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

What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#11

Post by mirimir »

chii wrote: post #10
technotony wrote: post #2

The 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…

That makes sense to me.

Proliferation of nuclear-weapon technology has been somewhat effective. Because it's hugely technical and resource intensive. But CRISPR, not so much.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#12

Post by vore »

mirimir wrote: post #9

Let'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.

Germline editing has consequences far beyond "my body, my choice". If your offspring have genetic defects from gene editing, and their offspring also have the same genetic defects, then "your choice" has consequences far beyond just you that "personal freedom" can't cover.

If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected: far less consequential than possibly ruining generations to come.

I don't know what the War on Drugs has to do with anything here.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#13

Post by x220 »

mirimir wrote: post #9

Let'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.

>As we have for the War on Drugs

The war on drugs hasn't benefited the public.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#14

Post by x220 »

wz1000 wrote: post #6
sasaf5 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yeah, but a moratorium on gene editing is the equivalent of banning all schools.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#15

Post by sho »

vore wrote: post #12
mirimir wrote: post #9

Let'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.

Germline editing has consequences far beyond "my body, my choice". If your offspring have genetic defects from gene editing, and their offspring also have the same genetic defects, then "your choice" has consequences far beyond just you that "personal freedom" can't cover. If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected: far less consequential than possibly ruining generations to come. I don't know what the W…

> If your offspring have genetic defects [..], and their offspring [..]

> If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected

By aborting, you're not merely potentially saddling your offspring with genetic defects - you're denying them the most basic right to exist in the first place! And their offspring, too. You're shutting down that whole line before it can even start.

I'm pro choice, but this line of argument makes no sense to me. Hard to see how anything could have consequences "far beyond" depriving a germline of existence itself.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#16

Post by Ultimatt »

technotony wrote: post #2

The 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…

Not sure I agree with the first premise. If the technology was relatively safe and robust you could just routinely "edit" all births with a package of corrections for all known rare genetic diseases. There are several hundred well understood variants that are disease causing and correctable with editing a fertilised egg, with essentially zero available treatments later on.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#17

Post by sho »

DuskStar wrote: post #7
wetpaws wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assuming nation states don't hoard what could be considered to be a long term strategic advantage.

My fear would be that the West, in paroxysms of misguided equal-outcomes ideology, ban genetic improvements - whereas China mandates it, and bans its availability to outsiders, setting themselves up for a long-term fundamental advantage which we might never be able to overcome.

In a sense, it doesn't matter what the West "decides". If China et al have this technology - and they do - and if they decide to exploit it - and they will - we have no real choice but to follow, or face our inevitable and profound outcompetition in the medium to long term.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#18

Post by keiferski »

wetpaws wrote: post #4
technotony wrote: post #2

The 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.

The entire history in Europe of the past 2,000 years is precisely this - the preference for equality over excellence.

See: Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#19

Post by chrischen »

technotony wrote: post #2

The 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 the strongest argument against gene editing is the tendency for societal biases to be taken to the extreme. Gene editing is drastic and has the potential to greatly reduce genetic diversity in a population since people tend to want to become “normal”, or meme certain popular traits. If you gave minorities the ability to become a white males in America, would they? Certainly many would and it would mean losing the benefits of such diversity we currently have, even if it’s tougher for many people to be non-white male.

See “Chinese footbinding”, “injecting cement into posteriors for beauty”, “plastic surgery” for examples of the absuridty people will go to to fit in.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#20

Post by bencollier49 »

Ultimatt wrote: post #16
technotony wrote: post #2

The 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…

Not sure I agree with the first premise. If the technology was relatively safe and robust you could just routinely "edit" all births with a package of corrections for all known rare genetic diseases. There are several hundred well understood variants that are disease causing and correctable with editing a fertilised egg, with essentially zero available treatments later on.

Would you correct carriers as well (heterozygous with no symptoms). What about where the gene was advantageous in a heterozygous configuration? Would you eliminate all sickle-cell genes?
Post reply on HN