Well the Frankensteins in genetics research are at it again, if the U.K.'s Daily Mail is to be believed (and I believe it):
Sure it sounds nutty, but the problems presented by this story are multiple, and once again, what we're being told publicly is probably only the tip of the iceberg. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been researching, in conjunction with the Pentagon, the idea of "supersoldiers" for a number of years. Indeed, the idea of combining spider's silk with human skin opens up the door for other possibilities: why not combine exoskeletons, spider's venom, mandibles, scorpion's stingers, with humans as well?
Once we've said that, we're right back to the Mesopotamian accounts of similar creatures in the Enuma Elish and from the accounts of Berossus. In the Enuma Elish, for example, we read that the "villainess" of the story, Tiamat, created "scorpion men" and a host of other chimerical creatures to wage war against the rest of the gods. In Berossus, we're told of "fish men" and even incredible androgynous creatures.
Of course this technological nuttiness will spawn the inevitable "armor versus guns" race that has been repeated throughout history. Imagine if these geneticists are successful and create their "bullet-proof humans" while physicists and engineers in other laboratories perfect hand-held laser weapons or electromagnetic railgun weapons. The next step? The geneticists may respond by combining nanotechnologies with genetic engineering to create perfectly reflective mirror-skin, or tweak the spider silk with carbon nanotubes...
.....and on and on the scientific nightmare will churn.
In addition to this, as I have so often pointed out, under American patent law, such a bullet-proof-skinned person would not arise naturally, but can only do so by the hand of man, and via a technique. In short, such people are patentable intellectual property, and that bodes ill for us all. Monsanto, for example, has already made a practice of suing farmers who, not even using their genetically modified seeds, manage to have their fields infected by Monsanto's seeds carried by the wind or spread by bird droppings and so on. Imagine now, taking the same legal precedent, the possibility that someone somehow ingests one of these artificially modified genes, and imagine that this modified gene then takes what was otherwise a "natural" human and proceeds to modify his or her genetic makeup according to the new design. Does the "Monsanto precedent" mean that these people thereby become the property of whoever invented the modification?
Keep the dial right here, because it's just beginning folks...