China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations' • Hacker News Board

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#101

Post by vannevar » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:31 AM UTC

wahern wrote: post #88

xvedejas wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults only pass on half of their genes during reproduction. I imagine at least in the case of in vitro fertilization there's a fair amount you can do to make sure the harmful genes aren't the ones passed along, so long as the parent doesn't have two copies of an autosomal dominant harmful mutation. I wouldn't be surprised if more advanced methods exist either; as a carrier for a rare genetic disease maybe I should f…

You can't argue with the "but what if" line of reasoning because there's always another hypothetical that could lead to the destruction of humanity or, at the very least, one more mutant baby than anticipated. And that's the problem here: these arguments boil down to "too dangerous", but that's not a characteristic amenable to empirically grounded, reasoned debate. We can only have a scientifically constructive discu…

I think what people are trying to justify is an a priori assumption that gene editing (or germline editing if they're a little less cautious) is special and distinct.

Gene editing is special and distinct, in the sense that the genome is a complex and nonlinear system, where small errors can be amplified into large consequences, not only local, biological consequences but social as well. In cases where technology offers such potentially extreme leverage, it is scientifically justifiable to tread cautiously to avoid great harm.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#102

Post by RestlessMind » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:31 AM UTC

China demonstrates that it is willing to cross moral boundaries (CRISPR, IP theft) and sacrifice the present to improve the future (Massive infrastructure paving over individual properties).

Western world shows exactly opposite trends - absolute refusal to make any sort of sacrifices (see: reaction to Carbon taxes, minority property owners blocking major infrastructure projects), prioritizing status quo at the cost of hurting future generations (see: Prop 13 in CA, highly cumbersome firing process in France), risk aversion (see: reaction to Nuclear energy proposals)

If China was not facing adverse population pyramid coupled with hostility to immigration, it would have had an easy way to global supremacy. Though Western world is trying very hard to erase that advantage by both producing fewer babies and raising barriers for immigration.

* albeit for a small marginal minority, never for the elites

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#103

Post by roenxi » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:37 AM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #93

Fjolsvith wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we can eliminate harmful mutations from being passed on to subsequent generations through screening. And the truly bad mutations should self-correct before passing to subsequent generations.

> And the truly bad mutations should self-correct before passing to subsequent generations. That's an awfully euphemistic way to say "The kids'll die before they grow up."

We live in a world where kids die before they grow up. Gene editing technologies will almost surely reduce the number of children who die before they grow up and lead to higher quality of life for everyone else.

I'm not necessarily for gene editing. I think it is probably a long-term certainty and a net good, but it makes me uneasy because it is one of the maybe-this-one-ends-humanity style technologies. That being said, the suffering that a gene edited baby and its parents go through is meaningful - we learn from it, we improve. At the moment if a baby is born with random congenital problems there is similar suffering and it is completely pointless; we don't really learn anything or change anything.

When both paths lead through suffering, anyone who knowingly chooses the path of greater long term suffering is a monster. Even if they want to claim they are acting for some sort of moral reason. We can't get hung up if a few children die when dealing with technologies of this consequence. There are just more important issues to work through.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#104

Post by everdev » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #97

im3w1l wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random harmful mutations have happened all day every day as long as life has existed. We are basically designed for dealing with it. But worst case, we can eliminate harmful mutations from being passed on to subsequent generations through screening. I wouldn't worry about the long term problems of that, it's fairly easy to solve. What I would worry about is: a) Short term suffering from failed experiments. b) Reduced…

I wouldn't worry so much about reduced diversity. Once we're good enough at creating genetically manipulated babies we can recover any diversity we want in one generation.

We'll still need adults to raise this next generation. So, if we realize we swung the pendulum too far towards uniformity, it'll take 16+ years for the next "diverse" generation to mature and become self-sufficient.

Unfortunately, diseases typically run their course much faster than that meaning it would be possible for a disease to devastate a genetically homogenous population before they can raise the next generation and maintain population levels.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#105

Post by roenxi » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:43 AM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #102

China demonstrates that it is willing to cross moral boundaries (CRISPR, IP theft) and sacrifice the present to improve the future (Massive infrastructure paving over individual properties). Western world shows exactly opposite trends - absolute refusal to make any sort of sacrifices (see: reaction to Carbon taxes, minority property owners blocking major infrastructure projects), prioritizing status quo at the cost o…

IP theft isn't a moral boundary; it is a legal one. Pro- and Anti- IP positions are not moral positions. I can't claim moral superiority to you because I think copyright should be a year longer or shorter. Enforcing IP law that retards the lifestyle of 20% of the worlds population is arguably the immoral position.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#106

Post by dbtx » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:52 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #97

im3w1l wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random harmful mutations have happened all day every day as long as life has existed. We are basically designed for dealing with it. But worst case, we can eliminate harmful mutations from being passed on to subsequent generations through screening. I wouldn't worry about the long term problems of that, it's fairly easy to solve. What I would worry about is: a) Short term suffering from failed experiments. b) Reduced…

I wouldn't worry so much about reduced diversity. Once we're good enough at creating genetically manipulated babies we can recover any diversity we want in one generation.

Will that be genuine or superficial? Will 'verifying the integrity of that DNA after these edits' become the new cryptomining? Here's a hard problem: 'integrity' and 'verfiy' and "good enough at creating" are ill-defined at best.

It almost reminds me of ...me. "I don't need to study and get good at studying, I just need to get good at self-hypnosis and instruct my brain to absorb things faster and remember things better." Want to know how that turned out? It didn't.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#107

Post by 827djdjs6 » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:57 AM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #102

China demonstrates that it is willing to cross moral boundaries (CRISPR, IP theft) and sacrifice the present to improve the future (Massive infrastructure paving over individual properties). Western world shows exactly opposite trends - absolute refusal to make any sort of sacrifices (see: reaction to Carbon taxes, minority property owners blocking major infrastructure projects), prioritizing status quo at the cost o…

The western world is currently crippled by a large swathes of well intentioned idiots. Going green is no different than soccer mom's who preach anti gmo and anti vax nonsense. Meanwhile China sees that it's economic growth, military, and independence that made the USA number 1. Meanwhile again, the Europeans are busy clutching their pearls because they can't come up with a way to sustain their culture of laziness.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#108

Post by wahern » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:07 AM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #101

wahern wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't argue with the "but what if" line of reasoning because there's always another hypothetical that could lead to the destruction of humanity or, at the very least, one more mutant baby than anticipated. And that's the problem here: these arguments boil down to "too dangerous", but that's not a characteristic amenable to empirically grounded, reasoned debate. We can only have a scientifically constructive discu…

I think what people are trying to justify is an a priori assumption that gene editing (or germline editing if they're a little less cautious) is special and distinct. Gene editing is special and distinct, in the sense that the genome is a complex and nonlinear system, where small errors can be amplified into large consequences, not only local, biological consequences but social as well. In cases where technology offe…

The same debate occurred regarding innoculation nearly 250 years ago. In fact, it's still occurring. Moreover, we're still stumbling--just last week I think someone posted an article to HN regarding how the use of live polio (IIRC?) vaccines has led us to paint ourselves into a corner, perpetually unable to extinguish the last remaining reservoirs. So the original concerns about what we'd now characterize as "complex" and "nonlinear" have been validated. It was the conclusions that were drawn from those concerns that were invalid--in short, that it was too dangerous to be introduced and managed by humans. The benefits outweighed the harms, even though many of the parade of horribles exclaimed by the skeptics did in fact come to pass. Those horribles ended up being buffered and moderated, because that's how complex, nonlinear systems also tend to behave.

In Complexity Theory, one of the defining behaviors of "complexity", in addition to nonlinearity, is a tendency to return to a quasi-equilibrium state even though it can never reach, let alone stay, at an actual equilibrium. Absent the dual (dueling?) tendencies of spontaneous change and regression, you have by definition either chaos or stasis.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#109

Post by schuke » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:10 AM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #102

China demonstrates that it is willing to cross moral boundaries (CRISPR, IP theft) and sacrifice the present to improve the future (Massive infrastructure paving over individual properties). Western world shows exactly opposite trends - absolute refusal to make any sort of sacrifices (see: reaction to Carbon taxes, minority property owners blocking major infrastructure projects), prioritizing status quo at the cost o…

China is anything but future over present. Massive infrastructures are a result of stimulating the economy for short term stats over long term economic sustainability. Same with terrible pollution and countless political and security measures that hurt future prospects, detention camps being one of them.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#110

Post by DrJosiah » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:10 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #105

RestlessMind wrote: post #102

China demonstrates that it is willing to cross moral boundaries (CRISPR, IP theft) and sacrifice the present to improve the future (Massive infrastructure paving over individual properties). Western world shows exactly opposite trends - absolute refusal to make any sort of sacrifices (see: reaction to Carbon taxes, minority property owners blocking major infrastructure projects), prioritizing status quo at the cost o…

IP theft isn't a moral boundary; it is a legal one. Pro- and Anti- IP positions are not moral positions. I can't claim moral superiority to you because I think copyright should be a year longer or shorter. Enforcing IP law that retards the lifestyle of 20% of the worlds population is arguably the immoral position.

[flagged]