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

Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#51

Post by inciampati »

jkingsman wrote: post #4
exdsq wrote: post #3

What’s the choke point of scanning an entire genome? Is it purely computational? Imaging? Biological unknowns?

For IVF embryos, it's the small amount of genetic material which makes accurate sequencing difficult. For standard human whole genome sequencing (WGS), the fastest times are down to five hours[1] (although that is exceptional), for which the imaging was massively parallelized and it seems that the choke point was computational for that particular case (sequencing like this basically multiples the DNA, shreds all the…

Different grades of sequencing are basically down to the technology and depth.

The short read sequencing you're describing makes reads that are like motes of dust in comparison to the genome.

More modern long read methods can read off sequences with high accuracy and/or length. These tend to be much higher in cost and substantially higher in the completeness and quality of the resulting bioinformatically inferred genome.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#52

Post by mywittyname »

whatshisface wrote: post #31
workaccount21 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically alte…

> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. The world is full of societies of 120 IQ individuals. That would be, like... a typical office full of…

>A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension

> That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers.

Is this an argument in support of the OP?

Anyway, much like with global warming, the issue isn't so much the averages, but the impact on the extremes. Now the world suddenly has 10x as many 140 people or 100x as many 160s, etc.

This cuts both ways too. A smart person isn't necessarily a nice person. A 20 point IQ increase could make the difference between someone who is a successful telephone scammer, and someone who brings down entire economies.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#53

Post by riskQtempAcc »

belval wrote: post #29
workaccount21 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically alte…

> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. Disregarding the personal attack (I am well aware of downsides, but it's called having a discussion),…

(Use of the pronoun “you” as the impersonal)

You’re not curing cystic fibrosis, or any other genetic disease, are you? You’re just stopping disabled people from being born because you’ve decided their lives have no intrinsic value.

This can be said to a wide swath of people. Down syndrome people, bipolar people, blue people, people with physical deformities.

Why do you get to choose? Have you ever asked one of these people if they find their lives to be meaningless? How about their parents?

I can think of few hells more dull than a world of smart ass public radio listeners providing unrequested comments lathered in snark and cynicism.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#54

Post by taylorius »

whatshisface wrote: post #31
workaccount21 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically alte…

> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. The world is full of societies of 120 IQ individuals. That would be, like... a typical office full of…

>>an insufferable hell beyond comprehension

>That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers

Well, quite... ;-)

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#55

Post by mywittyname »

whatshisface wrote: post #18
belval wrote: post #17

I see a lot of comments underscoring the possible eugenics implication of this, but I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative? Even in our very diversity-conscious institutions we can generally agree that some things are plain bad. You don't want a blind or deaf child. You don't want one with down syndrome or deformities that would just make their life difficult. I wonder if the high level of opp…

> now nobody would have genetic diseases. Nobody with parents who can afford IVF would have genetic diseases. Nobody would rise from an ignoble birth to greatness ever again... or at least not in countries without universal healthcare.

Those kids would still potentially breed the normal way. If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages.

And rich people fall from grace all the time. It's difficult for families to hold onto their wealth over successive generations. One of the keys to maintaining wealth is to keep it from being diluted, which means that some kids are going to get cut off.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#57

Post by bpodgursky »

jacquesm wrote: post #48
legalcorrection wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a joke? Yes, by definition an IQ test is normalized to 100 for the population it's targeted for. But that doesn't mean that you can't compare intelligence across different populations, by not doing that normalization.

Average IQ will always be 100, but 100 today is not the same as 100 50 years ago. Renormalization is about 3 points per decade, so you have to take that into account when you compare IQ results across longer time spans. So a person that would have scored '100' on an IQ test 50 years ago would be expected to score about 85 on a test administered today. Note that I'm not a fan of collapsing everything about human intel…

Redefining what 100 IQ means is a distraction (which feels like a malicious distraction) from the actual topic here.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#58

Post by bpodgursky »

taylorius wrote: post #54
whatshisface wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. The world is full of societies of 120 IQ individuals. That would be, like... a typical office full of…

>>an insufferable hell beyond comprehension >That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers Well, quite... ;-)

Spend a week in a workplace with an average IQ of 80 and get back to me about which feels worse.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#59

Post by TOMDM »

whatshisface wrote: post #11
Flatcircle wrote: post #9

Expecting a contrarian article in 10 to 15 years that says the IVF genome analysis is imperfect and parents have been making incorrect decisions on flawed data.

It only has to be better than random, right?

Not necessarily, if the confidence of the prediction doesn't match the real odds of outcome.

Parents may make special accommodations for the needs of children with genetic difficulties that they otherwise wouldn't based on their confidence in genetic screening.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#60

Post by programmertote »

Coincidentally, I have a friend who is in the second cycle of this IVF procedure to select an embryo that does not carry the genes associated with polycystic kidney disease (PKD). When I heard it last week for the first time, I thought it is already an established procedure. Here, I'm learning that it is a relatively cutting-edge approach and I am now looking forward to asking my friend more about this next time we meet.
Post reply on HN