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

First gene-edited babies claimed in China

mainichi.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 281 posts

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#71

Post by krastanov »

wycs wrote: post #51
skosuri wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Though thousands of alleles contribute to intelligence, we would only need to edit a few hundred to get extremely large increases in IQ, especially if you perform a round of embryo selection (or even iterated embryo selection) before editing. Editing hundreds of alleles may sound incredible to you now, but I don’t think it will sound so incredible for long. Even ignoring GM, embryo selection can get us pretty far wit…

Just checking: you do know that there is a difference between change of "5 standard deviations" and change of "5 IQ points". 5 standard deviations is equal to "1 in 3.5 million", which makes your claim fairly farfetched with the tech of today or of the future decade or two, especially given how IQ is much more function of nurture than of nature.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#72

Post by FloatingVertex »

nradov wrote: post #47
wycs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. Intelligence is polygenic. The average human is no Von Neumann. At the very least genetic engineering could raise average IQ to Von Neumann’s level. We know that phenotype is possible with no ill effects. It will likely take us much further.

You haven't addressed my point. No one disputes that intelligence is partly genetic. However if it was possible to raise intelligence through genetic engineering with no ill effects then why hasn't evolution increased the incidence of that phenotype already?

Historrically inteligence has been a trait that had to be balanced with other factors in natural selection, traits such as having lower energy consumption, lower reaction time were important in the past in a way they simply aren't today. Sacrificing in other less relevent areas could easily lead to intelligence gains.

(Note I am not advocating for gene editing)

Also I don't think we have reached a local maximum, human society kind of fucks with natural selection so I imagine there is room for improvement.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#73

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#74

Post by SCAQTony »

citilife wrote: post #64

This sounds super sketchy: > He said the parents involved declined to be identified or interviewed, and he would not say where they live or where the work was done. > There is no independent confirmation of He's claim, and it has not been published in a journal, where it would be vetted by other experts. He revealed it Monday in Hong Kong to one of the organizers of an international conference on gene editing that is…

Exactly. What happens when these babies become toddlers or young children and they start contracting all sorts of weird cancers.

See article: Potential DNA damage from CRISPR has been ‘seriously underestimated,’ study finds

https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/16/crispr-potential-dna-dam...

The results come hard on the heels of two studies that identified a related issue: Some CRISPR’d cells might be missing a key anti-cancer mechanism and therefore be able to initiate tumors.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#75

Post by logicchains »

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #20
feelix wrote: 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.

>our current moral and ethical frameworks.

Clearly those moral and ethical frameworks are not shared by at least one Chinese scientist.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#76

Post by skosuri »

wycs wrote: post #51
skosuri wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Though thousands of alleles contribute to intelligence, we would only need to edit a few hundred to get extremely large increases in IQ, especially if you perform a round of embryo selection (or even iterated embryo selection) before editing. Editing hundreds of alleles may sound incredible to you now, but I don’t think it will sound so incredible for long. Even ignoring GM, embryo selection can get us pretty far wit…

What you are saying is just not supported by evidence. For example, polygenic analysis of the latest meta-analysis from >250K individuals seems to say that the top several hundred variants explain in aggregrate only 5.2% of the variation in intelligence. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6 (Supplement section 2.3.3 if you don't have access).

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#78

Post by wycs »

krastanov wrote: post #71
wycs wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though thousands of alleles contribute to intelligence, we would only need to edit a few hundred to get extremely large increases in IQ, especially if you perform a round of embryo selection (or even iterated embryo selection) before editing. Editing hundreds of alleles may sound incredible to you now, but I don’t think it will sound so incredible for long. Even ignoring GM, embryo selection can get us pretty far wit…

Just checking: you do know that there is a difference between change of "5 standard deviations" and change of "5 IQ points". 5 standard deviations is equal to "1 in 3.5 million", which makes your claim fairly farfetched with the tech of today or of the future decade or two, especially given how IQ is much more function of nurture than of nature.

I am aware of this. Genetic engineering implies far more power than Gwern mentions for one round of embryo selection. 5 standard deviations may sound a lot for you, but in animal breeding we have changed the distribution of various traits by far more than 5 standard deviations. Into the dozens.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#79

Post by lettergram »

citilife wrote: post #64

This sounds super sketchy: > He said the parents involved declined to be identified or interviewed, and he would not say where they live or where the work was done. > There is no independent confirmation of He's claim, and it has not been published in a journal, where it would be vetted by other experts. He revealed it Monday in Hong Kong to one of the organizers of an international conference on gene editing that is…

It looks like the work they were given supports the cas9 issue you were mentioning:

> Several scientists reviewed materials that He provided to the AP and said tests so far are insufficient to say the editing worked or to rule out harm.

> They also noted evidence that the editing was incomplete and that at least one twin appears to be a patchwork of cells with various changes.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#80

Post by withhighprod »

citilife wrote: post #64

This sounds super sketchy: > He said the parents involved declined to be identified or interviewed, and he would not say where they live or where the work was done. > There is no independent confirmation of He's claim, and it has not been published in a journal, where it would be vetted by other experts. He revealed it Monday in Hong Kong to one of the organizers of an international conference on gene editing that is…

Re the “without consent” part of #2, is it hard to get some parent sign the agreements, even outside China?
Post reply on HN