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

First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#61

Post by yohann305 »

dogprez wrote: post #57
sethbannon wrote: post #12

I am so insanely excited for the potential of this technology. There are many ethical questions here, but the potential benefits far outweigh the downsides. In the near future, we can detect and eliminate genetic disorders, ensuring no child has to suffer from these defects any longer. Long term, this gives us a tool to take control of our own evolution in a way never before possible. Couldn't be more excited for wha…

We could get rid of genetic diseases without editing the genome. Just screen embryos before IVF.

this does not edit embryos, this only select the ones without defect and trash the defective ones. Very different from editing, especially for couple that only get bad embryos, they'd love to "fix" it.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#62

Post by devrandomguy »

rubatuga wrote: post #51
devrandomguy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with not editing the germline, is that that could easily be used to implement a DRM scheme. The recipient of this sort of editing might have a very high chance of only producing disabled or dead offspring, as they themselves would have been, without intervention. They, and their descendants, would have to procure this same treatment in order to procreate.

I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind would create a genome that had a DRM. Furthermore, would you sign up for a procedure like that? Also it’s a violation of somebody’s human rights to stop them from reproducing! What is really happening is that normal copies of the human genome are being incorporated. Which are then passed on to your sperm/ovum.

Starry-eyed young lovers will fall for a DRM scheme, if they can be convinced that it is for the children.

"Our award winning, holistic, proprietary life-experience program leads to superior outcomes, when compared to competing life experience programs. Doctors know it, children's services favor it. So, what kind of life experience does your future family deserve?" Enter perfect puppies.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#63

Post by sjg007 »

devrandomguy wrote: post #43
eggie wrote: post #11

We would need a very particular set of conditions for embryonic editing to be justifiable under a medical dogma that aims to "do no harm." Both parents would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, as this would make embryonic selection of non-carriers very difficult. Then we would need the editing system to be so reliable as to not introduce off-target mutations. In a preimplantation setti…

The problem with not editing the germline, is that that could easily be used to implement a DRM scheme. The recipient of this sort of editing might have a very high chance of only producing disabled or dead offspring, as they themselves would have been, without intervention. They, and their descendants, would have to procure this same treatment in order to procreate.

Orphan Black plot

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#64

Post by [deleted] »

sjg007 wrote: post #63
devrandomguy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with not editing the germline, is that that could easily be used to implement a DRM scheme. The recipient of this sort of editing might have a very high chance of only producing disabled or dead offspring, as they themselves would have been, without intervention. They, and their descendants, would have to procure this same treatment in order to procreate.

Orphan Black plot

[deleted]

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#65

Post by resf »

rubatuga wrote: post #48
albertTJames wrote: post #36

Ethics questions need to be raised now, and guidelines have to be decided. The future of humanity is in gene editing. It should not depends on the lazyness of law makers and outrage of godfearing creatures to decide the fate of humanity. It is time we take our evolution into our own hands.

Most agree that it is unethical to purposely have a disabled/diseased child if it possible to not have a nondisabled one. In that case, I think it is quite ethical for this technology to be used on those with debilitating genetic defects. We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

That some people are too vain to adopt is not a good enough justification. It is a foundational point of ethics that medical experimentation must be voluntary.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#66

Post by Amygaz »

alextheparrot wrote: post #28
eggie wrote: post #11

We would need a very particular set of conditions for embryonic editing to be justifiable under a medical dogma that aims to "do no harm." Both parents would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, as this would make embryonic selection of non-carriers very difficult. Then we would need the editing system to be so reliable as to not introduce off-target mutations. In a preimplantation setti…

I'm not certain where the premise that our medicine must "Do no harm" comes from. Chemotherapy, for example, is known for being extremely toxic and harmful, yet the justification is that it often yields better outcomes than no treatment. Why can we not use the same justification for editing DNA? Honestly some therapies cause mutations by design, as some cancers are less capable of DNA repair. I do see one argument, h…

Maybe because chemo currently gives you 10% chance, while gene editing at the whole embryo level has 100% chance of resulting in mosaicism.

This more recent work by Mitalipov's group dealt with single cell embryo and still ended up with mosaicism, which I was a bit surprised at first. But when you think about it, this single-cell embryo's genome is actively being replicated, so not 100% of the alleles will be edited.

A way around it, would be to reactivate Cas9 after every cell division event, or maybe applying Cas9 gene-drive to embryo development. Also, I have yet to see a CRISPR paper with ensemble sequencing showing no off-targets. Even all the enhanced specificity Cas9 variants had a small percentage of off-targets.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#67

Post by spraak »

tcbawo wrote: post #18
sethbannon wrote: post #12

I am so insanely excited for the potential of this technology. There are many ethical questions here, but the potential benefits far outweigh the downsides. In the near future, we can detect and eliminate genetic disorders, ensuring no child has to suffer from these defects any longer. Long term, this gives us a tool to take control of our own evolution in a way never before possible. Couldn't be more excited for wha…

While I appreciate the optimism in this sentiment, the similarity to the early atomic age gives me pause. Human beings have shown time and time again that they cannot be absolutely trusted.

Yes, the worst really must be assumed

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#68

Post by maxerickson »

corndoge wrote: post #7
mbreese wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of addressed in the article. I'd still like to see more data before calling the issue "addressed". (Then again, this is a lay-press article, so I don't entirely expect a lot of detail)

Not sure I would call MIT technology review lay press

It is, at least in the sense that it is written by journalists writing for a general audience.

I subscribed for a while, I stopped after the number of eye rolls had gotten too high.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#69

Post by ianai »

dlss wrote: post #46
ekianjo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chemotherapy is more of an exception than the norm when it comes to what treatments are acceptable. Most other drugs have to be proven safe to use even before showing tangible benefits. And even in oncology there are Phase I studies to ensure that your treatment is not Too toxic either. So yeah, Do Not Harm is very much a thing.

> Most other drugs have to be proven safe to use even before showing tangible benefits. What? I encourage you to read about prescription drug side effects. If a drug were safe, it would be over the counter rather than prescription. Prescription drugs are exactly the kind of harm/benefit bundle GP is describing.

As someone with chronic migraines, the question is very much about benefits outweighing costs. Also largely ineffective.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#70

Post by nyolfen »

rubatuga wrote: post #48
albertTJames wrote: post #36

Ethics questions need to be raised now, and guidelines have to be decided. The future of humanity is in gene editing. It should not depends on the lazyness of law makers and outrage of godfearing creatures to decide the fate of humanity. It is time we take our evolution into our own hands.

Most agree that it is unethical to purposely have a disabled/diseased child if it possible to not have a nondisabled one. In that case, I think it is quite ethical for this technology to be used on those with debilitating genetic defects. We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

> We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

china in particular does not have the west's historical scruples wrt genetic editing and eugenics. i think this 'debate' will last about as long as it takes for the first generation of modded chinese children with two or three SDs on the mean to be brought into the world.

Post reply on HN