What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
nybooks.com
What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#2The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin.
To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further accelerate wealth benefits, eg if you could make your kids smarter. One of the problems with that however is that this technique is so cheap and easy that banning it will just create a black market, or a single country decides to allow it for economic or political reasons and people travel there to get pregnant.
That impossibility of controlling this is why I think we have no choice but to proceed slowly, cautiously, but under full transparency.
* there are also uncertainties about off-target effects and overall safety of the technique but I'm confident those issues will eventually be fixed too.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#3The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…
Agree with you. As much as I generally don’t like intervention I think regulation may be best here.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#4The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…
Why would anyone prefer having less intelligent people to having more smart people for the sake of eqality is beyond me.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#5The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…
>To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further accelerate wealth benefits, eg if you could make your kids smarter.
The exact same argument could be made against education, or any other human development.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#6The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…
>To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further accelerate wealth benefits, eg if you could make your kids smarter. The exact same argument could be made against education, or any other human development.
Which is why most countries have some sort of public funded compulsory education.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#7The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…
Why would anyone prefer having less intelligent people to having more smart people for the sake of eqality is beyond me.
Especially since regulations won't meaningfully impact the very richest - they'll travel to Thailand or wherever to have their kid's embryo edited and implanted. What it will do is prevent those innovations from coming into the reach of the rest of us.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#8The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…
IMHO if you have the means to make your kids smarter (all other things being equal) it's unethical not to do so.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#9Let's say that we accept the "my body, my choice" argument for legal abortion on demand. It applies to eggs, sperm, unimplanted zygotes and preterm fetuses.
So why doesn't it also apply to CRISPR editing of our somatic and germline cells? I suppose that we could carve an exception, in the interest of the public good. As we have for the War on Drugs. But that's a dangerous path, if one cares about personal freedom.
Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?
#10The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…
> I think we have no choice but to proceed slowly, cautiously, but under full transparency.
but if there's any slight advantage to be had by going faster (e.g., there's a moratorium on editing certain traits), then those who would disregard the "rules" may gain and therefore, create a black-market anyway.
I think the only reasonable thing to do is to have unfetted access, and the lowest possible price point. Then let darwinian selection take place.