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

Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

lite.cnn.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#51

Post by vorpalhex »

thiagoharry wrote: post #31
loceng wrote: post #9

Is this punishment because he was caught or because it was on "acceptable citizens"? Yes, I'm referencing the stories coming out of the concentration camps in China and ethics related to organ harvesting, etc.

Well, in America imigrants are put in concentration camps and desperated poor people are allowed to sell their blood 2 times a week. But it doesn't mean that if a scientist does that kind of unethical experiment, he wouldn't be put in jail.

Comparing an immigration detention facility to a concentration camp shows a distinct lack of understanding of what either one is.

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#52

Post by krapp »

corporate_shi11 wrote: post #19
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shall they try your children first? Oh so sorry - they died young and in agony, from unintended side effects. But Science!

Of course we wouldn't try on humans first. Animal trials precede human trials.

But human trials have already begun, thus the posted article.

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#53

Post by peteretep »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #11
corporate_shi11 wrote: post #8

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this sort of research is necessary. The sooner we are able to genetically engineer improved humans - first eliminating the incidence of genetic disease and second making overall healthier, happier and smarter people - the better the world will become.

Shall they try your children first? Oh so sorry - they died young and in agony, from unintended side effects. But Science!

I likely have a heritable genetic disease, so if I want kids, they’ll take a bunch of embryos, and do genetic selection on them to decide which to implant.

So, I guess they’re already trying on my future children?

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#54

Post by zer00eyz »

r00fus wrote: post #35
hutzlibu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if human gene editing really would work, than china (and others) would not only select for intellect, but also for obedience. Which is scary. Apart from that I do believe, that in the future human gene editing makes sense. Once it is actually understood. (until then volunteers are allright with me, but experimenting with babys ... is a bit off) Because we are successfully eliminating natural selection in variou…

There was recently a story about a "Paean to Alpha Centauri", so I'll leave you with an appropriate quote: "My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task, and the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone wh…

The whole first chapter of Brave New World comes to mind as well...

"Bokanovsky's Process"... x-ray, and alcohol to clones of the "worker class" to make them slow and stupid to do your bidding.

https://www.huxley.net/bnw/one.html

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#55

Post by krapp »

thiagoharry wrote: post #31
loceng wrote: post #9

Is this punishment because he was caught or because it was on "acceptable citizens"? Yes, I'm referencing the stories coming out of the concentration camps in China and ethics related to organ harvesting, etc.

Well, in America imigrants are put in concentration camps and desperated poor people are allowed to sell their blood 2 times a week. But it doesn't mean that if a scientist does that kind of unethical experiment, he wouldn't be put in jail.

>But it doesn't mean that if a scientist does that kind of unethical experiment, he wouldn't be put in jail.

It does if he's doing it for the government.

I can absolutely see the US setting aside some black funds to guarantee that it doesn't suffer a "Superman gap."

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#56

Post by loceng »

thiagoharry wrote: post #31
loceng wrote: post #9

Is this punishment because he was caught or because it was on "acceptable citizens"? Yes, I'm referencing the stories coming out of the concentration camps in China and ethics related to organ harvesting, etc.

Well, in America imigrants are put in concentration camps and desperated poor people are allowed to sell their blood 2 times a week. But it doesn't mean that if a scientist does that kind of unethical experiment, he wouldn't be put in jail.

America is evolving. It looks like Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has reinvigorated the conversation around a Universal Basic Income of $1,000/month for every adult American which ultimately could end the poverty you're referencing which is due to the lack of any value gains from economic success of capitalism from being distributed to all "shareholders" of the nation. Likewise the current administration is a failed attempt at tyrant wannabe who lack the integrity to stand with and defend their constitution - and they do other shitty, and internationally illegal things - like separate immigrant children from their parents.

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#57

Post by pcrh »

ZhuanXia wrote: post #49
mlyle wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked study uses ~1200 very high IQ individuals (4 sigma out), so it has the same population of very high IQ individuals as you'd have in a random sample of tens of millions. There's also been large studies that have used years of educational attainment as a moderately-correlated proxy for IQ.

the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. Rather it is the proportion of common variants that increase IQ to common variants that decrease it. This is why we need millions of samples.

I think you perhaps misunderstand the study's conclusions (and that of most GWAS on intelligence). They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants.

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#58

Post by mlyle »

ZhuanXia wrote: post #49
mlyle wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked study uses ~1200 very high IQ individuals (4 sigma out), so it has the same population of very high IQ individuals as you'd have in a random sample of tens of millions. There's also been large studies that have used years of educational attainment as a moderately-correlated proxy for IQ.

the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. Rather it is the proportion of common variants that increase IQ to common variants that decrease it. This is why we need millions of samples.

> the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants.

The enriched population tends to have a higher population of these common variants. Saying it "does not help" is kinda silly-- the authors and reviewers behind this Nature MP pub disagree with you, as do I ;)

In the end, we have small randomized sample studies directly on IQ; enriched case-controlled studies like this one; and large studies looking at proxy variables (educational attainment). They have all come up with broadly similar estimates for the effects of polygenic variation on general intelligence. That is, we have enough information to be reasonably confident in an upper bound.

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#59

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

ZhuanXia wrote: post #18
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow those are optimistic numbers. Considering we have NO idea what genes select for most features (if any).

We don’t need the causal variants for embryo selection, just the predictive variants. We have this for height now. The only reason we don’t have this for IQ now is everyone doing GWAS studies are too chicken to put an IQ test in with their other measures. As the cost of a sequence declines, this will not last. Obviously, this is not an issue if there is state involvement.

There are plenty of GWASs on IQ, they just struggle to replicate each other.

Re: Chinese scientist who edited twin babies' genes jailed for 3 years

#60

Post by ZhuanXia »

pcrh wrote: post #57
ZhuanXia wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. Rather it is the proportion of common variants that increase IQ to common variants that decrease it. This is why we need millions of samples.

I think you perhaps misunderstand the study's conclusions (and that of most GWAS on intelligence). They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants.

>They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants.

The abstract does not mention that; they claim:

"This study shows the utility of extreme trait selection for genetic study of intelligence and suggests that extremely high intelligence is continuous genetically with normal-range intelligence in the population."

I don't think anyone would seriously claim that high IQ is mostly not caused by genetic variants, given the prior knowledge of the heritability of IQ.

Post reply on HN