Isn't it the case that each gene does not have a single function? This seems like we're tampering with a many-variable equation for each gene we modify. It's like modifying a function when you're not aware that that function has potentially many side effects, which are necessary.
China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
31–40 of 150 posts
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#32Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…
true, if tech is the only goal. but I would choose to be lower tech in this case. But perhaps my choices would affect those who might come after me... (That too is both ways though). Some might bring up all the medical advances that came out of the tortures and "studies" from Japan and Nazi Germany. Certainly many advances were made... My friend once told me that there are certain medical "study" records available th…
The tech won't exist In a vacuum though. Suppose this eventually gives the Chinese an edge in precision medicine, your hands might be clean as far as the messy work but unless you ban citizens from visiting how are you going to regulate the health products that will emerge eventually? We can bury our heads in the sand but eventually the rising tide will get our socks wet unless we have the foresight to prepare a little.
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are talking about two human beings. HN can be shocking for its collective lack of empathy, but this is a new low.
The genes won't care that the scientists playing with them were unethical. The only reason your attitude seems appealing is because nobody wants to believe eventually this strategy will give the Chinese a superior understanding of gene editing.
The cost of ethical science is well known, and still proper democratic countries deny themselves the ignorance of human rights that is prevalent in China. Your comments read like quoted from Nazi Germany medical research in the 1940s. Welcome to the present.
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#34Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…
People who aren’t sociopaths, maybe.
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The genes won't care that the scientists playing with them were unethical. The only reason your attitude seems appealing is because nobody wants to believe eventually this strategy will give the Chinese a superior understanding of gene editing.
What good will a superior understanding of gene editing be if we cease being a civilized society where scientific research can be nurtured in the first place? Ethics are not optional to science, they are integral to the social foundation upon which science rests.
I get the feeling OP is saying this sarcastically, as a way to criticize China.
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#36Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…
Actually, not so much.
The major journals (Nature and...JAMA, I think) refused to handle the paper because it was so ethically dubious. He did get some name recognition, though also not of the sort that seems like it'd help one's career.
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a huge difference between somatic and germline editing. Surgery is like somatic editing. It's elective, based on medical need, and its effects are confined to one individual. Germline editing is more like forcing an entire population to undergo surgery that is claimed to enhance their bodies. Nobody is particularly concerned about somatic editing where a medical need exists. Everybody is rightly freaking out…
IIRC, when I studied biology in secondary school and as a freshman in college, it was believed that gametes were completely isolated and untouchable by viral infections. Turns out this is not true. But if you believe that gametes are incredibly fragile, I can see how it would be easy to believe this as otherwise you'd expect to see mutants everywhere. I realize the stakes are higher for germline editing, but rational…
Is what you describe the basis of Human Endogenous Retroviruses?
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#38Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…
You sound like the kind of engineer that skips code review and deploys an untested feature straight into Production.
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play the angel's advocate (or whatever is the next-step reverse of devil's advocate): natural selection helps eliminate problematic genes in populations. A good chunk of harmful mutations will prevent people from procreating, either by killing them first, or making it unlikely for them to find a mate.
Not nearly as much in 2019's modern societies.
Less now, for sure, but you're overlooking a major category.
Many of the really bad mutations are embryonic-lethal, which is why a surprisingly high proportion of pregnancies "don't take" or end in miscarriage.
Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'
#40Back in my genetics class in Uni, unitended mutations from gene editing struck me as a concern almost immediately. and its scary to think about. these unknown mutations could be benign, harmful, or even helpful, but if they entered the population through procreation... i mean i had an anxiety that the whole human genome could be damaged at a fundamental level. the complexity of the biological machinery that occurs du…
> natural system of transcription, translation, and protein synthesis at the core of DNA still makes mistakes. Exactly, which means the system is resilient , which means it's more forgiving of random mutations introduced by gene editing, which is perhaps why most scientists are less concerned than you think they ought to be. Imagine if we took the same approach to surgery--overly worried that scar tissue of any kind…
I agree it is resilient, but that resilience has been tested by a slow, small increment evolution over millions of years. And even given that, genetic disorders with novel expressions exist that confound modern science. if we start making very fast changes, the resilience of the genetic system shouldn't be expected to hold up against a far faster change rate. And more to my point about the complexity of it all, there are huge regions of our genome that we thought were "unrelated" to human phenotypes (physical expression of genetic code) until very recently when we discovered some of this "junk" DNA actually is critical for certain types of RNA transcription / repair.
GMOs are a different issue. My underlying concern about the influx of new genes introduce to the wild quickly being potentially dangerous aside, the genetic modification have mostly been to make plants resilient to various herbicides/fungicides/pesticides to allow large scale monoculture farming. That's one solution, but not the only. And we have seen invasive forms of GMO crops spread out of containment, thus entering the wild population, and we wont know the consequence of that for a long time, if any.
takeaway being, its probably worth being conservative about even moderate scale genetic manipulation of any species we rely on, and especially our own genome. Not saying dont do any genetic modification, just that it really has to be air tight, you might say NASA level standards of engineering. Now, you tell me if you think Monsanto's engineering standards are at NASA level, or that the Chinese Governments ethical standards are without problems.