It’s no surprise this comes from China, the same country that grinds dead babies into pills.
First gene-edited babies claimed in China
11–20 of 281 posts
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#12There have been a good deal of medical and technological breakthroughs over the last couple decades. Reusable rockets, VR, machine learning, etc. This is the first article I have read that has made me realize that the future is right here, right now and there is a very high probability that things are now going to change rapidly.
One thing to consider is that via crispr and stem cell treatments, genetic changes can be affected in adults as well, you just need to wait for the kinks to be worked out now and apply large sums of money. Our definition of 'haves and have nots' is potentially going to change in ways we have never imagined.
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#13a giant leap
i had thought this wouldnt happen for another few decades
this is bad news for tibetans since their high altitude gene is known even the andes high alt adaptations are being discovered which is really one of the closest things to a genetic super ability you can get
so it will only be a few decades more until this last barrier to han colonization of tibet falls
deep sea diving is another such genetic ability recently investigated
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#14The edited gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function, but is the entry point for HIV. So editing for prophylaxis. This was probably done because if there aren’t a ton of loss of function beneficial traits, and probably with the main desire to be first. Except, if the reports are true, this is not just an experiment but a person (or people). I guess the main desire is to normalize editing. Brave ne…
I guess time will tell if it leads to any adverse effects. I'm not a biologist which is probably why I'm more wary of this, but if there is some unforeseen circumstances then we'll find out I suppose.
There are many people that are CCR5 null (largely in Africa due to positive selection for HIV resistance), so it's unlikely to have much effect, but still...
edit: I'll also amend the statement, as the gene is implicated in responses to other viruses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#15> It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. This is 100% correct. (COI: Kiran was my postdoc while I was a student in the lab a decade ago.)
Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children compared to future citizens of nations that do not share our taboos.
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess time will tell if it leads to any adverse effects. I'm not a biologist which is probably why I'm more wary of this, but if there is some unforeseen circumstances then we'll find out I suppose.
There are many people that are CCR5 null (largely in Africa due to positive selection for HIV resistance), so it's unlikely to have much effect, but still... edit: I'll also amend the statement, as the gene is implicated in responses to other viruses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs
I think the question is not so much the effect of a lack of CCR5 but rather the accuracy of the genetic procedure and whether or not anything else was unintentionally affected. If it was accurate and only desired change was implemented, we have opened pandora's box.
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#17> It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. This is 100% correct. (COI: Kiran was my postdoc while I was a student in the lab a decade ago.)
calling an opinion "100% correct" seems 100% indefensible
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#18> It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. This is 100% correct. (COI: Kiran was my postdoc while I was a student in the lab a decade ago.)
Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children compared to future citizens of nations that do not share our taboos.
> Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children compared to future citizens of Asian nations.
What is the relevance of "Asian nations?" to this conversation?
Also, we're talking about a specific experiment that was allegedly conducted in human beings with (good but error-prone) genome editing mechanisms, outside of the purview of peer review or, from what I can tell, an IRB.
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#19> It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. This is 100% correct. (COI: Kiran was my postdoc while I was a student in the lab a decade ago.)
calling an opinion "100% correct" seems 100% indefensible
Since this implies that you find this action more than 0% defensible, I'm curious to hear your defense of it.
Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China
#20> It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. This is 100% correct. (COI: Kiran was my postdoc while I was a student in the lab a decade ago.)
calling an opinion "100% correct" seems 100% indefensible
"an experiment on human beings [is] not morally or ethically defensible" is not an opinion but an assertion of how genetic editing fits into our current moral and ethical frameworks.