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

UK to allow babies from three people

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 166 posts

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#121

Post by andygates »

recibe wrote: post #112
one-more-minute wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting point, and perhaps a good argument for not diverting public health resources towards this kind of procedure (I'm sure there are good arguments for the opposite, too). But there's a big difference between not actively endorsing a procedure like this and making it illegal.

Not really. This procedure is likely to be inaccessible to the general public without subsidy via insurance (public or private). My argument is that one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction the genetic engineering of eggs or embryos to that end. This law does precisely that.

This is the UK, once legal it will become available if the appropriate committees think the funding is well spent.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#122

Post by task_queue »

viccuad wrote: post #98
Fuxy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with "designer babies". I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your children. I wouldn't really change the appearance of my child though. Plus I would keep most of the original genetic material just fix the bits that are detrimental to a long and healthy life.

You end up with an aristocracy that can afford to have better superhuman children meanwhile the plebs can't afford it. And it would perpetuate itself. Bye tabula rasa in birth and death.

We computer professionals think we'll be or are part of that aristocracy, so it's okay.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#123

Post by task_queue »

palmer_eldritch wrote: post #119
rmc wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is for saving lives, not making people prettier.

One day, in a decade, a century, a millennium, it will be used to make kids prettier. I don't think it will make them happier though.

There's a genetic modification for that.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#124

Post by ceejayoz »

tomp wrote: post #80
jessaustin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...many couples are oblivious to the existence of modern NFP... Gosh, why wouldn't their fertility doctors have told them about it? b^)

Because they can't charge as much.

That's the same argument made by conspiracy theorists claiming pharmaceutical companies suppress cancer cures, and it's just as bullshit.

My infertility treatment involved a cheapest-first approach, and that's entirely standard. We were told about charting cycles for best chances, analyses were done, some drugs were tried, and we were able to get pregnant via IUI for about $300 total. IVF is pretty much the final option, tried after everything else fails.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#125

Post by tomp »

ceejayoz wrote: post #124
tomp wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they can't charge as much.

That's the same argument made by conspiracy theorists claiming pharmaceutical companies suppress cancer cures, and it's just as bullshit. My infertility treatment involved a cheapest-first approach, and that's entirely standard. We were told about charting cycles for best chances, analyses were done, some drugs were tried, and we were able to get pregnant via IUI for about $300 total. IVF is pretty much the final opt…

Just because idiots use an argument doesn't mean the argument is stupid.

30 seconds of Googling brings up this article [1] (a secondary source, primary sources are Bloomberg and Washington Post), discussing the impression that doctors are performing/suggesting unnecessary, yet expensive surgeries/treatments. Even if it turns out not to be true (after proper research), it's an argument worth considering in any situation that involves financial incentives not aligned with the desired outcome.

[1]: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/unneces...

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#126

Post by logfromblammo »

task_queue wrote: post #122
viccuad wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You end up with an aristocracy that can afford to have better superhuman children meanwhile the plebs can't afford it. And it would perpetuate itself. Bye tabula rasa in birth and death.

We computer professionals think we'll be or are part of that aristocracy, so it's okay.

We will probably become collared pets once "gene hacking" becomes a thing. The real aristocracy will use the law to make unauthorized genetic modifications a crime punished more harshly than unauthorized computer access, which is already sometimes punished more harshly than crimes like armed robbery.

Consider the ethical implications of the job they pay you to do. Always. Who will be benefiting from my work? Who might be harmed by it? Can I trust my employer to protect--or even just accurately represent--my own interests?

Do not take jobs that grant more power to the powerful at the expense of the weak.

My litmus test for human gene-mod technology will be whether I will ever be able to repair my phi-GULO pseudogene, to restore the mammalian ability to synthesize ascorbates (vitamin C) in the liver, without needing to get permission from anyone to do it, and without paying more than a year's salary or using more than one garage of space on the equipment. If I can do that, this particular genie cannot be re-bottled.

And you can bet I'd be selling CKGGRAKDC-GG-D(KLAKLAK)2 under the table, too.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#127

Post by orblivion »

Fuxy wrote: post #97
gameshot911 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies" Well...this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans.

What's wrong with "designer babies". I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your children. I wouldn't really change the appearance of my child though. Plus I would keep most of the original genetic material just fix the bits that are detrimental to a long and healthy life.

> What's wrong with "designer babies".

It destroys our existing concept of the human experience. Is it silly to want to live among "natural" children? Then explain me why it's not silly to want to continue the species at all?

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#128

Post by robmcm »

andygates wrote: post #120
Fuxy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with "designer babies". I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your children. I wouldn't really change the appearance of my child though. Plus I would keep most of the original genetic material just fix the bits that are detrimental to a long and healthy life.

Taking the most obvious example from India: You end up with lots of boys. They'd just be legally designed instead of backstreet-aborted girls. That kind of gender imbalance and bogus value on the favoured gender makes for trouble down the line: demographic lulz and a miserable time for second-class undesigned/undesired citizens.

Wouldn't this quickly flip the desire to want boys?

If a girl has 1000s of male suitors perhaps they would need to start paying a dowry...

Not that I agree with choosing the sex of your child for non medical reasons.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#129

Post by task_queue »

Fuxy wrote: post #97
gameshot911 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies" Well...this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans.

What's wrong with "designer babies". I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your children. I wouldn't really change the appearance of my child though. Plus I would keep most of the original genetic material just fix the bits that are detrimental to a long and healthy life.

Congratulations, you were born with Monsanto mDNA Correction! Due to intellectual property restrictions, you must attain a license to activate your reproductive system and pass on our genetic code.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#130

Post by Houshalter »

orblivion wrote: post #127
Fuxy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with "designer babies". I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your children. I wouldn't really change the appearance of my child though. Plus I would keep most of the original genetic material just fix the bits that are detrimental to a long and healthy life.

> What's wrong with "designer babies". It destroys our existing concept of the human experience. Is it silly to want to live among "natural" children? Then explain me why it's not silly to want to continue the species at all?

I can just imagine our distant descendants reading through this thread, thinking how horrible we are for condemning our children to genetic diseases and inequality.

Just like we look down at the people who fought against the smallpox vaccine because it was unnatural.

Post reply on HN