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

241–250 of 281 posts

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#241

Post by carbocation »

barry-cotter wrote: post #218
carbocation wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re saying that you can see how an expert would think that there is something in the Nuremberg Code that prohibits the experiment we are talking about here, but you know better than the experts?

You are an expert in your field of medicine. You are much better at making predictions from data in it than lay people and you are vastly better at effecting changes in your domain of expertise than laymen. That’s real expertise, like engineers, meteorologists, astronomers, microeconomists, or engineers have. Then there are people who are experts on talking about something but have no expertise in doing. Art historia…

What I often observe on HN is that SlateStarCodex didn't understand how IRBs work, wrote about it, and therefore many people think that IRBs are bad. So, I am wary of IRB arguments here. Not implying that your information on IRBs comes from that one person, just saying that I don't love arguing about IRBs on HN because of a repeated pattern here.

If your point is that "IRBs could be improved in various ways", I'd be happy to agree in many cases. But also, there are some shining examples of enlightened IRBs that make human research at scale quite practical.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#242

Post by zeroname »

danenania wrote: post #188
zeroname wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that we don’t know whether this would prevent diseases with any reasonable certainty, and using non-consenting human beings to try to find out implies a profoundly dangerous devaluation of human life and individual rights. I sure hope you are pro-life, otherwise making "consent" and "individual rights" a foundation of your view would be pretty hypocritical. In my view, if you aren't even a fetus yet,…

Being pro-choice doesn’t require nullification of an unborn child’s rights. It’s the recognition that the mother’s right to agency over her own body takes precedence. That does not imply that a doctor or researcher has the right to risk causing debilitating life-long symptoms to another human being at any stage of development without a clear medical justification. By your reasoning, because an embryo has no rights wh…

> Being pro-choice doesn’t require nullification of an unborn child’s rights. It’s the recognition that the mother’s right to agency over her own body takes precedence.

> That does not imply that a doctor or researcher has the right to risk causing debilitating life-long symptoms to another human being at any stage of development without a clear medical justification.

It's not the doctor making the decision to go ahead with this procedure, it's the mother. So, according to you, a mother has the right to kill an unborn child in the womb because it's the wrong gender (not uncommon in China) and that's "agency over her body" but then she can't attempt to mitigate the HIV risk it has given her child by procreating with an HIV-positive male. This is absurd.

> I also fail to see how the scientific basis is relevant to the ethical question. Whether the science is good or not, we’re talking about unnecessary procedures with inherent failure rates that can have brutal life-long consequences.

Nobody knows if there will be "inherent failure rates that can have brutal life-long consequences". That's why the science is bad. If the science was good, you'd know if the procedure is really that risky or not. If the procedure was 100% safe and effective, it would be unethical not to perform it.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#243

Post by super_serious »

prossercj wrote: post #203
aaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The genome is the ultimate legacy code: - it's been written for billions of years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Earliest_biologica... ) - without any sort of upfront architecture or planning - the development methodology can be summarized as "change characters randomly and see if it compiles" - incredibly bloated ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA ) - contains random snippets copy/pasted fro…

As someone who works on software for DNA analysis, this is spot on

I wonder if one were to clean up the code, removing all bloat, keeping only the relevant pieces, how would that human turn out?

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#244

Post by chocolate_ »

aaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #169
valtism wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The genome is the ultimate legacy code: - it's been written for billions of years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Earliest_biologica... ) - without any sort of upfront architecture or planning - the development methodology can be summarized as "change characters randomly and see if it compiles" - incredibly bloated ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA ) - contains random snippets copy/pasted fro…

I want this comment as a poster.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#245

Post by coldtea »

AznHisoka wrote: post #187
coldtea wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The future? Compared to 1900 we already live in a widely different world, more diff today - 1900 than diff 1900 - 1000 B.C.

If I was transported to my city in 1900 and walk around, I would probably be uncomfortable for a few hours but be adjusted soon afterwards. If I was a 1900’s citizen transported to 1000 BC? holy.. are you kidding me? I would be shell shocked.

And yet, not match would have changed. Aside from a few major western cities (and specific major areas in them too) most cities in 1900 didn't even fully have electric lighting back then, nor central sewage systems, and tons of other stuff.

Technology wise, 1900 cities more like 1000 BC than today. 1000 BC wasn't some cavemen running around, we had established civilizations, with writing, education, math, literature, laws, etc already in place.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#246

Post by nugget »

coldtea wrote: post #136
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.

> Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. This looks totally unlikely. Not to mention generally undesirable (people with IQ over 150 or so often have severe problems in their social life, and a lot of them don't ever even create or discover much, not to mention the insufferable part whose main accomplishment is to be members of MENSA).

150+ IQ is a lonely place to be because there aren’t many other people to connect with, especially for kids born in more rural areas without resources. It’s easy for these kids to self destruct. Turning a kid that smart into a happy, stable, productive member of society is an intensive 18+ year process that usually involves curated peers and experts with specific domain expertise. Check out Davidson Academy in Reno to read more.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#247

Post by aaaaaaaaaab »

super_serious wrote: post #243
prossercj wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who works on software for DNA analysis, this is spot on

I wonder if one were to clean up the code, removing all bloat, keeping only the relevant pieces, how would that human turn out?

Fixing our inverted retina would be one of the low hanging fruits:

>The vertebrate retina is inverted in the sense that the light sensing cells are in back of the retina, so that light has to pass through layers of neurons and capillaries before it reaches the rods and cones. In contrast, in the cephalopod retina the photoreceptors are in front, with processing neurons and capillaries behind them. Because of this, cephalopods do not have a blind spot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#248

Post by slavak »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #229
cultus wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with HIV just have to pop a couple pills a day now to take their viral loads to literally undetectable levels. With treatment, people with HIV can expect to live normal lives, and be healthy and active. It's also almost impossible to transmit HIV with such low viral loads.

And how expensive is that treatment?

You mean in the United States? Or in the civilized world?

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#249

Post by Noos »

buboard wrote: post #101
jlebar wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was voluntary Do you think parents can consent to this sort of experiment on behalf of an unborn child?

should parents be liable for any kind of genetic defect they pass to their children?

This isn't a child though, in a sense. This is a designed good. So yes, they should be responsible for any condition they knowingly design into another person.

If you believe in the possibility of trait selection in this manner to an advanced level, it is vital that this happens. A tyrannical father may demand his children may be atheists, and prevent them from going to church now. A tyrannical father in the future may have the ability to edit the God gene (assuming one exists for the sake of argument) right out before birth, never allowing the chance of it.

And this is the best case, in which the effort to design doesn't saddle the child with a host of other conditions.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#250

Post by Noos »

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…

I don't think Christians (theism is just a code word for this, true lower-case theists are rare) feel this way, since they acknowledge the world is not pristine due to the fall of man, and suffering and pain exist. Usually the argument on that is that man is made in the image of God, and has special value due to this. They act as stewards of creation and reflections of God himself, and shouldn't be treated like animals.

I'd also argue that non-natural selection can be worse. We have crude forms of it through pet breeding, and cats come to mind. The Scottish Fold in particular:

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

I worry non-natural selection could follow the path of the fold and various toy breeds.

Post reply on HN