UK to allow babies from three people • Hacker News Board

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#61

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:02 AM UTC

gameshot911 wrote: post #16

Cogito wrote: post #9

To those wondering, this does not involve gene splicing or anything like that. Instead, defective mitochondria are being replaced with mitochondria from a healthy donor. This technique is only valid for diseases involving defective mitochondria. The mitochondrial DNA is responsible for very very little of the genetic material that defines who a person is, essentially limited to how effective the mitochondria are at t…

>Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies" Well...this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans.

But no DNA is being modified.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#62

Post by vacri » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:05 AM UTC

3d8995163 wrote: post #54

brianpgordon wrote: post #48

> Other groups, including Human Genetics Alert, say the move would open the door to further genetic modification of children in the future - so-called designer babies, genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease. There are people who don't think this is a good thing?! If we could eliminate congenital disease, and make everyone smarter, it would be like fast-forwarding human evolution.

And the kids whose parents couldn't afford to have them genetically improved? They just exist as some sort of permanent underclass? If you think the inequality and the way poor people get treated is a problem now, wait until rich people are actually genetically superior to the poor.

'could not afford'^

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#63

Post by adrusi » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:52 AM UTC

_almosnow wrote: post #57

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? There are limits to growth. We are just not anywhere near them, and don't seem to be approaching them. World birth rates are coming down fast enough that world population will probably never again double. > No limits to available fresh water supplies? Fresh water is a local problem. The world fresh water supply is renewable and renews at a rate several orders of mag…

>The world fresh water supply is renewable and renews at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than human consumption. I'm gonna need source on that one, please.

The problem with freshwater is not that the global supply is limited, rather that supplies in some high-population areas are.

The Amazon river sends 209,000 cubic meters into the Atlantic every second[1]. That's 18,100,000,000 per day. A single human drinks about two liters (0.02 cubic meters) every day. There are 7 billion humans, so the global requirement is 140,000,000 cubic meters of water. The Amazon alone contains 130 times more than the global requirement for drinking water.

This is domestic consumption, which comprises 10% of water usage[2]. That means that 13 times more water flows through the Amazon than all of humanity uses. That's just one river.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River [2]: http://www.lenntech.com/water-food-agriculture.htm

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#64

Post by maratd » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:53 AM UTC

rpedroso wrote: post #59

adamnemecek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> invasive genetic modification of humans Besides safety, are there any issues with that?

There is the GATTACA argument that unequal access to genetic modification will foster even greater socioeconomic inequality than we already face today. The film imagined a future in which genetic superiority could be measured by percentile and that job eligibility was based almost exclusively on your genetic score. The implication is that the widespread but costly availability of genetic modification in tandem with f…

> There is the GATTACA argument that unequal access to genetic modification will foster even greater socioeconomic inequality than we already face today.

Absolutely nothing we can do artificially will have as great of an impact than genetically gifted individuals having children together ... which is already happening and has been happening for eons ... I mean, that's what evolution is. The smart get smarter, the fast get faster, the strong get stronger, and the inferior disappear from the gene pool.

If anything, genetic modification will allow the less gifted to pool funds and improve their own gene pool in a way that was simply not possible before.

Now, I think all of this is futile, for reasons touched in GATTACA. It is my absolute most favorite movie. Watch it again =)

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#65

Post by fmax30 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:12 AM UTC

My take on this is that either make it free for everyone or don't do it at all. If you only allow the rich to have this treatment ( is there a better word for it) then you are artificially inviting a whole new brand of racism and social inequality into the system.

Also everyone should watch Gattaca, it is one of best movies that shows how social inequality can arise in situations like these.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#66

Post by throwaway3425 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:58 AM UTC

Mitochondrial diseases can be shitty, shitty things - I have multiple siblings with untreatable and debilitating effects from it.

I didn't know they could even do this (technically), so this news gave me tears of joy.

I am lucky on two counts, to be male (can't pass it on) and also not (yet) had any symptoms myself. It must be horrible for any female who has to decide whether having kids is worth passing those risks on to their offspring.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#67

Post by alexandros » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:24 AM UTC

fmax30 wrote: post #65

My take on this is that either make it free for everyone or don't do it at all. If you only allow the rich to have this treatment ( is there a better word for it) then you are artificially inviting a whole new brand of racism and social inequality into the system. Also everyone should watch Gattaca, it is one of best movies that shows how social inequality can arise in situations like these.

On your first point, most new things are subsidised by the rich at the start, and end up mass produced so the middle-class can have them, often times becoming commoditised to being in the reach of almost everyone. Computers are a good example. The world hasn't divided because of this. The divisions usually come in the form of "zero-sum" status goods such as high-end brands or jewelery that has little instrumental value.

On the second point, Gattaca is a fictional tale, and as such should not be used as evidence to "show" anything. It is, at best, a hypothesis, and one not optimised for accuracy, or subjected to any scrutiny at that. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#68

Post by thisone » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:32 AM UTC

kareemm wrote: post #60

I can just hear the guy who wrote the software for creating UK birth certificates: "I know for sure that I need to display two parents max on these." And I feel for the poor programmer whose job it is to deal with the brand-new edge case of putting three parents' names on one.

IVF can currently involve 5 people as it is. Sperm donor, egg donor, surrogate, couple whose child this will be.

This method ups it to 6.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#69

Post by SilkRoadie » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:45 AM UTC

gameshot911 wrote: post #16

Cogito wrote: post #9

To those wondering, this does not involve gene splicing or anything like that. Instead, defective mitochondria are being replaced with mitochondria from a healthy donor. This technique is only valid for diseases involving defective mitochondria. The mitochondrial DNA is responsible for very very little of the genetic material that defines who a person is, essentially limited to how effective the mitochondria are at t…

>Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies" Well...this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans.

My concern about this isn't the specific procedure, it is the moving of the line of what is allowed. What will happen next? I am sure there will be an illness where just a tiny bit of gene splicing could improve the lives of x amount of babies.

You look the blocking of websites.. It started with child porn which everyone thought was acceptable but then the same legislation was used against piracy websites. Now Britain has an internet filter...

Before there was a red line in genetics. Allowing this procedure really blurs that line and I worry this is just the start of a slippery slope..

As for how much it helps parents. It doesn't help many with their first child as the parents are often not aware they are carriers of conditions. For subsequent children adoption was always available.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#70

Post by bayesianhorse » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:00 AM UTC

The reason why some people believe this to be an ethical problem, and others don't, is that the questions "What constitutes a human being?" and "When does a part of another Human body become a human being?" are hotly disputed.

It's hard to say for certain what aspects of "humanity" is carried by mitochondria. So some will say that there are two mothers, others will say there is only one.

Some will say this is unnatural or violates religious beliefs. In my opinion it's a wide leap to say some reproductive technique is evil just because the people writing holy texts didn't conceive of it a few centuries ago.