I'm not sure what the problem is. Can't they just be kept 50 metres apart to avoid cross pollination, the same as Monsanto's regulations to prevent cross pollination of their GM crops? :P
Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's creating any underclass? There's no reason to expect you won't just take a pill to change our eye color etc. It could be cheap and available. Not yet time to pull the emergency stop cord, because of imagined inequalities in a system that's not even been engineered yet.
Have you observed how the real world works? There are many diseases whose cures/preventions are "cheap and available" yet still continue to kill millions in the "underclasses."
This point could have been made without the sarcasm, please see guidelines on being overly negative: http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#33Humans modifying themselves is scary. Very scary. One way it is scary is it creates a new form of genocide. Rather than murdering oppressed groups, we will simply disable the genes that make them part of that group, erasing diversity. A world with only white, straight, cisgender, neurotypical, conventionally attractive etc. people is not one I want to live in.
Take a trip on tumblr sometime and you'll see that the psychological drive to be a unique and special snowflake is strong enough that you have nothing to worry about.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#34With apologies for the somewhat flip turn of phrase, if we outlaw human genome editing, then only outlaws will edit the human genome.
States in general do not have a good track record at preventing things that can take place in a small room, with inexpensive equipment and few personnel.
Consider the kinds of equipment, and its associated cost, needed for genome editing -- and compare to that required for development of nuclear weapons. The collected might of the western world has occasional challenges in preventing development of nuclear weapons; it's not clear to me how anyone expects to be able to enforce a "ban" on editing the human genome. And for a glimpse of what an unenforceable ban looks like, look at the drug war.
The whole thing is empty posturing. Genome editing is coming, like it or not. Bans won't prevent it; they'll just prevent open discussion on how and where it's being used.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#35Humans modifying themselves is scary. Very scary. One way it is scary is it creates a new form of genocide. Rather than murdering oppressed groups, we will simply disable the genes that make them part of that group, erasing diversity. A world with only white, straight, cisgender, neurotypical, conventionally attractive etc. people is not one I want to live in.
Sounds alright to me tbh.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#36Why is arbitrarily changing human genome something that biologist worry about, but changing the genome of other creatures and foods that are later consumed is not something that biologists worry about?
I assume you're referring to GMOs, and yes that is something biologists "worry about" very frequently.
That's why it works.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#37I really think this is simply a tactic to consolidate market position, by creating a monopoly and artificial scarcity, by raising the barriers to entry on what is otherwise apparently not very defensible tech. "Don't use it until it's safe", is a fairly effective way to stave off competition in medical research and biology in many places. Added to this, is the idea of anticipating and smoothing any regulatory humps by gaining consensus before launch, allowing growth to be faster when it actually does launch.
These are both smooth moves if that's the intent, though I don't think it's sufficient if the tech is really so indefensible.
I think another important consideration is long-term branding. Because the tech is not defensible, there's going to be a whole bunch of competitors, so how can we differentiate ourselves? "We're the ones who did this safest, and we've been about safety from day one."
That's going to be a pretty compelling narrative for human gene therapy suppliers.
It's encouraging to see strategic smarts in science at an early stage in a bio venture that could end up having a very large impact on medicine. So that's really cool, my hat's off to them for these plays. I think the new biotech therapies will need huge monopolies with the resources and motivation to push with the highest standards. After all, for developing biotech, do you really want to be buying your medical future, from a garage startup? Or from a massive name?
So I think it's smart they're clothing themselves in the apparel of major names from day one: caution and safety. It's also exciting to think that right now could be the start of some huge biotech firms of the future, companies that will literally be 10x bigger than the energy companies of today.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#38There was a call around here to ban AI research too. Maybe the reason we don't do new things is that we are too afraid. I blame lazy and unimaginative sci-fi plots among other things. Genetics could improve the inequality situation too, but that would require challenging elements of our economic system which is off the table.
How, exactly, could genetics solve inequality? It is a social problem.
> It is a social problem.
You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable.
Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy, rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field is a great way to give an investment to the children of the current underprivileged .
(edit: think about it this way -- health care costs are currently a kind of regressive tax, as it takes a larger portion of the poor's income than the wealthy. so anything to lower overall treatment costs will help reduce inequality.)
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#39I worked in a next-gen DNA sequencing lab (as a sysadmin), and learned a lot while I was there. One of the primary things I took away from it was that the human genome is it's various interactions with other organisms (microbiome) is incredibly complex and difficult to understand in an interrelated way. I would say don't ban it, but rather put regulations that require extremely extensive oversight and testing.
It's the same reason I criticize GMO products (worked with big agriculture geneticists before going into bioinformatics), namely that the testing periods are so short and lack oversight is so nonexistent that it is the unforeseen consequences that make me very wary of GMO foods.
We need to just be able to admit when a technology is very dangerous, and instead of hiding it away, open it up to as many eyes as possible, and fund the testing as much as possible. The key point for me though is the time factor. Testing over extended periods of time (1,5,10,20 years) is a must for such dangerous scientific advancements.
Luckily sequencing and modification are becoming cheaper and more reliable by the year, to the point that I am pretty sure that your local doctors office is going to have a sequencer before 2020.
I can't wait till my non-compete is up in a few months and I can get more involved.
Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you observed how the real world works? There are many diseases whose cures/preventions are "cheap and available" yet still continue to kill millions in the "underclasses."
This point could have been made without the sarcasm, please see guidelines on being overly negative: http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline
GP made a fair point, and was not overly sarcastic.
EDIT: I appreciate the urge to have a kinder and gentler HN, but let's not start cluttering up threads more than we have to with references to the guidelines. It's meta, and meta kills.