First gene-edited babies claimed in China • Hacker News Board

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#21

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #18

wycs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

[deleted]

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#22

Post by cyphar » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

Svexav wrote: post #11

It’s no surprise this comes from China, the same country that grinds dead babies into pills.

When I first read this comment I thought it was hyperbole (I've heard about the vaccine and melamine scares -- which harmed and killed many thousands of children -- but not about dead babies being put into pills). But no, it's real fucking thing[1,2,3,4]. What the actual fuck. How is a Hacker News comment the first time I've heard of this?

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ho... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17980177 [3]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-08/south-korea-cracks-do... [4]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/9...

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#23

Post by hanniabu » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:25 AM UTC

rm2889 wrote: post #6

This is quite interesting. There is a certain very small percentage of the world's population that is immune to the HIV virus. These people's T-cells have the CD4 receptor, but not the CCR5 receptor. The HIV virus needs both these receptors to successfully affect the host's cells. The absence of the CCR5 receptor still allows the person's T cells to function normally, so if this works, it can pave the way to creating…

Does CCR5 have no other purpose? Hard to believe that it'd exist if it wasn't needed.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#24

Post by edwardhusarcik » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:25 AM UTC

skosuri wrote: post #5

The 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…

Homozygous CCR5 mutations cause "immunity" against HIV and heterozygous causes a slower disease course. I do not think this applies to all strains of HIV. Unsure.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#25

Post by dqpb » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:27 AM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #18

wycs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

"good but error prone" describes all of medical care right now. Hell, pharmaceuticals aren't even good in many cases.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#26

Post by zxcvvcxz » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:28 AM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #8

> 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.)

Why?

Seriously why? We do so many unnatural things to us through technology. The article discusses editing genes to try and prevent viruses.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#27

Post by dqpb » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:28 AM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #19

feelix wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here is a simple argument - if you can prevent disease, you should.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#28

Post by nradov » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:29 AM UTC

wycs wrote: post #15

carbocation wrote: post #8

> 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.

Genetic engineering might be able to prevent certain inherited diseases, but otherwise major net improvements are unlikely. A boost in one area tends to cause problems in other areas. That's why evolution through natural selection hasn't significantly increased average human intelligence over the past few thousand years. The average human genome appears to be close to a local maximum.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#29

Post by valtism » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:30 AM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #7

skosuri wrote: post #5

The 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.

I've worked with enough legacy code to know that playing around with seemingly unused areas can have unexpected consequences.

The trouble here is that we can't see those consequences until they end up hurting someone.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#30

Post by skosuri » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:31 AM UTC

wycs wrote: post #15

carbocation wrote: post #8

> 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.

"Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations"... Where in the world are you getting this from? This is unlikely to be true for a long time. Intelligence, as far as genetics controls it, is a complex trait... with few if any large effect (especially positive) mutations.