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

Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#11

Post by throwawayaway »

themartorana wrote: post #8
Folcon wrote: post #7

This perspective is interesting: "Many ethicists have accepted the idea of gene therapy, changes that die with the patient, but draw a clear line at altering the germline, since these will extend to future generations." Doesn't this imply that ethically you can alter your own geneline as long as from that point on you cannot have progeny?

It's a weird situation. Why wouldn't I want to edit out BRCA1/2 for myself and my downline? Who gets to say that my progeny have to live with the significant risk of dying from breast cancer? That's why this is so touchy. Who gets to draw these lines, and why? Bans on anything are rarely helpful.

> Bans on anything are rarely helpful.

ban on theft seems to be working out pretty good here, thanks.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#12

Post by Patrikvo »

throwawayaway wrote: post #10
Patrikvo wrote: post #5

We should carefully build up the knowledge and experience on genome editing. If we can prevent children to be born with genetic defects, we should. And I don't care if the rich and powerful get to make their kids extra smart and beautiful if that means millions of other children don't have to live with a disability.

one man's defect is another's feature. the old bug vs. feature debate, applies here. maybe my thinking has been horribly warped by over exposure to computing.

If it required medication, surgery or the use of an aid (like glasses) it's clearly not a feature.

I've had to wear glasses since I was 4 and would have been very happy if this would have been fixed before being born.

But I agree not everything is so clear cut.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#13

Post by philipp-de »

Well if they do test this on humans, and if something goes wrong - they can easily fix it. Just apply a wetware update. Maybe we can even deploy wetware updates wirelessly soon. Just think of the possibilities. "Have you installed the Starbucks(tm) Wetware upgrade that makes you able to digest our latest drink, yet ?"

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#14

Post by psykovsky »

philipp-de wrote: post #13

Well if they do test this on humans, and if something goes wrong - they can easily fix it. Just apply a wetware update. Maybe we can even deploy wetware updates wirelessly soon. Just think of the possibilities. "Have you installed the Starbucks(tm) Wetware upgrade that makes you able to digest our latest drink, yet ?"

That is scary. I hadn't thought about it that way before, and now you scared me.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#15

Post by dr_ »

EvaK_de wrote: post #9

The world has changed significantly since the 70ies, when such a moratorium worked. I don't think that it would in today's world, where information is more free than ever.

People sure move fast when there's a potentially promising technology. http://crisprtx.com

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#16

Post by ticking »

throwawayaway wrote: post #10
Patrikvo wrote: post #5

We should carefully build up the knowledge and experience on genome editing. If we can prevent children to be born with genetic defects, we should. And I don't care if the rich and powerful get to make their kids extra smart and beautiful if that means millions of other children don't have to live with a disability.

one man's defect is another's feature. the old bug vs. feature debate, applies here. maybe my thinking has been horribly warped by over exposure to computing.

Bullshit. I'm in my early 20s and have MS. That is not a feature.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#17

Post by eli_gottlieb »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #6
zimbatm wrote: post #4

This article made me want to try human genome editing. It's obvious that given the possibility people are not going to be able to resist.

When subcultures like furries or bronies get hold of it, things may get more than a bit odd.

Any genome edit large enough to make you look like a dog would most likely kill you, or at least render any embryos you may conceive non-viable.

GENETICS IS HARD.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#18

Post by pharke »

throwawayaway wrote: post #11
themartorana wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a weird situation. Why wouldn't I want to edit out BRCA1/2 for myself and my downline? Who gets to say that my progeny have to live with the significant risk of dying from breast cancer? That's why this is so touchy. Who gets to draw these lines, and why? Bans on anything are rarely helpful.

> Bans on anything are rarely helpful. ban on theft seems to be working out pretty good here, thanks.

The intellectual property debate would beg to differ.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#19

Post by josinalvo »

throwawayaway wrote: post #10
Patrikvo wrote: post #5

We should carefully build up the knowledge and experience on genome editing. If we can prevent children to be born with genetic defects, we should. And I don't care if the rich and powerful get to make their kids extra smart and beautiful if that means millions of other children don't have to live with a disability.

one man's defect is another's feature. the old bug vs. feature debate, applies here. maybe my thinking has been horribly warped by over exposure to computing.

?

At any rate, I'd prefer to decide myself what is a feature, rather than having some 'ethicist' decide for me.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#20

Post by throwawayaway »

pharke wrote: post #18
throwawayaway wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bans on anything are rarely helpful. ban on theft seems to be working out pretty good here, thanks.

The intellectual property debate would beg to differ.

I think you are doing both sides of the intellectual property debate a disservice by calling it theft, don't you?

copyright infringement = theft? sure, industrial espionage is theft, but that's not what you are talking about.

EDIT: this is probably the best essay I've read on it:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Post reply on HN