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

Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#11

Post by mannykannot »

winchling wrote: post #5

>We should not proceed down this road until we know far more about the consequences of what we are doing. In the present climate of pessimism it's worth reminding ourselves that we never know all the consequences of what we're doing. The 'Precautionary Principle' kills people too; it merely does so in a less obvious way. Personally I think we should be going hell for leather in identifying and eliminating genetic dis…

This is a particularly bad example to make that case over, as it is hard to discern any scientific or medical justification for it, while the known risks are considerable. Frankly, it looks to me like a posterity-grabbing stunt - an attempt by the researcher to write himself into the history books.

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#13

Post by paraditedc »

Since we are in the fallout stage now, it is important to note that this news is poorly received within China, with most organizations against it or denying ties with it.

I wrote a summary of reactions in China on my blog if anyone is interested (no paywall, no ads): https://paraditedc.com/2018/11/26/doubts-within-china-on-gen...

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#14

Post by buboard »

tgb wrote: post #7
vaultcool wrote: post #3

How often did Chinese researchers claim to have done something incredible, without proper proof and lack of data, and it turned out to be a total scam? This really feels like another one of these, we'll see what happens, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

But the difference here is that, to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing particularly difficult about CRISPR in humans. It's routine in other mammals and had previously been done on human embryos. The thing holding everyone back was ethical concerns and the possibilities of off-target effects, side-effects of the mutation, etc. So I'd err on the side of assuming they did do it.

Also George Church says it's "probably accurate"

https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/26/claim-of-crispred-baby-g...

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#15

Post by Nasrudith »

winchling wrote: post #5

>We should not proceed down this road until we know far more about the consequences of what we are doing. In the present climate of pessimism it's worth reminding ourselves that we never know all the consequences of what we're doing. The 'Precautionary Principle' kills people too; it merely does so in a less obvious way. Personally I think we should be going hell for leather in identifying and eliminating genetic dis…

We should but only after we know about its safety in model animals. They have DNA as well as often being simpler systems to model with shorter generations to model effects.

I mean I am pro genetic engineering but it is senseless to learn the basics of cardiac suturing on a live human when there are cadavars and livestock byproducts to do it on without the loss.

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#16

Post by maroonblazer »

Nasrudith wrote: post #9
anvandare wrote: post #8

First one to get the (nuclear|genetic|quantum decryptor| ...) superweapon wins. That's been always true. Any government who's currently protesting and proclaiming they never will partake in it are either (1) idiots or (2) lying.

Really apart from nukes which had a brief preproliferation period when have superweapons been worth it? Most of the time they have been holes to put money in and get ego out from the Paris railway gun to the megatanks of Nazi Germany.

I don't follow this area so my reply may be naive but it seems like developing super-weapons would be worthwhile if only to be able to detect when others are doing the same.

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#17

Post by baybal2 »

adventured wrote: post #12
booleandilemma wrote: post #4

Meanwhile China is actually doing it and soaking up the investor money, interested researchers, and gaining the lead.

That's false. The city of Boston by itself leads China in CRISPR tech and innovation.

Have you noticed just how many genetic technology in US is actually made in China? Boston companies may have high profile, but all the dirty work is done in China by research outsourcing labs staffed with interns.

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#19

Post by imtemplain »

The moment we allow this we are done as humans. Even if it can be labeled as "safe" someday, we will eventually be replaced by machines if we combine gene editing with AI. It may even take a thousand years but it will happen for sure. It just takes an evolutionary pressure or even just a preference among humans that favors designer babies. At some point it will be disadvantageous to reproduce the natural way or even to not sterilize your designer babies from the get go and the designed humans will most likely be advancing this technology further with every generation. At that point a machine would be our true replicator and we'd be lost.

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#20

Post by vedtopkar »

baybal2 wrote: post #17
adventured wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false. The city of Boston by itself leads China in CRISPR tech and innovation.

Have you noticed just how many genetic technology in US is actually made in China? Boston companies may have high profile, but all the dirty work is done in China by research outsourcing labs staffed with interns.

Do you have a source for this? This may be true in other fields but most genome editing industry work is almost certainly done stateside.
Post reply on HN