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

101–110 of 189 posts

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

#101

Post by roywiggins »

Spooky23 wrote: post #86
afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Racists could try and build in genetic triggers to cause any "mixed race" grandchildren to die in the womb. This is impossible to do in general but someone might try. Imagine someone engineering "Aryan" children whose children must be blond and blue-eyed and will self-abort if not.

If this happens, you'd imagine a cottage industry of gene-drive-removers... and then genetic DRM mechanisms in turn. Not a good time for anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive

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

#102

Post by dnautics »

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.

There is also the possibility that a sperm mitochondrion can be transmitted to the egg. Normally it's destroyed, but there's always exceptions in biology.

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

#103

Post by BurningFrog »

pyre wrote: post #84
Kalium wrote: 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).

Only if you see life as a competition against your fellow humans.

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

#104

Post by paulddraper »

oxide wrote: post #59
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…

>computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality? some folks argue yes, that internet access should be a basic human right.

Poor wretched souls of the previous millennia...they all were denied their basic human rights.

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

#105

Post by BurningFrog »

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...

Since it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier, this mostly sounds like an argument based in envy.

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

#106

Post by roywiggins »

DashRattlesnake wrote: post #76
sp332 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a lot more trilobites than there are humans. And they lived in places more conducive to fossil formation.

Many human artifacts don't need to be fossilized and could be preserved for millions of years (e.g. a gold ring, a stone bracelet, concrete). Also humans deliberately bury their dead (and lots of other stuff), which in some cases might help with fossilization and preservation. If humanity were wiped out tomorrow, I think it would leave plenty of traces that could be found and understood in millions of years by a late…

They'll certainly notice our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere if there are any ice cores left to sample.

Also probably all the plastic in the oceans, until something evolves that eats it all.

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

#108

Post by tomrod »

runeks wrote: post #53
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...

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…

> I mean, computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality?

Actually, yes, there are inherent ethical problems here. In this case (computers/internet), the divide it causes is not so large that it cannot be overcome by training, savings, charitable donations, etc. However, "designer baby" technology, if not available to whomever wants it, results in an increase in feudalism to society.

With a computer, anyone can become a programmer as the technology gets cheaper and more widely adopted. Designer babies and similar technologies may not have the same increasing efficiencies with adoption; such considerations should be made.

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

#109

Post by skissane »

derefr wrote: post #41
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already a demographic that'd do that sort of thing - see reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists for horrifying examples. Your concern is dead on, and we'd need some serious progress on youth rights for me to be more comfortable with unrestricted designer babies.

Interestingly, I think the current systems in most of the developed would would already handle this somewhat adequately, insofar as "designer babies" would probably not be treated as genetic children of their "gene base" parents (i.e. something they have an intrinsic right to take home from the hospital), but probably rather would be considered "genetic orphans" (like babies dropped off at a hospital with no known pa…

At least where I live (and I imagine many other places), the law of parenthood isn't based on genetics. Where I live, the birth mother is legally the mother, and if she says X is the father, and he agrees with her statement–by both of them signing the birth registration paperwork–then X is legally the father. (In most cases; in some cases, if the birth mother is in a marriage or cohabiting relationship with a man, her male partner is legally the father even if the birth certificate names another man, and even if that other man is genetically the father – as in the case I mention below.)

Generally speaking, genetics only comes into the picture if someone launches a court case to dispute parentage – e.g. if the mother says X is the father but he refuses to accept that status. But, if a man signs the birth papers for the child, he is legally the father, even if it isn't genetically his offspring. And likewise, if the mother gives birth to the child, she is legally the mother even if the egg came from someone else.

Genetic parenthood by itself doesn't automatically make you a legal parent. At best, it creates the possibility for you to claim parenthood (if you want to), or for someone else to impose it on you (if they want to).

An interesting court case - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/691.html - found that the birth mother's cohabiting partner was legally the father, even though the genetic father was listed on the birth certificate. This wasn't what any of the people involved wanted – the birth mother was acting as surrogate for her daughter and son-in-law, who were the genetic parents – but was an undesired to all parties side effect of the lack of legal recognition of surrogacy at the time in that part of Australia. The remedy was the genetic parents had to legally adopt the child, even though they had been raising him as their child from the time of birth.

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

#110

Post by delecti »

sp332 wrote: post #93
andruby wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nothing, but it does have something to do with the comment to which it was in reply, which is really the more relevant issue.
Post reply on HN