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

First gene-edited babies claimed in China

mainichi.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 281 posts

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#131

Post by coldtea »

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #9
skosuri wrote: post #5

The edited gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function, but is the entry point for HIV. So editing for prophylaxis. This was probably done because if there aren’t a ton of loss of function beneficial traits, and probably with the main desire to be first. Except, if the reports are true, this is not just an experiment but a person (or people). I guess the main desire is to normalize editing. Brave ne…

the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. It's ethically black as far as I am concerned but it has already happened so we must see where this takes us. IVF born edited zygotes might have serious complications but ideally its a healthy human being. (for everyone's sake)

>the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants.

Did the future kids consent?

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#132

Post by coldtea »

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #88
buboard wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which part is unethical though? it was voluntary

well, its just unethical based on USA rules against human experimentation. obviously moral and ethical codes can evolve to accommodate advances in science eventually. this is not a medical procedure, which is what makes it unethical to perform. its an experiment with unknown outcome which is why current ethics dictates it is not okay to do this.

>well, its just unethical based on USA rules against human experimentation. obviously moral and ethical codes can evolve to accommodate advances in science eventually.

Well, if they "evolve to accommodate advances in science" either they weren't that moral or ethical based in the first place, or moral and ethics gave in for what's technologically possible.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#133

Post by carlmr »

xenadu02 wrote: post #123
buboard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh wow. CCR5 has been found to have a role in memory recently. Knockout mice have better learning[1] and pronounced increase in spine formation/turnover[2]. These babies are going to have super-memory: 1. https://elifesciences.org/articles/20985 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29379017

Almost certainly not; improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. Most mouse models don't replicate in other animals either.

>improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans.

What if it makes people more scared, because they can remember past experiences better. This could lead to less procreation and thus inverse selection pressure.

Only because a trait is superficially good it doesn't mean nature would select for it.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#134

Post by onetimemanytime »

buboard wrote: post #125
NamTaf wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent and premeditation are strong in western law, hence differences between murder and manslaughter. Consenting to a genetic experiment which then has ramifications on offspring therefore stands apart from the natural inheritance of uncontrolled genetic issues, as well as from the obverse situation where a parent does not undertake medical treatment that could possibly result in preventing inherited genetic issues.…

of course it is not the same. but i think the argument was on the unborn baby 's rights being violated because of the genetic procedure. Also this is not a case of arbitrary experimentation, the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue, which is something that so far has been ethically acceptable so far, for embryo selection.

>>the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue

The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#135

Post by coldtea »

wonderwonder wrote: post #12

There have been a good deal of medical and technological breakthroughs over the last couple decades. Reusable rockets, VR, machine learning, etc. This is the first article I have read that has made me realize that the future is right here, right now and there is a very high probability that things are now going to change rapidly. One thing to consider is that via crispr and stem cell treatments, genetic changes can b…

>This is the first article I have read that has made me realize that the future is right here, right now and there is a very high probability that things are now going to change rapidly.

The future? Compared to 1900 we already live in a widely different world, more diff today - 1900 than diff 1900 - 1000 B.C.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#136

Post by coldtea »

wycs wrote: post #15
carbocation wrote: post #8

> It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. This is 100% correct. (COI: Kiran was my postdoc while I was a student in the lab a decade ago.)

Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children compared to future citizens of nations that do not share our taboos.

>Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible.

This looks totally unlikely.

Not to mention generally undesirable (people with IQ over 150 or so often have severe problems in their social life, and a lot of them don't ever even create or discover much, not to mention the insufferable part whose main accomplishment is to be members of MENSA).

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#137

Post by buboard »

coldtea wrote: post #131
DennisAleynikov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. It's ethically black as far as I am concerned but it has already happened so we must see where this takes us. IVF born edited zygotes might have serious complications but ideally its a healthy human being. (for everyone's sake)

> the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. Did the future kids consent?

the cells were asked to move towards the green consent button, and they did

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#138

Post by coldtea »

anvandare wrote: post #118
nostrademons wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What is the relevance of "Asian nations?" to this conversation?" I would assume it's because the article describes genetically-engineered babies in China, so obviously it's not outlawed there (or if it is, the law is not enforced). Grandparent poster is pointing out that if genetic engineering gives survival or competitive benefits to those who do it, it doesn't matter what your personal ethical, moral, and legal st…

The purists need not be worried. There's always the hope the descendants of those humans who do take the path of editing their own genetic code will, a few centuries from now, give those purists' descendants a nice small patch of land as a reservation. Or maybe a cozy cage in a zoo, with a little sign next to the bars which reads: "homo sapiens inferior".

Or, you know, the purists will be spared untold suffering that those others will have to go through because of "magician's apprentice" style editing...

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#139

Post by adrianN »

coldtea wrote: post #135
wonderwonder wrote: post #12

There have been a good deal of medical and technological breakthroughs over the last couple decades. Reusable rockets, VR, machine learning, etc. This is the first article I have read that has made me realize that the future is right here, right now and there is a very high probability that things are now going to change rapidly. One thing to consider is that via crispr and stem cell treatments, genetic changes can b…

> This is the first article I have read that has made me realize that the future is right here, right now and there is a very high probability that things are now going to change rapidly. The future? Compared to 1900 we already live in a widely different world, more diff today - 1900 than diff 1900 - 1000 B.C.

I think you underestimate the technology we had in 1900 if you think 1900 is less different from 1000 B.C. than it is from today.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#140

Post by buboard »

nradov wrote: post #47
wycs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. Intelligence is polygenic. The average human is no Von Neumann. At the very least genetic engineering could raise average IQ to Von Neumann’s level. We know that phenotype is possible with no ill effects. It will likely take us much further.

You haven't addressed my point. No one disputes that intelligence is partly genetic. However if it was possible to raise intelligence through genetic engineering with no ill effects then why hasn't evolution increased the incidence of that phenotype already?

because nature does not optimize some axis, it selects the most survivable. nature can be dumb too
Post reply on HN