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

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#131

Post by farresito »

ece wrote: post #86
komali2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

But it doesn't increase the chance of survival, which is what he probably means when he says we halted evolution.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#133

Post by RangerScience »

zhengyi13 wrote: post #107
RangerScience wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or maybe those countries will fuck up their population's genetic makeups in unforeseen ways This is why diversity is important.

I think you're right, but I think this doesn't address what I suppose is a reasonable fear: engineer a significant enough advantage to out-compete a rival population, and then only later rediscover the need for diversity. That doesn't work out well in the long term for either population, but that doesn't mean that, given the choice, it wouldn't happen. Given the Chinese example, I'm immediately reminded of the folly…

Reasonablish, although we do (and I feel a bit monstrous saying some of this) already have existing models in the form of NA reservations and the Amish.

Both of these are (massively?) out-competing groups (one of them through "no fault of their own") who are maintaining existence.

Even a bit more of a deliberate effort on the part of the competitive majority to support any (and again, feel a bit monstrous) "baseline reserve population" would probably succeed enough.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#134

Post by inciampati »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #11

> They injected a synthetic healthy DNA sequence into the fertilized egg, expecting that the male genome would copy that sequence into the cut portion ... Instead, the male gene copied the healthy sequence from the female gene. The authors don’t know why it happened. This seems like the most remarkable part of this entire article. It sounds like a huge discovery. There's a lot of ethical concerns that can be laid asi…

This happens frequently with this genome editing technique. It is one of the most common failure modes.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#135

Post by bryananderson »

quotemstr wrote: post #14

Good! For too long, we've been hampered by the limitations of a human nature evolved millions of years ago for a very different environment. All previous attempts at changing human nature have failed. Activism does not work. Grand social movements do not work. Policing language does not work. We now have a chance to succeed in improving ourselves using tools that actually work.

But this is just not true.

I know it doesn't feel like it when you get on Twitter or turn on the news, but human beings are far nicer to each other today than they have ever been in history.

Violence, poverty, and bigotry are all on gargantuan, multi-century downward trends.

The evidence is clear that human behavior can change.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#136

Post by nonbel »

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. If China doesn't, Russia will."

Any country that does widespread "gene editing" anytime soon will either:

1) See no difference at all, since it doesn't actually do anything more than selecting for sperm/eggs.

2) Have an insane onslaught of health problems that appear in 10+ years due to unforeseen consequences.

Our understanding of the human body is so rudimentary that your claim really is laughable.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#137

Post by gasbag »

aaronmck wrote: post #9
abhi3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be considered ethical for science as well.

Currently there's limits on how long you can keep embryos going -- the '14-day rule': http://www.nature.com/news/embryology-policy-revisit-the-14-... Will be interesting to see the moral and ethical debate on any change here.

There is a Radiolab episode about this too. They talk about all of the things that we don't know about that happen between days 14 and ~30 (working from memory), and also how the person who came up with the 14 day rule chose that number at least in part because, at the time, it was way out of reach and did not seem like it would ever be achievable.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/primitive-streak/

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#138

Post by zo1 »

jimbokun wrote: post #84
quotemstr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will start off very slowly. I'd argue we're already doing "genetic engineering" on a small scale with IVF. At some point, the IVF clinics will start offering "screening" for incrementally less harmful diseases, disorders and traits. And then it's a small step from that to simply picking "the best" embryos. E.g. They'll "filter-out" all the embryos that will end up being very short. Then they'll filter out all the embryos that are "most-likely" to be below-average in intelligence, or most-likely to be mentally challenged, etc.

Even if it isn't down-right engineering/splicing/etc, and using only the parents' egg/sperm combinations, they can still offer to "move our society" forward at a snail pace.

I personally see no reason to be against it, as it's the logical extension of natural evolution. It's just more refined, scientific, guided, and devoid of some of the randomness or trial-by-error properties that are inherent with natural evolution.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#139

Post by zo1 »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #98
civilian wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you like to be born with Huntington's disease, knowing that your parents could have taken an unknown risk to save you from it? We are all utterly innocent and unwilling participants in being born. You can either take the random cards that nature deals you, or we can try to act to have better outcomes. Just because you refuse to take action doesn't absolve you from taking a suboptimal action.

This could also easily turn into a larger discussion about the ethical considerations of procreation when one is not in a favorable position (e.g. poor, homeless, addicted to drugs, mentally ill). What's OK and what's not? Who decides for everyone? Is that the best way? Should people be allowed to decide for their future children?

That larger topic is indeed a touchy one. I tend to have a controversial stance in that discussion, so I do get plenty of down votes on it. Somehow, people feel very strongly about about adults' "rights" to procreate. Even if that right results in the involvement of an unwitting participant who then leads a very short life of struggling.

It's actually very saddening to watch a completely avoidable & preventable problem, whose N-amount of obvious solutions end up being shoved under the rug because we refuse to draw the line.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#140

Post by ece »

farresito wrote: post #131
ece wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

But it doesn't increase the chance of survival, which is what he probably means when he says we halted evolution.

Genetic engineering isn't about to give anyone an "increased chance of survival." Unless you have a genetic disease, then it's ok. The population of earth isn't going to start decreasing anytime soon. Unchecked genetic engineering reducing natural genetic diversity might actually reduce the population of earth.

I don't understand what "halting" evolution means. Evolution as a process, through natural selection, is at work and will still be working when you have or don't have genetic engineering.

Also, trading personal and societal freedom for some notion of "increased chance of survival" isn't a trade-off you want to be making. Would you rather be free or live longer?

Post reply on HN