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

UK to allow babies from three people

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 166 posts

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#101

Post by gambiting »

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.

But I am sure that it would eventually trickle down anyway. It's not like middle ages where the rich can't marry the poor, it's not like rich people don't lose their fortunes and become poor. It's not like the moment you stop earning money you have to give back the modifications gained.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#102

Post by icebraining »

toyg wrote: post #81
maratd wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fas…

> The smart get smarter, the fast get faster, the strong get stronger, and the inferior disappear from the gene pool. That stopped some time ago for humans, at least in industralized countries. Modern medicine, long periods of peace and (eventually) welfare provisions have taken care of that. This is a further step in that direction. Evolution works over huge numbers, both in life and death; by effectively reducing t…

That stopped some time ago for humans, at least in industralized countries. Modern medicine, long periods of peace and (eventually) welfare provisions have taken care of that. This is a further step in that direction.

Evolution works over huge numbers, both in life and death; by effectively reducing the death-count around the globe, we're progressively abolishing it for humans.

That's a common argument, but isn't it putting too much emphasis on death as a driver of natural selection? I mean, a person who lives 80 years without ever having children is as much an evolutionary dead end as a bird who dies before he gets to reproduce.

As long as there are genetic factors that lead to some people have more or less children, evolution is still at work, even if they both live to be the same age.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#103

Post by PJDK »

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.

Although it is probably too early to say (I imagine efficacy vs cost will need to be evaluated by NICE), this is likely to be available on the NHS.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#104

Post by arethuza »

throwaway3425 wrote: post #66

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…

BBC Radio 4 had an interview with the mother of a kid suffering from these kinds of problems yesterday and, as a parent, it nearly had me in tears.

They had some daft Conservative MP on as well trying a "slippery slope" argument but he completely missed the point about it being mitochondrial DNA so sounded, at least to me, rather silly.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#105

Post by skore »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #46
Cogito wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it is! That said, I don't think the 'slippery slope' arguments made in parliament are valid, precisely because this is a very specific kind of genetic modification: > "But one thing is for sure, once this alteration has taken place, as someone has said, once the gene is out of the bottle, once these procedures that we're asked to authorise today go ahead, there will be no going back for society." Replacing mi…

The 'slippery slope' argument also seems easy to fix in this case. Can't we just extend whatever laws with the addition of this specific treatment? Anything else has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

> Can't we just extend whatever laws with the addition of this specific treatment? Anything else has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Cue people shouting about how politics are slow and killing people while also forcing politicians into making medical judgements that they may not be qualified for, further increasing the chance that they become the playthings of lobbyists who "do their homework for them".

I'm utterly divided on this issue by the way, just noting the inevitable discussion that follows your logic.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#106

Post by recibe »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #13
barking wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor but at a time when the world's population is exploding this doesn't seem like our most pressing problem.

World population is not exploding, and overpopulation is not and will not be a major world problem.

Based on what? Your opinion?

The U.N. projects world population to increase to 10.8 billion by 2100 from 6.9 billion in 2010.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publication...

The academic laziness of you and those who agree with you is disgusting.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#107

Post by one-more-minute »

Cogito wrote: post #23
gameshot911 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I guess it is! That said, I don't think the 'slippery slope' arguments made in parliament are valid, precisely because this is a very specific kind of genetic modification: > "But one thing is for sure, once this alteration has taken place, as someone has said, once the gene is out of the bottle, once these procedures that we're asked to authorise today go ahead, there will be no going back for society." Replacing mi…

You could equally apply the slippery slope argument to regular medicine.

> If the NHS starts giving out vaccines today they'll be giving out botox in a few years time, right!?

People can already (though perhaps to a lesser extent) have designer bodies, if they can afford it, thanks to modern medicine. Genetic medicine doesn't seem to introduce a fundamentally new problem.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#108

Post by recibe »

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…

Opposition is also from those who don't think that human reproduction is a moral imperative to be guaranteed by the state - under the fallacy that it somehow increases our collective quality of life.

Like me.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#110

Post by one-more-minute »

recibe wrote: post #108
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…

Opposition is also from those who don't think that human reproduction is a moral imperative to be guaranteed by the state - under the fallacy that it somehow increases our collective quality of life. Like me.

That's an interesting point, and perhaps a good argument for not diverting public health resources towards this kind of procedure (I'm sure there are good arguments for the opposite, too).

But there's a big difference between not actively endorsing a procedure like this and making it illegal.

Post reply on HN