Live data from Hacker News

Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

nytimes.com

121–130 of 570 posts

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#122

Research funded by the NIH which our government is actively gutting

As the father of a 5 year old boy with a genetic degenerative muscular disease whose lifespan will depend directly on how fast these technologies progress, I have difficulty responding in a civilized manner to the pointless, cruel, and stupid actions of the Administration in this regard. Rage is the word.

It is breathtaking to consider how the members of the Administration and their children, parents, and grandparents have benefited from NIH-funded research in innumerable ways that they are shamefully unaware of, every time they visit the doctor or the ER.

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#123

> To accomplish that feat, the treatment is wrapped in fatty lipid molecules to protect it from degradation in the blood on its way to the liver, where the edit will be made. Inside the lipids are instructions that command the cells to produce an enzyme that edits the gene. They also carry a molecular GPS — CRISPR — which was altered to crawl along a person’s DNA until it finds the exact DNA letter that needs to be c…

Never bet against science !

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this effort is the culmination of 50 years of research. Could be the last harrah of the NIH with the amount of cuts we've had and the scientists who are taking jobs in other countries.

Unfortunately a staggering amount of research in other countries is largely funded by the NIH/USA.

And so what?

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#125
post #99
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One other fun part of gene editing in vivo is that we don't actually use GACU (T in DNA). It turns out that if you use Pseudouridine (Ψ) instead of uridine (U) then the body's immune system doesn't nearly alarm as much, as it doesn't really see that mRNA as quite so dangerous. But , the RNA -> Protein equipment will just make protiens it without any problems. Which, yeah, that's a miraculous discovery. And it was wel…

I suppose a downside (depending on your perspective) of this is that it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect. That's good if your goals are to detect genetic modification which may be considered cheating in competitive sports. That's bad if your goals are to detect genetically modified people and discriminate against them. I see a near future where the kind of people who loa…

If you're going to make the comparison with vaccines, and if history is any indication, the more realistic worry would be the other way around (since that's where the money is): that genetic modifications will be mandated, and that those who object will be discriminated against.

[And no, I am not anti-vax, nor anti-gene-editing.]

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#126

Are the edited genes inherited, or the original ones? Does the previous question have an answer that depends on the babies sex? From an evolutionary perspective it‘s interesting how the further medicine gets, the more we inherit genes unfit for life without medical support.

I'm sure we'll be editing these diseases out of the germ line at the same time in the not too distant future.

Speaking as a person whose friend died at 21 from complications related to cystic fibrosis I would like to see these diseases edited out of the germ line.

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#127
post #80

I think it was here a few years ago that I read a comment saying that sick children will be the Trojan horse for normalizing gene editing of humans, because who could say no to sick children, right? Well, guess it's here now, so how long utill the eugenics wars start?

it's unclear the outcome of this will be eugenics wars. Answering the real question- it's unlikely these techniques will see widespread "recreational" usage any time soon, as they come with a wide range of risks. Further, the scientific community has learned a lot from previous eugenics programs; anything that happens in the future will happen with both social and political regulation. It's ultimately hard to predict…

That's part of why the trojan horse works so well, what is an unacceptable risk for someone healthy can easily be acceptable for someone with an otherwise untreatable condition. Then by the experience and knowledge gained, it becomes less risky for everyone.

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#129

I think it was here a few years ago that I read a comment saying that sick children will be the Trojan horse for normalizing gene editing of humans, because who could say no to sick children, right? Well, guess it's here now, so how long utill the eugenics wars start?

I think i'm fighting on those wars right now, you can also call them 'darwin wars' i suppose... but bear in mind i'm crazy and online

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think part of the problem is that “really good” and “really bad” are not universally accepted norms for any given ethical question. What you’re seeing is your own value system assumptions being checked. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that while a technology has the propensity to be used for evil, it also has positive applications and that the real benefit now outweighs the potential downside in a hypothetical fut…

>This is one of those things that is easy to say precisely due to the impossibility of it ever actually becoming a real decision you have to make.

It's true. But things like this should be easy to say right? Like we may not be able to act logically. But we should be able to think logically, communicate logically and show that we are aware of what is logical.

My post got flagged meaning a lot of people can't separate the two things. So for example I may not be able to kill the baby in reality, but I can at least see how irrational I am.

The person who flagged me likely not only can't kill the baby. He has to construct an artificial reality to justify why he can't kill the baby and why his decision must be rational.

Post reply on HN