Live data from Hacker News

First gene-edited babies claimed in China

mainichi.jp

31–40 of 281 posts

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#31
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…

the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. It's ethically black as far as I am concerned but it has already happened so we must see where this takes us. IVF born edited zygotes might have serious complications but ideally its a healthy human being. (for everyone's sake)

> It's ethically black

What does that mean?

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#32
post #25

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 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.

That's absolutely not the standard for deciding to conduct an experiment on humans.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#33
Here is a controversial article published in 2013 by an evolutionary psychologist that everyone should give some thoughts on:

Disclaimers: I do not have the expertise to evaluate its veracity but if true it will affect everyone in the world in some important ways within a few decades (the effects might already start to appear as we see how fast China has developed technologically. Yes, technology transfer is clearly a factor but few developing nations can absorb and adopt advanced technologies so rapidly). I also have not pondered deeply enough to have a strong position on the complicated ethical implications alluded to in the article and expressed with concerns elsewhere.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

> ...

> Deng also encouraged assortative mating through promoting urbanization and higher education, so bright, hard-working young people could meet each other more easily, increasing the proportion of children who would be at the upper extremes of intelligence and conscientiousness. ...

> But crucially, Comprehensive National Power also includes "biopower": creating the world's highest-quality human capital in terms of the Chinese population's genes, health, and education ...

> The BGI Cognitive Genomics Project is currently doing whole-genome sequencing of 1,000 very-high-IQ people around the world, hunting for sets of sets of IQ-predicting alleles. I know because I recently contributed my DNA to the project, not fully understanding the implications. These IQ gene-sets will be found eventually—but will probably be used mostly in China, for China. Potentially, the results would allow all Chinese couples to maximize the intelligence of their offspring by selecting among their own fertilized eggs for the one or two that include the highest likelihood of the highest intelligence. Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness. ...

> My real worry is the Western response. The most likely response, given Euro-American ideological biases, would be a bioethical panic that leads to criticism of Chinese population policy with the same self-righteous hypocrisy that we have shown in criticizing various Chinese socio-cultural policies. But the global stakes are too high for us to act that stupidly and short-sightedly. A more mature response would be based on mutual civilizational respect, asking—what can we learn from what the Chinese are doing, how can we help them, and how can they help us to keep up as they create their brave new world?

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#34
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.

Not really. There are lots of vestigial things in humans that are no longer needed.

Tailbones, for instance.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#35
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the short term I think the risks are overstated. Vastly increased health and intelligence looks like it will be possible to select and/or edit for, as well as the elimination of Mendelian disease. The scale of this good is so large it overwhelms most scruples.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#36
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#37

> 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.

The modern biomedical ethical framework comes out of Nuremburg in response to Nazi atrocities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#38
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. It's ethically black as far as I am concerned but it has already happened so we must see where this takes us. IVF born edited zygotes might have serious complications but ideally its a healthy human being. (for everyone's sake)

> It's ethically black What does that mean?

Edit: misread

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#39
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Can prevent disease" implies that you are not doing experimentation. If you're doing experiments, it means you don't know if you can.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#40
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it is an opinion. Being an assertion doesn't prevent it from being an opinion.

You and I could very well find arguments for defending it, even while fitting the current morale.

Post reply on HN