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

31–40 of 49 posts

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

#31

Post by jostmey »

KLexpat wrote: post #29
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 gibberi…

Research with human participants is being over-sighted to the point that real research is virtually impossible. I say this, having seen the IRB approval process for human subject research. Research institutes just don't want to take on the risk

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

#32

Post by s1artibartfast »

I think the elephant in the room is not He's work, but the fact that embryonic selection is already commercially available from Steve Hsu's Genomic Prediction[1] and other companies.

It doesn't impart new genes, so it can't give HIV immunity if the parents don't have it, but it can screen large numbers of embryos and allow the parents to select the one(s) they want based on their genetic makeup

It is done using well established technology and can select the factors that people really care about: intelligence, and freedom from disease, gender, and mental health.

Genomic Predictions is already working with 200 IVF clinics and screening millions of embryos a year. Many countries have laws against using the technology to screen for anything but disease (e.g. higher intelligence), but some do not.

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/228085-75#overview

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

#33

Post by 8note »

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…

It's not like there's a fair competition between people today. The richest babies already have extraordinary advantages over poor babies.

It really just exposes that people in power don't want to make it obvious that they've got an unfair advantage, and that basing society off of competition is what's bad.

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

#34

Post by proc0 »

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.

Science isn't linear, it's not really forwards or backwards. Cultural values drive scientific research, especially technology and application of research.

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

#35

Post by 8note »

ficklepickle wrote: post #10
Nasrudith wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got downvoted for expressing this opinion before but the only real issues are implementation related. #1: The technology isn't mature enough and has some "mistargetting" that adds or deletes where it shouldn't. #2: It is a reckless disregard for human life to not do generational animal trials before humans. If we cannot say make mice redfurred or immune to a mouse disease without major side effects like vastly incr…

Your attempt at whataboutism failed. It is not at all equivalent. In developed countries, education is accessible to most or all. (The USA is not a developed country by this measure) If you aren't worried about humanity splitting into multiple species along economic lines, I don't know what to tell you. I guess the film Gattaca was just a fun romp for you? I guess you must assume you will be one of the "haves" and to…

If you're in a country where education is democratized, there's no reason to believe that gene editing won't be.

Ignoring the US for education is silly because it's the place where gene editing is likeliest to be restricted to the richest.

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

#36

Post by est31 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #32

I think the elephant in the room is not He's work, but the fact that embryonic selection is already commercially available from Steve Hsu's Genomic Prediction[1] and other companies. It doesn't impart new genes, so it can't give HIV immunity if the parents don't have it, but it can screen large numbers of embryos and allow the parents to select the one(s) they want based on their genetic makeup It is done using well…

Creating multiple embryos in the lab then screening them for diseases etc. can of course help with some situations, but if both chromosomes from one parent carry some variant of a gene, you can't get rid of it. Similarly, you can't introduce desired variants if none of the two parents want them. So arbitrary edits are way more powerful.

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

#37

Post by nl »

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.

What about the countries, ethnic groups and religions that can't afford to edit the genes of their children.

Is their destiny to be out-competed by those groups with the best gene editing technology?

What if a particular highly effective gene editing technique is perfected and patented in country A and they refuse a license to country B because they are rivals?

What if in country Z only ethnic group X is allowed to receive the treatment?

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

#38

Post by nl »

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?

> when nuclear proliferation is all but expected at this point

The (pretty effective) nuclear non-proliferation treaty does beg the question here...

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

#39

Post by EamonnMR »

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.

No culture on earth is ready for the ability to directly edit the germline. It's gonna get used to try and get privilege based on appearance.

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

#40

Post by nl »

Nasrudith wrote: post #7
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.

I got downvoted for expressing this opinion before but the only real issues are implementation related. #1: The technology isn't mature enough and has some "mistargetting" that adds or deletes where it shouldn't. #2: It is a reckless disregard for human life to not do generational animal trials before humans. If we cannot say make mice redfurred or immune to a mouse disease without major side effects like vastly incr…

> education is unethical because it priveledges those who can afford it over those who cannot

No, unequal access to education is unethical.

While it might be impractical to guarantee absolutely equal education, most people agree access to a basic education is a human right.

Post reply on HN