We are terrified, because we don't know, how to handle it yet. This should not stop us, the humanity. Our descendants will figure it out. There is no progress, if we are afraid of mistakes. The real problem is when we don't learn. Gattaca is a good example, what we should avoid.
CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
11–20 of 96 posts
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#12We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…
We ethically should.
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#13I would agree that this is a significant milestone - however I would have thought that there's still a large amount of randomness in protein expression meaning you would still be painting in "broad strokes" as opposed to granular detail of traits.
I don't really know what you mean. Genes encode to proteins, if a disorder is genetic it generally means one or more genes are incorrect, encoding to the wrong proteins. If genetic expression was significantly random, how would we identify genetic disorders to begin with? How would they be hereditary?
Not an expert, but there is a lot that is probabilities. E.g. many genes play a part in disease, so changing one set may get you a risk reduction but not full prevention.
The other issue is epigenetics. Gene expression is regulated by various factors and that gene expression can be passed between generations.
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#14We are terrified, because we don't know, how to handle it yet. This should not stop us, the humanity. Our descendants will figure it out. There is no progress, if we are afraid of mistakes. The real problem is when we don't learn. Gattaca is a good example, what we should avoid.
FYI: I don't know if English is your first language but you are using commas excessively. All the commas in the first four sentences should be removed and the final comma should be 'of'.
EDIT: Also, the second sentence should be "This should not stop us (humanity)."
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#15We are terrified, because we don't know, how to handle it yet. This should not stop us, the humanity. Our descendants will figure it out. There is no progress, if we are afraid of mistakes. The real problem is when we don't learn. Gattaca is a good example, what we should avoid.
[deleted]
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#16I would agree that this is a significant milestone - however I would have thought that there's still a large amount of randomness in protein expression meaning you would still be painting in "broad strokes" as opposed to granular detail of traits.
I don't really know what you mean. Genes encode to proteins, if a disorder is genetic it generally means one or more genes are incorrect, encoding to the wrong proteins. If genetic expression was significantly random, how would we identify genetic disorders to begin with? How would they be hereditary?
Well, broadly speaking, the idea is that there may be a subtle underlying mechanism in gene expression that we are unaware of.
So maybe you'll be able to remove a gene that could cause albinism in an individual, then 25 years later discover that the individual has become sterile.
It may seem otherwise but we still know very little on how a set of genes encodes information of how an organism will develop.
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really know what you mean. Genes encode to proteins, if a disorder is genetic it generally means one or more genes are incorrect, encoding to the wrong proteins. If genetic expression was significantly random, how would we identify genetic disorders to begin with? How would they be hereditary?
Well, broadly speaking, the idea is that there may be a subtle underlying mechanism in gene expression that we are unaware of. So maybe you'll be able to remove a gene that could cause albinism in an individual, then 25 years later discover that the individual has become sterile. It may seem otherwise but we still know very little on how a set of genes encodes information of how an organism will develop.
While I'm sure some variant of that will occur at some point, many genetic disorders are relatively simple and well understood. Even if we are still learning, there are dozens of disorders we could eliminate if we had robust genetic editing capability with pretty good odds of success.
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#18We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…
[deleted]
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#19We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…
> Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and guarantee the gender of your child.
That's a straight up violation of the Hippocratic oath and blackmail/racketeering combined. We should enforce it strictly, vigilantly, and put doctors who attempt to do this in jail away for a very long time.
I understand your main argument stems from affordability of the procedure and that's a valid concern, but keep in mind that current societies already ration health care, either by availability/wait times (UK?) or wealth (USA). You won't be able to prevent the wealthy from modifying their offspring anyway and the unfairness of having them do it vs 99% not being able to afford do is not enough of a reason to stop progress, not even close. The goal should be to make this procedure routine, as affordable as an ultrasound or a tooth extraction or a cancer screen.
How do you address this with policy? The same way we should be addressing inequality right now.
Let me posit this question to you: if genetic enhancement would be available to 100% of the population, would you still have ethics concerns?
Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time
#20We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…
We ethically should.
Exactly. Another reason why we need seasteading...