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

Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

xconomy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#81

Post by fifnir »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #77
fifnir wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really dislike pandering, dismissive statements like this. And I (as a scientist) really dislike having to frame everything I do as being relevant to human medicine for laymen to appreciate it. Some things are extremely valuable even if they can't be used to treat cancer and congenital disease.

I can appreciate that. My only counterpoint is that I and many other "laymen" (as apparently we're referred to?) can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. It's not like genetics is the only field that struggles with this. I'm primarily a web developer and still remember the 10+ years of trying to explain to people why "The Web" was an important technology that would radically impact all of ou…

I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that. I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess.

Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest of humanity is the second most important thing after actually generating said knowledge.

> can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it.

The frustration is that people only seem capable of appreciating science when it has direct and tangible benefits for humans. (and that's why i posted the previous post, not cause you dared ask a reasonable question)

"Why do you do this?" "What can we use this for in humans?"

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#82

Post by jamesrcole »

fifnir wrote: post #81
nickelcitymario wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can appreciate that. My only counterpoint is that I and many other "laymen" (as apparently we're referred to?) can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. It's not like genetics is the only field that struggles with this. I'm primarily a web developer and still remember the 10+ years of trying to explain to people why "The Web" was an important technology that would radically impact all of ou…

I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that. I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess. Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest…

In addition to what you've said about the frustration, there's the following.

Basic research is vitally important, and has contributed so much to society. Yet by its very nature you can't predict if how any specific piece of basic research will provide benefit.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of basic research and scientific and technological development to expect to be able to know, and thus say, what the benefits might be.

Rather than expecting to be able to predict the benefits, we have to have a more 'statistical' set of expectations. That, on aggregate, and over time, basic research will provide substantial benefits.

And it's not just the general public who don't appreciate this. I find that many people working in applied research don't appreciate it either.

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#83

Post by refurb »

klmr wrote: post #68
User23 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the layman thinks of genetic engineering magic is going to have to happen in the germline. That means it's not going to help you or me or anyone else already alive.

This is true for most genetic engineering applications but not all. Somatic gene therapy has been successfully performed in a few cases. There will almost certainly be more applications in the future, and it’s reasonable to expect that they will be able to handle some prevalent diseases (such as all types of diabetes).

The only approved genetic therapies (Luxturna, Strimvelis, Glybera, others) are all for children or adults. To say you can only use it for germ line modification is just plain wrong.

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#84

Post by nickelcitymario »

fifnir wrote: post #81
nickelcitymario wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can appreciate that. My only counterpoint is that I and many other "laymen" (as apparently we're referred to?) can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. It's not like genetics is the only field that struggles with this. I'm primarily a web developer and still remember the 10+ years of trying to explain to people why "The Web" was an important technology that would radically impact all of ou…

I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that. I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess. Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest…

Completely agree :-)

(And no apology needed... I shouldn't take things so personally.)

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#85

Post by snerbles »

jamesrcole wrote: post #79
wgjordan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to consolidate the consensus needed to genetically alter specific 'cognitive biases' that are 'harmful' to 'humans' in 'today's world', you'll probably first need to establish a global totalitarian dictatorship ('take over the world'). That adds an extra technical challenge beyond CRISPR itself, but you can always shoot for the moon and land among the stars.

Why do you think it'd require a global totalitarian dictatorship?? (Also, why do you put 'cognitive biases' in quotes, as if it's a notion of suspect legitimacy?)

How are you going to enforce your eugenics program when a sizeable chunk of the population resists it?

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#86

Post by jamesrcole »

snerbles wrote: post #85
jamesrcole wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think it'd require a global totalitarian dictatorship?? (Also, why do you put 'cognitive biases' in quotes, as if it's a notion of suspect legitimacy?)

How are you going to enforce your eugenics program when a sizeable chunk of the population resists it?

Who said anything about a program enforced on people??

Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal.

And, regarding "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program" (emphasis added), grow up.

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#87

Post by snerbles »

jamesrcole wrote: post #86
snerbles wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to enforce your eugenics program when a sizeable chunk of the population resists it?

Who said anything about a program enforced on people?? Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal. A…

Changing how people fundamentally think and reason about things is a big deal. Probably the biggest deal out of your suggestions from a societal perspective. Such transformative things will be met with pushback, and if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide.

To suggest otherwise is to ignore history.

And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Own it.

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#88

Post by jamesrcole »

snerbles wrote: post #87
jamesrcole wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about a program enforced on people?? Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal. A…

Changing how people fundamentally think and reason about things is a big deal . Probably the biggest deal out of your suggestions from a societal perspective. Such transformative things will be met with pushback, and if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. To suggest otherwise is to ignore hi…

I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person

Humans are, for example, very poor at making risk assessments. Evolution has "programmed" our brains to focus too much on certain things and not enough on others. These heuristics might have made sense in ancestral environments bit are quite harmful in today's world. Evolution has already "made us think a certain way". Why would it be so horrific to, for example, lessen certain of those tendencies, if they are harmful?

The examples I gave are hardly of "Changing how people fundamentally think and reason".

> Such transformative things will be met with pushback

It certainly could be. There's also what I said in my last comment, about why that's not necessarily so. Which you have ignored.

> if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide.

That is such a ridiculous argument to make in response to what I have said.

That is to assume that 1) the governments feel so strongly about it and 2) feel that they need to go to extreme lengths to make their will accepted. There is no reason to think that either of those conditions would be true in the case of DNA modifications like I have talked about. You certainly haven't attempted to argue for it.

Your argument could be used against any suggestion. "If such a program of combatting global warming through enforced tax on carbon is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide." See how ridiculous that sounds?

> And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread.

Grow up. You said "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program". Show me where I said anything that even implied some sort of 'program' that is 'enforced' upon people, or that I had some sort of plan to do so? Don't try to make it out as if you were saying something else.

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#89

Post by wgjordan »

jamesrcole wrote: post #86
snerbles wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to enforce your eugenics program when a sizeable chunk of the population resists it?

Who said anything about a program enforced on people?? Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal. A…

Forcing all humans to think one specific 'rational' way, eliminating all 'cognitive biases' to the contrary is definitely something people resist. Not everyone shares your world-view, value system, etc.

And "eugenics" is 'a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population' [1], which is exactly what you're talking about here. There's a reason the term has fallen out of favor since WWII.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Re: Pre-Existing Immunity to CRISPR Found in 96% of People in Study

#90

Post by wiz21c »

dotancohen wrote: post #63
wiz21c wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but it's a bit sad that it can't intentionally help it to handle cancer.

Yet. By the way, "cancer" is a class of diseases, not a single disease to treat, and many of them currently have CRISPR-derived treatments being actively developed.

I'm no expert. Do you believe it's just a question of time ?
Post reply on HN