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

31–40 of 56 posts

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

#31

Post by fc417fc802 »

whatever1 wrote: post #29
fc417fc802 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I'm not interested in an arbitrarily open ended reading assignment but rather am asking if you can provide even a vague pointer to evidence of this because it doesn't match my understanding of how these things work.

I know for a fact that epigenetic material isn't magically reset to some prior state in a blanket manner because changes to the epigenome based on the environmental conditions in which the parents are born and raised are heritable by their children. For example widespread famine has been shown to leave changes in the epigenome that remain for at least several generations.

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

#32

Post by whatever1 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #31
whatever1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I'm not interested in an arbitrarily open ended reading assignment but rather am asking if you can provide even a vague pointer to evidence of this because it doesn't match my understanding of how these things work. I know for a fact that epigenetic material isn't magically reset to some prior state in a blanket manner because changes to the epigenome based on the environmental conditions in which the parents are bor…

I am not interested in teaching you how to google. I gave you pointers and keywords. Now you have to go read. Good luck.

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

#33

Post by gpm »

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…

No, that skin I scraped off on the sidewalk is not a human just because it has human DNA (and indeed, the cells in it are still alive, for a time).

Similarly neither are embryos. A human is a collection of trillions of cells arranged in a particular manner, not just any cell (or relatively small set of cells) that has human DNA. Human, as a word, has meaning far beyond that.

I'd agree that personhood is the more important qualification (though, of course, we experiment on people all the time, and rightly so). But a few cells with human DNA does not a human make.

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

#34

Post by fc417fc802 »

whatever1 wrote: post #32
fc417fc802 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested in an arbitrarily open ended reading assignment but rather am asking if you can provide even a vague pointer to evidence of this because it doesn't match my understanding of how these things work. I know for a fact that epigenetic material isn't magically reset to some prior state in a blanket manner because changes to the epigenome based on the environmental conditions in which the parents are bor…

I am not interested in teaching you how to google. I gave you pointers and keywords. Now you have to go read. Good luck.

The trouble with that attitude is that it's much cheaper to make false claims that it is to do the research necessary to debunk them. As a result it isn't reasonable in a context such as HN to expect others to do the work of articulating your own position for you. I provided a concrete example (famine) where the existing literature appears to contradict in broad strokes your original claim.

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

#35

Post by FuckButtons »

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…

I will never understand this mindset. What exactly do you think primary scientific research is if not collecting data on questions to which you do not know the answer? How are you supposed to get data to said questions without observing the actual events? I suppose you’re sanguine with the idea of letting future generations of children be born with potentially preventable genetic disorders based on your squeamishness?

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

#36

Post by smalltorch »

FuckButtons wrote: post #35
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…

I will never understand this mindset. What exactly do you think primary scientific research is if not collecting data on questions to which you do not know the answer? How are you supposed to get data to said questions without observing the actual events? I suppose you’re sanguine with the idea of letting future generations of children be born with potentially preventable genetic disorders based on your squeamishness…

Lots of breakthroughs in medicine happen without editing genes? And why do you think Im opposed to the scientific method based on this view point that maybe experimenting on human embryos is not a great way to learn stuff?

For example, what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? Will they need to live their whole life for us to confirm the cure worked?

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

#37

Post by j16sdiz »

> Base editing can precisely change a single nucleotide base pair...

Absolutely not. It _cut_ the DNA at three nine precision (not that great given the number of base pairs we have); and things sitch together at much higher error rate.

It is a great technology, but it is not as great as many claim

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

#38

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

gpm wrote: post #33
zmgsabst wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, that skin I scraped off on the sidewalk is not a human just because it has human DNA (and indeed, the cells in it are still alive, for a time). Similarly neither are embryos. A human is a collection of trillions of cells arranged in a particular manner, not just any cell (or relatively small set of cells) that has human DNA. Human, as a word, has meaning far beyond that. I'd agree that personhood is the more impo…

There's people with disabilities or conditions whom you could say are not persons (in some cases anymore, in some cases ever) but there's no boolean test to say for sure. Do you think they should be allowed to be experimented on? What exactly makes a person? Is serial murderer a person? What about his victim in a coma or vegetable state?

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

#39

Post by erikerikson »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #34
whatever1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not interested in teaching you how to google. I gave you pointers and keywords. Now you have to go read. Good luck.

The trouble with that attitude is that it's much cheaper to make false claims that it is to do the research necessary to debunk them. As a result it isn't reasonable in a context such as HN to expect others to do the work of articulating your own position for you. I provided a concrete example (famine) where the existing literature appears to contradict in broad strokes your original claim.

That's true but demanding full satisfaction can be it's own bad expectation. The respondent spent their time giving you pointers which cost them. Suggesting that because they spent some of their time they are stuck giving you more of their time leads to suppressed sharing. One way to take them is that they were trying to combat you and if their goal was to win in public then they might be beholden. Otherwise they were just trying to share a lead and that was as much as they wanted to engage with what can be an exhausting and motivated line of argument. Especially so in the face of what may have seemed like a demanding response.

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

#40

Post by iknowstuff »

smalltorch wrote: post #30
efnx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you can't seriously think there is a line in the sand between homo sapiens and heidelbergensis or neanderthals which demarcates "soul" and "no soul". Especially since the latter interbred with humans.
Post reply on HN