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

Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#11

Post by cm2187 »

newqer wrote: post #3

This is just one step away from eugenics. When the data is in the machine, you just know it will be used for malicious activities.

The problem is "eugenics" has two meanings which is unhelpful for this discussion.

1) criminal practices of forced sterilisations, ethnic cleansing and mass assassinations to phase out undesired genes

2) the more generic practice of trying to improve the genetic characteristics of your children.

I don't think there is much point in debating 1). But we would be naive to think we are not already doing 2). What else is a prenatal test for down syndrome? What else is selecting your mating partner for desirable characteristics? In animals it's called breeding and it works pretty well. And if you can patch the DNA of your kids to remove potential risks of cancers or other deficiencies, why wouldn't you? Is it better to let cancer take its toll?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#12

Post by moooo99 »

Generic screening is where I draw a line where the risk of substantial damage is just too high to justify it.

I am nowhere near an expert on this matter, but probably more informed than the average Joe. What always strikes me in these kinds of debates among non experts is - as outlined in the article - how people equate genetics to certainty. This assertion does not hold up at all once you start taking an even superficial look, but most people never do that.

If you justify this kind of screening on todays data, that most likely overestimates the penetrance for most conditions, you also cannot undo it in the future. If you start screening now and after 30-40 years it turns out your lifetime risks were off by a factor of 3, you still have created a generation that (possibly) underwent extensive and invasive screening, waiting for a diagnosis.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#13

Post by stuartbman »

The difficulty with the generation study is that there is no way to selectively opt in/out; your child is sequenced and then the data is retained until you opt out (at which point it is still retained as part of historical releases). It isnt ringfenced for medical research and can be accessed by pharmaceutical companies. It isnt even kept by the NHS but rather by a private arms-length body of the government which could be privatised under a change of leadership. We've seen failures with UK Biobank data security, why would this be any different?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#17

Post by nedruod »

moooo99 wrote: post #12

Generic screening is where I draw a line where the risk of substantial damage is just too high to justify it. I am nowhere near an expert on this matter, but probably more informed than the average Joe. What always strikes me in these kinds of debates among non experts is - as outlined in the article - how people equate genetics to certainty. This assertion does not hold up at all once you start taking an even superf…

You cannot undo anything that's history, including not testing. If you missed a chance to get other tests or treatment early in life, you don't get the chance to fix that later either.

It would be easier to be cautious on penetrance, and reevaluate later, than to never collect the data and hope something changes. The number of these calls to limit our access to data are piling up, and they shouldn't be taken one at a time.

https://substack.norabble.com/p/more-data-please

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#18

Post by Avicebron »

cm2187 wrote: post #11
newqer wrote: post #3

This is just one step away from eugenics. When the data is in the machine, you just know it will be used for malicious activities.

The problem is "eugenics" has two meanings which is unhelpful for this discussion. 1) criminal practices of forced sterilisations, ethnic cleansing and mass assassinations to phase out undesired genes 2) the more generic practice of trying to improve the genetic characteristics of your children. I don't think there is much point in debating 1). But we would be naive to think we are not already doing 2). What else is…

The issue is where do you draw the line with 2)? What does "improve the genetic characteristics of your children" mean in practice?

Everyone starts with 2) and then it creeps into 1).

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#19

Post by mikeodds »

nullorempty wrote: post #16

It could lead to amazing advances in the distant future but in the near future it just means finding unwilling donors fast! Our society once again is not mature for such technology

your class C adolescent has been identified as being an eligible kidney donor for a Class B worker, congratulations! please book into your nearest hospital within 2 days

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#20

Post by arghwhat »

cm2187 wrote: post #11
newqer wrote: post #3

This is just one step away from eugenics. When the data is in the machine, you just know it will be used for malicious activities.

The problem is "eugenics" has two meanings which is unhelpful for this discussion. 1) criminal practices of forced sterilisations, ethnic cleansing and mass assassinations to phase out undesired genes 2) the more generic practice of trying to improve the genetic characteristics of your children. I don't think there is much point in debating 1). But we would be naive to think we are not already doing 2). What else is…

A problem is that some see 2 as a subset of 1, upset at the idea that parents would wish to terminate pregnancies early that have strong indications of defects. I do imagine a good chunk of those people are of the horribly broken belief that abortions should be outlawed altogether, so not sure how many specifically go against such "filtering".

Granted, if everyone were sequenced and had access to that information it probably wouldn't take too long before certain categorizations became a requirement on the dating profiles, and that's a slippery slope...

(Regardless, nature filters us all by genetics in several stages, and our entire concept of sexual attraction and social groupings are based on the most direct form of priliminary selection for genetics that evolution could achieve with our limited available senses.)

Post reply on HN