Sounds nice, but I don't want children, I want myself to be improved.
First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
141–150 of 292 posts
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#142We 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…
> Both parents would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, ... And, for the time being, bags and bags of money! Which currently makes this a vanishingly hypothetical problem of ethics.
We saw this combination historically in European royalty, which was plagued by inbreeding.
One particularly well-known instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalt...
As for more modern times, surely the wealthy are especially cognizant of genetics, right?
"Historically, populations of Qatar have engaged in consanguineous relationships of all kinds, leading to high risk of inheriting genetic diseases. As of 2014, around 5% of the Qatari population suffered from hereditary hearing loss; most were descendants of a consanguineous relationship." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Prevalence
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
And surgery, and injections, and stitching wounds, etc. Obviously it's net harm, not no harm at all.
It's not simply 'net' harm, as we would regard surgeons as breaking this principle, if they were to murder a homeless man and distribute his organs to 5 otherwise terminal patients. Medical ethics is its own field precisely because overeager and overconfident solutions are fraught with problems.
net harm per person then :D
But what about if somebody donates a kidney...? Hm
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#144"Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days—and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—"
oh im sure human trials have begun by the time mass articles like this surface.
i've met young gententic research students who told me they went to work for labs based in Latam simply because they were allowed to do perform any experiments deemed illegal in the US - to get a precious few years of a head start.
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree for deadly genetic disorders, but we can't be sure if a harmful mutation will be important in the future. For example sickle-cell disease make people immune to malaria. What if in the future a pandemic rises, and we have "edited away" the only mutation that would give immunity?
Unless you modify everyone ever, this is extremely unlikely to happen. There are people resistant to malaria that do not carry the deleterious red blood cell mutation, but a different variant.
Why is that unlikely? As cost approaches zero and benefits increase we can assume we get pretty close to 100%. In fact holding a portion of the population back, even if well meaning, will be discriminatory.
I give us decent odds we end up like the bananas.
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#146In my class just Monday, we watched a film titled Gattaca, which tells the story of a society fueled by eugenics, where most births are in-vitro modified babies, and there is clear discrimination against those with "imperfect" genes. It's crazy how close these things are to reality.
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Both parents would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, ... And, for the time being, bags and bags of money! Which currently makes this a vanishingly hypothetical problem of ethics.
We saw this combination historically in European royalty, which was plagued by inbreeding. One particularly well-known instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalt... As for more modern times, surely the wealthy are especially cognizant of genetics, right? "Historically, populations of Qatar have engaged in consanguineous relationships of all kinds, leading to high risk of inheriting genetic…
The hemophilia example you mention is a relatively weak one (e.g., no hemophiliac and carrier were known to have had offspring). See https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/23648/was-inbre...
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#148In my class just Monday, we watched a film titled Gattaca, which tells the story of a society fueled by eugenics, where most births are in-vitro modified babies, and there is clear discrimination against those with "imperfect" genes. It's crazy how close these things are to reality.
People refusing genetic modifications to remove risks of birth defects are more harmful than antivaxxers.
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#149"Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days—and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—" oh im sure human trials have begun by the time mass articles like this surface. i've met young gententic research students who told me they went to work for labs based in Latam simply because they were allowed to do perform any experiments deemed illegal in the US - to get…
Yup. Common startup advice for US startups in the healthcare space is "go to India"
Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S
#150In my class just Monday, we watched a film titled Gattaca, which tells the story of a society fueled by eugenics, where most births are in-vitro modified babies, and there is clear discrimination against those with "imperfect" genes. It's crazy how close these things are to reality.
People refusing genetic modifications to remove risks of birth defects are more harmful than antivaxxers.
No. Birth defects aren't contagious and are not often fatal. Also -- where do you draw the line between "defect" and "cosmetic enhancement"? It will become a race to the bottom.