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

The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#21

Post by michaelt »

little_panda wrote: post #2

I'm feeling bewitched by this entire story of rejection of He Jiankui. Could someone here please describe in layman's terms what's wrong with the _ethics_ of germline editing? Edit: yes it's gonna be crazy expensive and 10+ years will pass before the tech is ready for mass use, I realize that.

It's impossible to have a steroids-optional elite sports league because all the non-steroid-users would get outcompeted, effectively turning it into a steroids-mandatory league. Either everyone uses steroids or they're completely banned - there's no middle ground.

In the jargon of game theory, in the absence of a ban, everyone doping is the only strong Nash equilibrium.

The fear is gene edited babies would trigger the same effect: If I'm in my country's richest 3% and I know parents in the richest 2% are gene-editing their children to be healthier/smarter/prettier, can I afford not to do the same?

And we can't rely on national governments to provide bans - if I'm Country A's leader, can I afford to ban gene editing if our rival, Country B, is making full use of it?

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#22

Post by aaron695 »

1996 wrote: post #3

> After his talk, He immediately drove back to Shenzhen, and his circle of trust began to disintegrate Sad to see how the West keep pushing it's agenda and values down the throat of other countries. Hopefully China will keep advancing science, while the West goes into another dark age due to its religions.

> Hopefully China will keep advancing science

Except they seem to be fully kowtowing to the West.

Like this case. Or even the reported - "China bans skyscrapers taller than 500 meters"

Every student they send overseas to study is one more indoctrinated scientist.

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#23

Post by bobthebuilders »

michaelt wrote: post #21
little_panda wrote: post #2

I'm feeling bewitched by this entire story of rejection of He Jiankui. Could someone here please describe in layman's terms what's wrong with the _ethics_ of germline editing? Edit: yes it's gonna be crazy expensive and 10+ years will pass before the tech is ready for mass use, I realize that.

It's impossible to have a steroids-optional elite sports league because all the non-steroid-users would get outcompeted, effectively turning it into a steroids-mandatory league. Either everyone uses steroids or they're completely banned - there's no middle ground. In the jargon of game theory, in the absence of a ban, everyone doping is the only strong Nash equilibrium. The fear is gene edited babies would trigger th…

Isn't this the exact same situation with nukes? Why are we banning gene editing when nuclear proliferation is all but expected at this point? Is it because MAD does provide some stability, or because we're more used to nukes as a concept?

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#24

Post by Hermel »

michaelt wrote: post #21
little_panda wrote: post #2

I'm feeling bewitched by this entire story of rejection of He Jiankui. Could someone here please describe in layman's terms what's wrong with the _ethics_ of germline editing? Edit: yes it's gonna be crazy expensive and 10+ years will pass before the tech is ready for mass use, I realize that.

It's impossible to have a steroids-optional elite sports league because all the non-steroid-users would get outcompeted, effectively turning it into a steroids-mandatory league. Either everyone uses steroids or they're completely banned - there's no middle ground. In the jargon of game theory, in the absence of a ban, everyone doping is the only strong Nash equilibrium. The fear is gene edited babies would trigger th…

I see the problem with steroids in sports. They are unhealthy and sports is a zero-sum game.

But what's the problem with manipulating people to be healthier, smarter and more attractive? Wouldn't that improve the world? Everyone benefits if humankind becomes less dumb.

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#25

Post by zamadatix »

bobthebuilders wrote: post #23
michaelt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to have a steroids-optional elite sports league because all the non-steroid-users would get outcompeted, effectively turning it into a steroids-mandatory league. Either everyone uses steroids or they're completely banned - there's no middle ground. In the jargon of game theory, in the absence of a ban, everyone doping is the only strong Nash equilibrium. The fear is gene edited babies would trigger th…

Isn't this the exact same situation with nukes? Why are we banning gene editing when nuclear proliferation is all but expected at this point? Is it because MAD does provide some stability, or because we're more used to nukes as a concept?

I'm struggling to see the similarities with nukes to the point I'm not sure what to put forward as a key example of why they are different. Following with your call out though yes, nukes stopped being something you could do to further your position and turned into something that is very negative for everyone's position a long time ago. Even before this point nukes seem like a completely different dynamic though, they only move you "forward" in use by moving the other side back making the average worse and you can't exactly use them against a section of a population rather other geographic groups as a whole.

The only similarity I can draw is that both have been restricted internationally.

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#26

Post by michaelt »

Hermel wrote: post #24
michaelt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to have a steroids-optional elite sports league because all the non-steroid-users would get outcompeted, effectively turning it into a steroids-mandatory league. Either everyone uses steroids or they're completely banned - there's no middle ground. In the jargon of game theory, in the absence of a ban, everyone doping is the only strong Nash equilibrium. The fear is gene edited babies would trigger th…

I see the problem with steroids in sports. They are unhealthy and sports is a zero-sum game. But what's the problem with manipulating people to be healthier, smarter and more attractive? Wouldn't that improve the world? Everyone benefits if humankind becomes less dumb.

Well, this is all very hypothetical stuff. There might be no downsides at all! Hell, if I could safely make my future children 6 inches taller and 20 IQ points smarter, I'd do it.

But many people have imagined dystopian consequences - creation of a lifelong underclass; negative side-effects that take decades to manifest; having big corporations and government gatekeeping conception; monoculture and loss of genetic diversity; what would become of us pre-editing humans; impact of state control of genetically-predicated personality traits; and so on.

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#27

Post by nzmsv »

For everyone concerned about the tech being not ready, equality, etc: isn't it better to allow this experimentation in the open with proper oversight rather than attempting to ban it and in doing so drive it underground? This genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back. All that bans will do is simply ensure that all of those concerns are even worse: worse tech due to less funding, less accessibility except for the elite due to the whole thing being underground, less scientific review.

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#28

Post by Fezzik »

gmfawcett wrote: post #12
1996 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't like that it's permanent, and transmitted. If you have money, you can make your kids AIDS (and Cholera, and Smallpox) resistant. They see that as "unfair", and conveniently forget money buy high education and network. Some other people disagree for religious reason - they say it's "playing god", but I do not understand their arguments. Humanity has done selective breeding for centuries, and nobody ever c…

> Humanity has done selective breeding for centuries, and nobody ever complained. Nobody has ever complained about eugenics? About master races vs. inferior breeds of human, or about hereditary caste systems? I think you need to brush up on your history before making such claims.

I imagine OP is talking about how we get to select our partners, not eugenics. And how, generally speaking, the wealthier and better looking a person is the wealthier and better looking their partner and then children will be.

Edit, to add: the same is likely true for realized intelligence as well.

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#29

Post by KLexpat »

nzmsv wrote: post #27

For everyone concerned about the tech being not ready, equality, etc: isn't it better to allow this experimentation in the open with proper oversight rather than attempting to ban it and in doing so drive it underground? This genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back. All that bans will do is simply ensure that all of those concerns are even worse: worse tech due to less funding, less accessibility except for…

It is being allowed with proper oversight. These people are just experimenting underground.

The problem with this tech isn't just the Übermensch (or should I say, ÜberTiāncháo) that we will have to deal with, but more subtle. For instance, a percentage of northern europeans are already partially genetically immune to HIV/AIDS [1]

People with sickle cell anaemia are already somewhat immune to Malaria [2]. Some gibbering genius in a laboratory might decide to cure the human race of Anaemia and inadvertently cause millions of people to start dying of malaria or dengue.

There are plenty of "problem" genes that we carry in our genome that scientists will want to "fix", and then we will discover the hard way why those genes are there in the first place. This absolutely needs to be controlled. The coming man will not be an Übermensch, but a CRISPR-castrato

[1] https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/viruses101/hiv_resistan... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/index.html (select 'sickle cell')

Re: The untold story of ‘circle of trust’ behind world’s first gene-edited babies

#30

Post by walterbell »

2021 news about the company in the 2019 story, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biodata-dna-china-collection-60...

> Early last March, the state of Washington was the site of the first major coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. As COVID rates and the need for tests were spiking, BGI Group, the world's largest biotech firm - a global giant based in China - approached the state of Washington with an enticing offer… BGI proposed to build and help run state-of-the-art COVID testing labs... the company made similar proposals to more than five other states, including New York and California…. And, after federal officials warned against partnering with BGI, each state said no to BGI's labs… It's not just China that's recognized what a valuable commodity your DNA can be. As you'll hear: some of the fastest-growing U.S. tech companies are in this space, as well. In fact, you may have already surrendered your DNA…"

Post reply on HN