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

41–50 of 56 posts

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

#41

Post by pizzafeelsright »

iknowstuff wrote: post #40
smalltorch wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

what if heidelbergensis and other ancestors didn't exist but were written in a books by people you never met and any amount of questioning was frowned upon? do you believe in the relics never seen and take the word upon a class of believers that safeguard the history? sounds like a religion to me.

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

#42

Post by pwdisswordfishq »

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 Google which no longer searches for what you ask and instead rephrases your query into meaninglessness and returns irrelevant results? That Google?

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

#43

Post by halfxing »

smalltorch wrote: post #36
FuckButtons wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

> Lots of breakthroughs in medicine happen without editing genes?

Why would the presence of breakthroughs in medicine on other fronts mean that we shouldn't try gene editing?

> 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?

That is what clinical trials do today for medicine. Are you opposed to those as well? Many have died and many have been saved in the pursuit of better care.

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

#44

Post by zmgsabst »

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…

Embryos have their own DNA and constitute the full amount of that cell line — unlike your skin shedding.

They are absolutely a human.

To sibling comment’s point: personhood versus humanity is already the legal distinction - eg, children and invalids are fully human but not fully people, so we don’t grant them full legal rights and instead let others exercise control over them. For children in particular, we grant them more autonomous control of their rights as they mature.

Your path of denying humans their humanity has a dark history, including within medicine.

I don’t support that, even if they’re very tiny and fragile humans early in their development — eg, if we could raise them in artificial wombs, they may have a right to life as a human, despite what anyone else wishes.

Denying their humanity is denying their right to life as a fellow human.

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

#45

Post by zmgsabst »

hparadiz wrote: post #21
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…

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.

Perfectly reasonable - eg, organ transplants were experimental in humans at one point in time, following success in animals but before widespread success in humans. People died from rejections.

My point is that if you feel that way, be loud and proud about it: having to deny the humanity of embryos suggests you’re avoiding cognitive dissonance or trying to manipulate others.

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

#46

Post by smalltorch »

iknowstuff wrote: post #40
smalltorch wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Are there any species you know of that would be able to interbred with each other? Why would that have been possible?

Sounds like humans to me, perhaps ones who could live longer?

Look, I think we know how these discussions go, I'm not sure they get anywhere. Your pretty sure you know what's going on, I'm pretty sure I know what's going on...

Id hope there would be caution in manipulating the formation of a human when there isn't a great way to test these things without observing the results after they are born without any significant confidence what was manipulated effected the outcome or had a desirable result. There is no world where this real world testing is not reckless.

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

#47

Post by iknowstuff »

pizzafeelsright wrote: post #41
iknowstuff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what if heidelbergensis and other ancestors didn't exist but were written in a books by people you never met and any amount of questioning was frowned upon? do you believe in the relics never seen and take the word upon a class of believers that safeguard the history? sounds like a religion to me.

visit a museum

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

#48

Post by Refreeze5224 »

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 lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...)

You might want to flesh this part out a bit more before criticizing scientists tweaking some cell clumps.

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

#49

Post by gpm »

zmgsabst wrote: post #44
gpm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Embryos have their own DNA and constitute the full amount of that cell line — unlike your skin shedding. They are absolutely a human. To sibling comment’s point: personhood versus humanity is already the legal distinction - eg, children and invalids are fully human but not fully people, so we don’t grant them full legal rights and instead let others exercise control over them. For children in particular, we grant the…

> Embryos have their own DNA and constitute the full amount of that cell line — unlike your skin shedding.

This is absolutely not the definition of a human. It denies the humanity of genetic chimera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera) and organ transplant donors and recipients. It would define a cancer tumor (which will have it's own unique DNA lineage) as a human.

You're twisting yourself in circles trying to create some pseudoscientific definition of a human based on DNA to get to the outcome when you want, when the definition of a human is simply "matter arranged in a human form". DNA is a tiny portion of that matter, and isn't really critical at all. Theoretically you could simultaneously destroy all the DNA in a human and while they'd die in short order they'd remain human and initially pretty much entirely unchanged (hard to say for how long, maybe hours).

We'll never agree on what a human is [1], but this hamfisted attempt to define it in terms of DNA will never even create a consistent definition with the properties you want.

[1] You're plainly motivated by a spirtual or religious belief in a non-falsifiable manner that embryos share some important spiritual/religious characteristic with humans - likely something to do with a "soul". As a result you want to modify the definition of the common english word human to include them to make your beliefs seem inevitable. Meanwhile I don't share that view and will insist on continuing to use the traditional meaning of the word. I'll die on this hill because it's correct, but also because people who share your view frequently go beyond that and attempt to impose their own religious beliefs on other people in the form of laws that deny them their religious freedom, and freedom to control their own bodies. Laws incidentally that wouldn't be justified even if the embryos were full grown human being somehow squashed inside other people. And laws that have been tried, and result in not just loss of freedom but the death of actual living humans. This is the dark history in medicine that is actually worth considering in this conversation.

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

#50

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

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…

If you prefer the term person to avoid confusion, fine by me. But then also don't use the term "experimenting on humans", because the meaning of that is experimenting on persons against their will.

There is nothing extra magical about conception that makes the creation of a human (or a person if you prefer that), all of the DNA already existed before and nothing that defines a person is yet present.

Post reply on HN