300 monogenetic disorders (such as hemophilia and thalassemia) can be screened and avoided during in-vitro fertilization (Sfakianaki). Nowadays, a “tube baby” is born approximately every 35 seconds in the world. Time ultimately proves that technology is a great step forward for humanity.

Take Roger Bacon as an example, as one of the early advocates of the experimental scientific method, his research in optics, gunpowder, and geography are sometimes against the main trend of ecclesiastic. In 1257, the Grand Master of the Franciscans prohibited Bacon from publishing his works. Subsequently, Bacon was imprisoned in Paris for an extended period until his release in 1292 (“Roger Bacon”). The official justification was that he had disseminated “suspected novelties.”

From a sociological perspective, authority maintenance is one key reason why an intellectually promising approach could be regarded as potentially catastrophic and harmful at that time (Akerlof). Bacon criticized the ignorance of contemporary scholars, including figures like Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. By doing so, he actually challenged their privilege to define what counted as “acceptable knowledge.” The Franciscan leadership, facing internal divisions, found it safer to silence the critic than to engage with his claims. People in power are more likely to protect their own authority when their rationality is in doubt, which leads to deeper suppression of Bacon's work.

Conclusions

These critiques towards restrictions might sound pessimistic. However, as this essay argues, potentially catastrophic technologies are sometimes too indispensable to suppress. Restrictions, when imposed, are too imprecise to be just. And the authority to decide what counts as risky has rarely been value-free.

This essay does not hold a technologically deterministic position. The argument is not that technology should develop without restraint, but that the logic of scientific development deserves the first consideration. On that basis, governance must be proportionate, clearly scoped, and transparent about the relevant interests of any decisions. At the practical level, a hierarchical regulatory framework can be adopted to closely integrate science and policy and, through international cooperation, reduce the occurrence of risk transfer. The question was never simply whether we should develop a technology, but a social debate that has been shaped by competing knowledge systems, interests, and practices.

Works Cited

Akerlof, R. "A Theory of Authority." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2140472.

Denzinger, Heinrich, and Peter Hünermann, editors. Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. 43rd ed., Herder, 2010.

International Energy Agency. CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions. IEA, 2023, www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Kazlou, Tsimafei, et al. "Feasible Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage and the Requirements of Climate Targets." Nature Climate Change, vol. 14, 2024, pp. 1047–1055.

LePage, Michael. "Scientist Claims the First CRISPR Gene-Edited Babies Have Already Been Born." ScienceAlert, 26 Nov. 2018, www.sciencealert.com/one-scientist-is-claiming-the-first-babies-from-crispr-edited-embryos-have-already-been-born. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Marsh, Sarah, and Michel Rose. "Berlin, Paris Overcome Rift over Nuclear Energy, French Official Says." Reuters, 19 May 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/berlin-paris-overcome-rift-over-nuclear-energy-french-official-says-2025-05-19/. Accessed 2 July 2026.

"Roger Bacon." The Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Charles G. Herbermann et al., vol. 2,

Robert Appleton Company, 1907, pp. 288–290. New Advent, www.newadvent.org/cathen/02210b.htm. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

"Russia: Germline / Embryonic." Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker, Genetic Literacy Project, 2019, crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/russia-germline-embryonic/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Sfakianaki, Argyro. "Preimplantation Genetic Testing: New Data and Indications." Embryolab Next Gen IVF, 5 Mar. 2026, embryolab.eu/preimplantation-genetic-testing-new-data-and-indications/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Hendrickson Bibles, 2010.

UNSW Sydney Newsroom. "Total IVF Births Soar to More Than 13 Million." UNSW Sydney, 27 July 2025, www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/07/total-ivf-births-soar-to-more-than-13-million. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

U.S. Department of Energy. "DOE Announces $900 Million to Accelerate Deployment of Small Modular Reactors." Energy.gov, 2024, www.energy.gov/article/doe-announces-900-million-accelerate-deployment-small-modular-reactors. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nuclear Explained: Nuclear Fuel and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. EIA, 2025, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-and-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle.php. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Waller, Alexander. "Written Evidence Submitted by Dr. Alexander Waller (CCUS0005)." UK Parliament, 2025, committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/131401/html/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.