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

151–160 of 281 posts

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#151

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

xenadu02 wrote: post #123
buboard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh wow. CCR5 has been found to have a role in memory recently. Knockout mice have better learning[1] and pronounced increase in spine formation/turnover[2]. These babies are going to have super-memory: 1. https://elifesciences.org/articles/20985 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29379017

Almost certainly not; improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. Most mouse models don't replicate in other animals either.

That a trait is preferable and not developed can never be an indicator of what a gene is for. The fact that I didn't evolve to fly doesn't mean I don't have the potential genes for that. There's also far less natural selection in evolution than we think. Evolution overwhelmingly happens in relatively short time periods, after which stability seems to take over. This is at odds with the natural selection principle as the primary driver of evolution. Also, most DNA-sharing between organisms happens horizontally, not top down (think single cell organisms). There's really much more that we don't know than what we know here.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#152

Post by Ultimatt »

xenadu02 wrote: post #123
buboard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh wow. CCR5 has been found to have a role in memory recently. Knockout mice have better learning[1] and pronounced increase in spine formation/turnover[2]. These babies are going to have super-memory: 1. https://elifesciences.org/articles/20985 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29379017

Almost certainly not; improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. Most mouse models don't replicate in other animals either.

Sure but selection only works on events that have happened. Loss of function isn't that common especially if the benefit of the gene is resistance to flu, which is far more important than improved memory on an evolutionary scale. Purging selection trumps almost anything more rational.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#153

Post by d0100 »

logicchains wrote: post #75
DennisAleynikov wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Considering the Chinese morality begins with sucking the emperor's balls...

It's not surprising if we see the Chinese doing whatever, like they do.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#154

Post by anvandare »

coldtea wrote: post #138
anvandare wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purists need not be worried. There's always the hope the descendants of those humans who do take the path of editing their own genetic code will, a few centuries from now, give those purists' descendants a nice small patch of land as a reservation. Or maybe a cozy cage in a zoo, with a little sign next to the bars which reads: "homo sapiens inferior".

Or, you know, the purists will be spared untold suffering that those others will have to go through because of "magician's apprentice" style editing...

Of course the first period of experimentation and discovery will lead to unexpected and unpleasant results. All new technology takes time to mature, for the users to get an understanding of its tricky implementation bits and long-term impact. It's not wise to immediately put all your eggs in a brand new basket. But the ones who experiment and adapt will always eventually outperform those who refuse to change and stick to tried-and-tested. That's the very nature of evolution.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#155

Post by onetimemanytime »

buboard wrote: post #146
onetimemanytime wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...

then you should not have children, but you should clone yourself. because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation

>>because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation

Nope, whatever happens it's the natural way: mistakes, mix, match and all.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#156

Post by jhanschoo »

valtism wrote: post #29
noobermin wrote: post #7

Earlier 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.

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.

Genetic code in large, multicellular organisms is quite different; in mammals, for certain functions you have multiple pathways to achieve similar things through different vehicles (proteins). In this sense, it is more akin to building or blowing up a bridge in relation to a transportation network; usually, other paths still exist, but sometimes and in certain critical locations it really fucks up the infrastructure.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#157

Post by cbg0 »

a_imho wrote: post #148
xtrapolate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function" It's in the article: > "Even if editing worked perfectly, people without normal CCR5 genes face higher risks of getting certain other viruses, such as West Nile, and of dying from the flu. Since there are many ways to prevent HIV infection and it's very treatable if it occurs, those other medical risks are a concern, Musunuru said."

it's very treatable if it occurs Surely it is a bit of a stretch.

Compared to a few decades ago, you can live a much longer life thanks to the medication available nowadays.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#158

Post by buboard »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #155
buboard wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

then you should not have children, but you should clone yourself. because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation

>> because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation Nope, whatever happens it's the natural way: mistakes, mix, match and all.

it seems some mistakes are more privileged than others ;)

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#159

Post by alehander42 »

anvandare wrote: post #118
nostrademons wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What is the relevance of "Asian nations?" to this conversation?" I would assume it's because the article describes genetically-engineered babies in China, so obviously it's not outlawed there (or if it is, the law is not enforced). Grandparent poster is pointing out that if genetic engineering gives survival or competitive benefits to those who do it, it doesn't matter what your personal ethical, moral, and legal st…

The purists need not be worried. There's always the hope the descendants of those humans who do take the path of editing their own genetic code will, a few centuries from now, give those purists' descendants a nice small patch of land as a reservation. Or maybe a cozy cage in a zoo, with a little sign next to the bars which reads: "homo sapiens inferior".

This is so arrogantly naive, that I hope it's sarcasm

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#160

Post by sho »

nathan_f77 wrote: post #110
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.)

I don't know if I agree with that. Some theists believe that we shouldn't tamper with God's perfect creation, because everything happens for a reason (including miscarriages, birth defects, and genetic diseases.) Atheists might believe that natural selection has got us this far, so it must be a pretty good process. A scientist shouldn't change anything, because they will be adding unnecessary risk to the natural proc…

> Nature is already a mad scientist that runs random experiments on babies.

Excellent way of putting it. I'm adding that quote to my arsenal..

Post reply on HN