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

Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#21

Post by hparadiz »

zmgsabst wrote: post #19
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Testing on early stage embryos is a thing yes. They have no brain, no heartbeat, feel no pain. Yes, they could potentially develop into a human being, but I wouldn't call it a live human yet. I understand your repulsion, but to other people it's no different than testing on sperm, eggs or other human tissues. And as the other guy said, these were discarded embryos from IVF, they would never become humans.

They’re a human, but not a person. Human is a fact of DNA — of which embryos are unmistakably humans. But we don’t ascribe rights based on humanity, but on personhood, which is why embryos have virtually none. You come across as dishonest and put people off from your perspective when you won’t admit basic facts — eg, this is experimenting on humans. I think perhaps your aversion to basic facts is that you don’t feel…

Of course I support experimenting on living humans. That's how medical research is done for everything. Eventually no matter how sure you are someone has to be the first.

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#22

Post by ryandrake »

jdiff wrote: post #15
meindnoch wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Even in real pregnancies, it's estimated that as many as three quarters of all fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus. If one was of the opinion that life begins at conception, one should certainly be aware of that silent holocaust that has and always will eclipse all others for all of human existence.

Don't worry, the Fundies are already working on punishing women for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. I'm sure implantation failure is on the list...

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#23

Post by [deleted] »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #14
Magicrafter13 wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Testing on early stage embryos is a thing yes. They have no brain, no heartbeat, feel no pain. Yes, they could potentially develop into a human being, but I wouldn't call it a live human yet. I understand your repulsion, but to other people it's no different than testing on sperm, eggs or other human tissues. And as the other guy said, these were discarded embryos from IVF, they would never become humans.

[deleted]

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#24

Post by smalltorch »

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most.

A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never going to be a person.

A embryo... we cause the sparks to fly here and it's disturbing to think we can poke at the genes when we really have no idea what we are doing. Was a soul created here? Lot of people think yes. So lots of people naturally care about that taking place. Just to poke and prod 1 of billions of base pairs to see what happens does not seem like a good idea or..even a practical way to learn anything.

I would bargain there are a lot more pairs you could mess with that would have the same effect and would prevent the embryo from developing further.

I lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...) the moment of conception and we probably should be fooling around with doing this stuff. This article reminded me of this video I saw 10 years ago that shows there is a moment in time where sparks literally fly and it's pretty amazing to see.

https://vimeo.com/163864531

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#25

Post by efnx »

smalltorch wrote: post #24

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most. A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never going to be a person. A embryo... we cause the sparks to fly here and it's disturbing to think we can poke at the genes when we really have no idea what we are doing. Was a soul created here? Lot of people think yes. So lots of people naturally care about that ta…

So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls? Or is it just a blessed few? What about asexually reproducing species?

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#26

Post by whatever1 »

smalltorch wrote: post #24

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most. A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never going to be a person. A embryo... we cause the sparks to fly here and it's disturbing to think we can poke at the genes when we really have no idea what we are doing. Was a soul created here? Lot of people think yes. So lots of people naturally care about that ta…

Embryos have to reset after conception to delete all of the faulty dna inherited from the parents. Babies don’t get born with wrinkles for example. They start clean slate without (most) epigenetic damage that both sperm and egg had.

So the embryo a 10 days after conception is not the same thing as at conception. Did God kill it?

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#27

Post by fc417fc802 »

whatever1 wrote: post #26
smalltorch wrote: post #24

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most. A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never going to be a person. A embryo... we cause the sparks to fly here and it's disturbing to think we can poke at the genes when we really have no idea what we are doing. Was a soul created here? Lot of people think yes. So lots of people naturally care about that ta…

Embryos have to reset after conception to delete all of the faulty dna inherited from the parents. Babies don’t get born with wrinkles for example. They start clean slate without (most) epigenetic damage that both sperm and egg had. So the embryo a 10 days after conception is not the same thing as at conception. Did God kill it?

Do you have more information or citations related to epigenetic damage in the sperm and egg?

A lot of age related dysfunction is systemic as opposed to genetic. Even for the stuff that's (epi)genetic in nature it's important to bear in mind that each cell has its own independent copy.

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#28

Post by fc417fc802 »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #6
bpodgursky wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US it's legal-sorta but the NIH can't fund it and the FDA is not allowed to approve treatments based on it. So someone could do it in a research setting but there's not a pathway to market in the US (in practice people will do the first ones in a friendly legal climate like Peru).

> In the US it's legal-sorta but the NIH can't fund it and the FDA is not allowed to approve treatments based on it What references are you following? Haven't heard this before.

I don't have citations to hand but I can attest that this has been the case for a long time now. There are jurisdictions that are more open to various semi-banned (either unfundable, a regulatory morass, or both) topics of research; China is famous for offering lucrative grants to attract foreign researchers of many of these.

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#29

Post by whatever1 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #27
whatever1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Embryos have to reset after conception to delete all of the faulty dna inherited from the parents. Babies don’t get born with wrinkles for example. They start clean slate without (most) epigenetic damage that both sperm and egg had. So the embryo a 10 days after conception is not the same thing as at conception. Did God kill it?

Do you have more information or citations related to epigenetic damage in the sperm and egg? A lot of age related dysfunction is systemic as opposed to genetic. Even for the stuff that's (epi)genetic in nature it's important to bear in mind that each cell has its own independent copy.

There is a nice podcast from the NYtimes daily podcast named: “can we reverse aging?” that covers a lot of this.

(Obviously when we discovered the reset mechanism people started asking why we cannot press the reset button at 70yo)

Re: Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

#30

Post by smalltorch »

efnx wrote: post #25
smalltorch wrote: post #24

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most. A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never going to be a person. A embryo... we cause the sparks to fly here and it's disturbing to think we can poke at the genes when we really have no idea what we are doing. Was a soul created here? Lot of people think yes. So lots of people naturally care about that ta…

So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls? Or is it just a blessed few? What about asexually reproducing species?

>So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls?

No, what is your opinion?

>Or is it just a blessed few?

Specifically humans.

>What about asexually reproducing species?

They have life that's for sure but I think it's very different than humans.

Post reply on HN