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

CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#71

Post by hutzlibu »

Insanity wrote: post #36

It's horrible that people are dying because of malaria. I'm a bit divided on this approach though, I don't know enough about the topic at hand to suggest a different approach, but let me try. Would it be feasible to suggest using CRISP to create another adaptation to the gene, one that preserves the mosquitoes but makes them unable to transfer the disease to humans? Eliminating a species because we don't like it remi…

People are also dying of war and hunger and lack of clean water and medicine. I would even argue that those are the bigger problems and the deaths of malaria are more symptoms of the former problems. Usually, it ain't the rich people who die of malaria.

So I would focus in those problems instead of trying to inject suicide genes into the wild.

I like the saying: the opposite of well done, is well intented.

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#72

Post by wuschel »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #63
wuschel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classical ad hominem argument . Attack the people who make the immoral choice of thinking about the fact instead of blindly going forward and doing it, regardless of the cost. Perhaps it is worth to consider carefully before eradicating a species by any means? And perhaps it is worth to consider using a domain of technology - biotechnology - we have yet to understand better? Every tool comes with it's price, and so d…

> Unless... unless, of course, we are happy with the import of rabbits et al to Australia. Odd that you lead with the dismissal of one logical fallacy and then in the short space of this comment fall into the trap of using another one yourself.

Sorry, I should have made clear that it was an ironic statement. My bad.

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#73

Post by runako »

dotancohen wrote: post #26
amelius wrote: post #6

Frightening question: what if this technology could be targeted not at species, but at races?

It probably already can. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand CRISPR targets specific DNA sequences. Race can be determined by DNA testing, therefore I think (again, I'm not an expert) that there would be certain sequences that are specific to a race. Now CRISPR alters the specific sequence that it targets. In fact, CRISPR only cuts the DNA at that sequence, other proteins must be employed to change and then…

> Race can be determined by DNA testing

Wading into a minefield here, but is this even remotely true?

My understanding of DNA testing is that it can only tell you what genes a person has. I wasn't aware of any reliable way to cluster genes into racial groups. (The 23 & me stuff is all probabilities, wide percentage ranges, etc.)

Further, I thought it was the case that science has basically abandoned the concept of race specifically because it couldn't be reliably measured, even by DNA analysis. Is this not the case? What am I missing?

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#74

Post by Nasrudith »

jmh530 wrote: post #33
peteretep wrote: post #2

ITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea

Malaria and other diseases are one of the main reasons Europeans kept their African ambitions relatively contained. What is the geopolitical implication of eliminating malaria?

It has long been gone since Quinine essentially already let alone successors. Population spike maybe but also potential to stabilize more as persistent dangers cause humans to reproduce more. It would encourage more investment in children as well. No worries about "if my child dies all I spent on education would be lost and unrecoverable while say a jeep or plow would have something in the worst case".

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#75

Post by fiblye »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #38
nkozyra wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time.

Wiping out smallpox seems to have no negative side effects. In any case, side effects that might exist are hugely less problematic than millions of human deaths!

There's a difference between wiping out a virus that pretty much only affects humans, and wiping out an animal that's been present for millions of years and is firmly established as a food source for countless other animals.

One has the sole effect of making humans healthier. The other is linked to far too many things to predict the outcome of. Considering dragonfly nymphs have mosquito larvae as a stable food source, it's safe to say that knocking them out will probably affect them. Then follow that food chain up (and down) and things start to get complicated.

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#76

Post by runako »

easshvsh wrote: post #24
Phenomenit wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no biological basis for the word race.

Colour of skin, epicanthic fold, and a thousand more designating traits of race are biologically encoded in DNA.

Millions of people from many different origins have any given set of those traits (e.g. [epicanthic fold, pale skin] or [epicanthic fold, dark skin]. The phenotypes presented are divided into any number of social "races".

QED there's no biological basis for race.

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#77

Post by Nasrudith »

shireboy wrote: post #55
Insanity wrote: post #36

It's horrible that people are dying because of malaria. I'm a bit divided on this approach though, I don't know enough about the topic at hand to suggest a different approach, but let me try. Would it be feasible to suggest using CRISP to create another adaptation to the gene, one that preserves the mosquitoes but makes them unable to transfer the disease to humans? Eliminating a species because we don't like it remi…

The article mentions they tried to engineer mosquitos to not carry malaria, but it made them weak and so natural selection favored the non-engineered mosquitoes. As for the rest, yeah tricky business. By all accounts we have more value than a mosquito, but as you move up the food chain what are the unintended consequences?

What about the effect of existing anti-mosquito measures? We aren't exactly using pleasant chemicals for that.

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#78

Post by runako »

k__ wrote: post #43
stochastic_monk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t, however, so uniform that an attack based on presence or absence of a handful of polymorphisms together could form anything like a perfect classifier and therefore target. Race and genetics are related, but not so closely as to facilitate this.

Sure, I can have more DNA in common with people that have a different phenotype than me, but does this mean you can't group the last few genes that make them black, or let them get sicklaemia?

> last few genes that make them black, or let them get sicklaemia

Popular understanding of race (it's a social construct, so this is the relevant metric) has little or nothing to do with susceptibility to a given disease. Similarly, dark skin != what we commonly think of as "black" (think dark-skinned people from Asia, for example).

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#79

Post by zozbot123 »

runako wrote: post #73
dotancohen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably already can. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand CRISPR targets specific DNA sequences. Race can be determined by DNA testing, therefore I think (again, I'm not an expert) that there would be certain sequences that are specific to a race. Now CRISPR alters the specific sequence that it targets. In fact, CRISPR only cuts the DNA at that sequence, other proteins must be employed to change and then…

> Race can be determined by DNA testing Wading into a minefield here, but is this even remotely true? My understanding of DNA testing is that it can only tell you what genes a person has. I wasn't aware of any reliable way to cluster genes into racial groups. (The 23 & me stuff is all probabilities, wide percentage ranges, etc.) Further, I thought it was the case that science has basically abandoned the concept of ra…

There are measures of genetic distance that happen to correlate quite nicely with perceived ancestry, even though most genetic variation is not necessarily related to it. It's just one of many genetic "signals" that barely rise above the background noise. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance

Re: CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species

#80

Post by easshvsh »

runako wrote: post #78
k__ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I can have more DNA in common with people that have a different phenotype than me, but does this mean you can't group the last few genes that make them black, or let them get sicklaemia?

> last few genes that make them black, or let them get sicklaemia Popular understanding of race (it's a social construct, so this is the relevant metric) has little or nothing to do with susceptibility to a given disease. Similarly, dark skin != what we commonly think of as "black" (think dark-skinned people from Asia, for example).

Dark skinned people from Asia are from a different race than dark skinned people from Africa.

For example if you have a dark skinned person with epicanthic fold, chances are that's a person from Indonesia or its whereabouts.

Race is not ONE trait, it's a set of traits, and all of them are encoded in DNA.

Post reply on HN