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

131–140 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#131

Post by kendallpark »

coldtea wrote: post #90
kendallpark wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a myth that doctors even take this oath. There might be some modern version taken, but it is a symbolic pledge, not a legal requirement. Laws and committees cover issues of ethics these days.

> It’s a myth that doctors even take this oath. Not really: "In a 2000 survey of US medical schools, all of the then extant medical schools administered some type of profession oath. Among schools of modern medicine, sixty-two of 122 used the Hippocratic Oath, or a modified version of it."

We do not take the original Hippocratic Oath.

Like I said in my previous post, some schools use a modern rendition. The modern versions don't forbid surgery, the use of poison, abortive measures, or compensation for medical training--necessary features of modern healthcare.

I challenge you to find me one med school that uses the original oath.

Medical ethics these days follows a principle-based system. The most common framework employs four basic moral principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The current system of ethics is far more robust than any of the pledges taken. The pledges are more about personal significance and have no legal or procedural weight.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#132

Post by Tade0 »

theWatcher37 wrote: post #100
dr_ wrote: post #94

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

I all honestly, we can not allow a gene-gap. Forget racism, what happens when a country can actually make it's people "better" (faster/smarter/live longer/stronger) by significant margins?

The rest of the world either catches up or lands in a zoo eventually.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#133

Post by maga »

dr_ wrote: post #94

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

>I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance

I'd like to know what's scientific about it and who reached that consensus. There are a plethora of things to define before we even begin this discussion. What constitutes an enhancement? Isn't removing recessive genes aka "curing genetic deceases" an enhancement? If some people already have these "superior" genes, is it just to keep others from getting them? Who decides what genes are good or bad anyway? What's fundamentally different between trying to improve the germline by these means and the "natural" way of choosing best mates? We are choosing genes in both cases, in case of CRISPR we are trying to do it with better precision and certainty.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#134

Post by quickthrower2 »

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.

Honey... Monsanto patented the kids!

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#135

Post by mistercow »

theWatcher37 wrote: post #101
tcbawo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The atomic age came without the world or our species ending.

There's an anthropic problem there. Unless you assume humans are alone in a single universe with no branching, or that there are a large number of worlds where an atomic age (as well as any other equivalently stage of dangerous technological advancement) is infeasible, surviving the atomic age tells us that the probability of us surviving events in that reference class is non-zero, but it doesn't tell us much more.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#136

Post by aquadrop »

taneq wrote: post #109
dr_ wrote: post #94

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

Assuming it becomes possible - why shouldn't people edit their genes to produce superior children? We're already talking about just that, when we discuss editing out congenital diseases and the like. The only difference between the two cases is that one is eliminating unexpected weaknesses and the other is eliminating generally-expected weaknesses. Really what's being said is that nobody should be allowed to use thei…

Don't forget to enhance empathy genes then as well, because if you don't, oh boy this new generation of superhumans will make previous ones to suffer.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#137

Post by noir-york »

Evolution made us, then we discovered it, and now we can directly code it.

Pity evolution didn't give us the intelligence, restraint and good judgement to make sure that we will not screw this up. And we will.

A myriad of reasons will be given. Medical reasons - how could one refuse? Then parents: "Harvard is expensive and I want to give my child the best chance I can afford". Then nation states will feel pressure to 'level the genetic playing field'.

On the other hand, with AI soon replacing us, apparently, we can fight back and enhance ourselves!

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#139

Post by TeMPOraL »

austinjp wrote: post #126
theWatcher37 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The atomic age came without the world or our species ending.

By that token, every single activity of anyone, anywhere, any time has been a success.

So let's put it differently: was the atomic age net good for humanity? I'd say very much, yes.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#140

Post by TeMPOraL »

visarga wrote: post #120
yohann305 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or they could use a different source for sperm or eggs, especially that they are supposedly not attached to their own genetic code (being willing to "edit" it anyway).

> especially that they are supposedly not attached to their own genetic code (being willing to "edit" it anyway)

There's a difference between editing and replacing. Imagine my father gives me his watch (which he got from his father, etc.). The watch is fine, but the belt has wear damages and the glass could use cleaning. Doing those repairs doesn't mean the watch loses sentimental value for me, and is markedly different from just getting a new watch.

Post reply on HN