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

Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 178 posts

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#81

Post by angersock »

fbdhsfagdshafgh wrote: post #33

The particular fix done in this study prevents hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic disorder that I have. I cannot explain how weird it feels to read front page headlines that scientists have "fixed" me, that its a huge breakthrough that scientists will be able to remove part of what makes me ME from future generations. I'm all for it, of course. HCM, most frequently diagnosed in people by their sudden death, is ba…

Now imagine when we can "cure" things like autism, nonstandard genders, race, etc.

A lot of tolerance is predicated on things being out of our hands, practically. That goes away if we can change them.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#82

Post by Moshe_Silnorin »

laydn wrote: post #73
komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said: If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will. Maybe it is time to start thinking about an international agreem…

It's not moral standards we have, it is ridiculously parochial notions of purity and natural-is-better attitudes. If we fail to free our children from stupidity and ill health, we are the moral imbeciles. If Asian nations increase health, IQ, and happiness through genetic selection and engineering, this will speak of higher moral sophistication. We have right-wing religious conservatives on one side and on the left a sort of Lysenkoism that pertains to all mental traits. I fear this will prevent us from implementing this technology.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#83

Post by jimbokun »

komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

Or maybe those countries will fuck up their population's genetic makeups in unforeseen ways, and we can be fortunate for having dodged that bullet.

Do you honestly believe there is a single "intelligence" gene we can edit to turn up intelligence like a knob, without impacting anything else about the person? Do you want your baby to be the first one its tried out on?

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#84

Post by jimbokun »

quotemstr wrote: post #21
aaronmck wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you'll have to wait for the genetics to catch up -- we know nearly nothing about the effects of variation on complex traits like intelligence or athletic performance. Even in known 'cancer genes' like BRCA1, we know what only a few of the thousands of single-base changes do. Without this information, things are going to be limited to known disease variants (a good thing)

So what? How are we going to learn unless we experiment? I detest the precautionary principle. If we'd followed it in prehistory, we'd have never left the trees: who knows what might be down there?

Experiment on who, exactly? How do you get consent from an embryo for the life it will have to live as a result of what you're about to do to it?

"I detest the precautionary principle."

Sometimes, a little bit of caution is what keeps someone alive long enough to reproduce. Plenty of Darwin Award winners could have used a little more caution.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#85

Post by mhb »

nopinsight wrote: post #68
JackFr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. So what? They win more Olympic medals? Or what, they invade like in Red Dawn? Or they take all the places in our elite colleges? While its not an argument against, fear-mongering a ludicrous, purely hypothetical b…

The country with more capable populace will produce more valuable goods and services. If free trade is allowed, trade imbalance will accumulate to an extent that might tip the scales in other domains, including global standing. Technological and military power also fundamentally depend on the quality of people. Full-scale war is not likely in the near future, but will people accept being an underdog after a century o…

Comparative advantage?

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#86

Post by ece »

komali2 wrote: post #72
ece wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little dangerous to think gene-editing is the cure to human-ills, and that it is "natural" progress for the human race. Considering everything currently known in the human sciences, I think what you're asking for is asking too much of gene-editing alone. I prefer the Star Trek view of gene-editing, for genetic diseases, ok. Otherwise, no. Arguably, there is nothing to make better, or faster than what evolution…

Haven't we effectively halted evolution, though? Strength doesn't really matter when you can become wildly "fit" in this world via brains alone, brains don't really matter when you live in a society that isn't ok with (generally) letting people die on the streets of hunger, etc. Seems the traits being selected for is a total crapshoot - anything goes.

Do we not compete in sports? Or win Nobel prizes? Aren't we free to do what we want? Every one isn't a sports person or what have you.

Unchecked genetic engineering is what will bring about mono-cultures, fads, and me-too traits. Does any parent want to put their child through something like that through their entire life? Is it better to build a hab on Mars and breath air, or to genetically engineer yourself to possibly breath what is in the martian atmosphere/ground? What genetic trait trade-offs are you going to make when you can't have certain traits and are at the limits of biology? What trade-offs is the population going to make? I think the answer to all of these questions leads to less freedom for the individual, and a worse society. The parent doesn't have the right to take away or add traits, however benign or meaningful they seem, unless fixing a genetic disease.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

> If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable.

Or, in a generation they'll be suffering under the crushing burden of unintentional side effects of to-early mass adoption of a novel technology.

More likely, in a generation, they'll have a slight lead in research.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#88

Post by LeifCarrotson »

laydn wrote: post #73
komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said: If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will. Maybe it is time to start thinking about an international agreem…

America, historically, has been defined by a Protestant culture which places a lot of religious and moral significance on conceiving human life, and on God's role in creation. Chinese culture does not, as far as I know, have the same stigma against genetic engineering (I admit that while I have traveled for some time in China, I am relatively unfamiliar with any moral, religious, or cultural issues they may have on this topic).

It's natural for the GP to assume that his or her morals are the most correct. How could they behave be otherwise? If they believed that Chinese morals were a higher standard, they would adopt them. Everyone reads the article from their own perspective.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#89

Post by duxup »

komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

It seems inevitable. I always think of the doctor visit in Gattaca.... that's a pretty appealing sales pitch he gives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYJNv8wZvDk

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#90

Post by seanp2k2 »

jimbokun wrote: post #83
komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

Or maybe those countries will fuck up their population's genetic makeups in unforeseen ways, and we can be fortunate for having dodged that bullet. Do you honestly believe there is a single "intelligence" gene we can edit to turn up intelligence like a knob, without impacting anything else about the person? Do you want your baby to be the first one its tried out on?

Who said it was a single gene? Do you believe that because there is a risk, no study of these methods or this idea in general should continue?
Post reply on HN