Live data from Hacker News

First 'three person baby' born using new method

bbc.co.uk

91–100 of 189 posts

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

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Babies that can run, jump, faster and higher, and live longer, and are generally smarter and just more advanced evolved.. It's like some breeds of dogs/monkeys are smarter than others. So will the 'smart' ones think they are better than all the rest of us.

>and just more advanced evolved //

Except not evolved at all, just genetically engineered by humans. Unless evolved now means semi-intelligently designed by someone with half the necessary information?

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

#92

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?

In my view the ethical problem is the process of finding out if "designer babies" can be made without condemning a certain number of them to extreme suffering. In essence, the term "designer" is somewhat of a misnomer, unless we can precisely predict what we're going to get. And it's true that normal reproduction is also unpredictable, but at least we have a general sense of what can happen, and how often.

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

#93
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You should see the movie "Gattaca". Great movie that explores this question. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

What does this have to do with the case in the article?

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

#94
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.

Right, no quandary at all created by the possibility that mistakes and misunderstandings might lead to children with severe medical problems. Short, miserable lifetimes of suffering are a high cost for "improving the species", and they are a real possibility if the approach taken is to just try things that seem worth trying.

But in this case, that was already the alternative. The parents had four miscarriages and two children die as infants. They probably weren't going to be worse off if the procedure failed.

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

#95
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some people can't afford public utilities either.

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

#96
post #43

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...

The rich always had access to new technologies first, and there is nothing new here; eventually all technology becomes affordable for the masses.

What you 're more likely to have a is clash of generations where the brave new generation will consider their fathers (rich or not) as parasites.

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

#97
If I'm understanding correctly, this could be used for cloning if you could select two nuclei with non-overlapping chromosomes from a single person's sperm/eggs ... much easier to clone a man due the limits of egg extraction.

back of the envelope:

- each gamete has 1 of 2 choices for 23 chromosomes.

- you need to find any two non-overlapping

- probability of non-overlap is 0.5^23 for any pair

- number of pairs equals (n choose 2) where n is number of gametes = n!/ (2 * (n - 2)!) = 0.5 * n * (n-1) = 0.5 * (n^2 - n)

- to get a 50/50 chance of finding the right gametes: 0.5 = 0.5^23 * 0.5 * (n^2 - n), which is equivalent to: 0 = 0.5^23 * (n^2 -n) - 1

- solved via wolfram alpha, you would need to screen 2897 nuclei non-destructively to get a 50% chance of being able to generate a clone.

I'm not aware if this is possible or not. But obviously if you can just replace chromosomes in-nucleus that is easier than screening, but if you can do that you don't really need this whole process since you can just replace the nucleus after IVF. If you could harvest a sex cell and do meiosis in a test tube, that would also get you your nuclei right away as well -- from 10 seconds of googling, I don't think we have this yet.

I think when they screen zygotes they do it after some replication has happened, so the math really works against you if you need to combine sperm+egg pre-screen because you don't get the birthday paradox effect if you have to commit to your pairings beforehand, you'd need to huge egg supply as well.

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

#98
post #96
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...

The rich always had access to new technologies first, and there is nothing new here; eventually all technology becomes affordable for the masses. What you 're more likely to have a is clash of generations where the brave new generation will consider their fathers (rich or not) as parasites.

Dunno, I am still waiting for my damned flying Delorean.

Instead, the rich all got dumb old-fashioned helicopters.

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

#99
post #90
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

AFAIK it shouldn't be issue. Some twins (identical twins) are created when a two cell organism detaches into two separate entities.

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

#100
post #84
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The real ethical issue is that you're giving "performance enhancers" to babies. We can't test this stuff in vitro or in adults, not really. So any baby born this way is, in some sense, an experiment.

And crucially, so are all of those babies' children and their children, because they will inherit some or all of the genetic changes.

Post reply on HN