Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First 'three person baby' born using new method

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 189 posts

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#81

Post by milcron »

jlgaddis wrote: post #61
runeks wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the more powerful a technology is in changing our capabilities as human beings, the more unethical it inherently is, because poor people will have less access to it (assuming it costs money)? I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge). I mean, computers and internet access also costs money…

Just today there was an article in the newspaper of a nearby town stating that the school system there would be moving to "paperless" report cards; that is, report cards would be entirely online. (It did mention that parents could request a printed copy of their child's report card at any time.) My first thought was "not everyone has Internet access" -- especially in this relatively small city -- and the possible ram…

Internet access should be a public utility.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#82

Post by akiselev »

scarmig wrote: post #58
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the natural dividing line is "is the baby the unmodified result of combining sperm and egg?" People already have the right to do that without additional government interference -- anything past that should arguably be regulated.

Where would somehow selecting one of the billions of sperm and one of the millions(?) of eggs for ideal genetic material and then allowing them to combine "naturally" fall? That'd probably get you 60% of the way to full on designer babies anyway, unless you're going for a trait that's not at all in your gene pool.

For the record, we already do this on a surprisingly regular basis in the developed world. It's called preimplantation genetic diagnostics and is a relatively cheap addition to regular IVF since companies like Counsyl and Qwest have sub-$1000 genetic tests for thousands of genetic factors. Gender selection is already easily done and some Jewish communities have had great success eliminating Tay-Sachs this way. It's "only" a matter of identifying the genes responsible for the characteristics you desire but you may never be able to select 100% of the traits you want if you're trying to select for many of them at the same time. It's not useful for top to bottom designer babies since the probabilities of getting the right mutations and chromosomal combinations is nearly infinitesimal.

I have yet to hear any loud controversy regarding PDG IVF so I think it's one of those situations where genetic engineering will slowly creep up on society and by the time we have a public debate about the ethics it'll be way too late.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#83

Post by liveoneggs »

lqdc13 wrote: post #57
dethstar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca Sometimes here in HN you will hear about how things like name,age, etc are bias for who gets hired, and people being rejected based on those things. So just add "method of conception" to that.

I was very much annoyed by the movie when I saw it. Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. So perhaps they were not so much genetically superior? Maybe motivation can be passed through DNA? In reality, what I think might happen is some people would choose the genes they want, but others won't. At the end, people will mix, so the…

   	 Liz:
I'm sorry. You have a problem with the science of Hot Tub Time Machine?

  	 Wesley Snipes:
Yeah, not the time travel. It's the hot tub. You don't just turn one on and it's immediately hot. I should know, I've been in a hot tub two times.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#84

Post by pyre »

Kalium wrote: post #73
dflock wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...

In short, "designer babies" is approximately the same thing to us today as nutrition was to an earlier age.

A better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone that wants to participate (or at least compete).

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#85

Post by salamisultan »

jlgaddis wrote: post #61
runeks wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the more powerful a technology is in changing our capabilities as human beings, the more unethical it inherently is, because poor people will have less access to it (assuming it costs money)? I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge). I mean, computers and internet access also costs money…

Just today there was an article in the newspaper of a nearby town stating that the school system there would be moving to "paperless" report cards; that is, report cards would be entirely online. (It did mention that parents could request a printed copy of their child's report card at any time.) My first thought was "not everyone has Internet access" -- especially in this relatively small city -- and the possible ram…

No one cares about NiggerNet. Let the bodies drop. Chicago is ground zero for glocks and bunny hops

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#86

Post by Spooky23 »

afarrell wrote: post #21
heydenberk wrote: post #8

Notably, this prevents transmission of a disease that is "fatal to any baby conceived", which makes this as uncontroversial a case of a "designer baby" as I can imagine. After this, the ethics get much more complicated.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

Stop and think about it. It opens a Pandora's box of potential eugenic horrors.

For one, you'll have more male babies, as that's a cultural advantage in many cases. There are people who abort for sec selection.

You open to door to the types of "breeding" experiments that slaveholders have historically engaged in.

You create the foundation for a situation similar to what Asimov depicted in his Robot series.

You create a situation where genetic discrimination becomes a thing with broad economic and social impact.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#87

Post by defen »

afarrell wrote: post #21
heydenberk wrote: post #8

Notably, this prevents transmission of a disease that is "fatal to any baby conceived", which makes this as uncontroversial a case of a "designer baby" as I can imagine. After this, the ethics get much more complicated.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

Here is a thoughtful essay that deals with some of the potential issues: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/05/eugenics-ready/

He makes a distinction between "negative" eugenics (removing genetic disorders & decreasing mutational load) and "positive" eugenics (selecting for intelligence, appearance, personality, and other desired traits), and considers what will happen if either of those is adopted by either a minority or a majority of the populace.

At a high level, the biggest concern is if you have a minority of the population practicing positive eugenics, because it leads to a runaway "rich get richer" situation. If you think income inequality is bad now - it will only get worse.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#88

Post by protomyth »

ghostly_s wrote: post #30
return0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me there aren't any; it's just a postmodern habit to treat every new technological possibility as an ethical problem first.

Guess you're not a big sci-fi reader, huh. The ethical ramifications of designer babies is deeply-mined territory.

Heck, Sci-Fi in general. Star Trek being the most well know. The Honor Harrington books probably have the page count won in book form with the main baddy being designer babies for conquest and profit. Cauldron of Ghosts has the longest section with the explanation of the Final War.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#89

Post by thaumasiotes »

dflock wrote: post #43
afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...

It's probably worth pointing out that the rich are already smarter, more attractive, and longer-lived than the poor. I'm not aware of a study testing rich vs poor bodily strength, but given the other results I wouldn't exactly find it surprising if the rich were stronger too.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#90

Post by ralfd »

nkrumm wrote: post #56
rcthompson wrote: post #2

Sounds like mother & father's nuclear DNA, injected into the nucleus of a 3rd party's donor's egg cell, which contains its own mitochondrial DNA. Since mtDNA is normally inherited 100% from the mother (since the mother's egg cell supplies the mitochondria to the embryo), if the mother has a mitochondrial genetic disease, 100% of her children would normally inherit it.

Yes-- the inheritance of mtDNA is maternal, but interestingly not 100% of her children will inherit the disease. This is because the mother will have a mix of mutated (diseased) mtDNA and wild-type (healthy) mtDNA in each of her cells, including her eggs. Some of the eggs will have close to all mtDNA mutated, but many will have a relatively low mutational burden. (This variation amongst the mother's cells and eggs is…

> checking one of the cells at the 16 or 32 cell stage

I wonder: How is an embryo dealing with missing a cell at this early? Does this error compound after a few doublings (embryo is smaller)?

Post reply on HN