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

First 'three person baby' born using new method

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#141

Post by lyle_nel »

pyre wrote: post #84
Kalium wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, "designer babies" is approximately the same thing to us today as nutrition was to an earlier age.

A better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone that wants to participate (or at least compete).

Most world class athletes are already genetically superior by the measure of athleticism. Even though these favourable mutations or inherited traits have not been engineered, they still exist and it does enhance the athlete's performance.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#142

Post by lqdc13 »

Jtsummers wrote: post #80
lqdc13 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was very much annoyed by the movie when I saw it. Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. So perhaps they were not so much genetically superior? Maybe motivation can be passed through DNA? In reality, what I think might happen is some people would choose the genes they want, but others won't. At the end, people will mix, so the…

> Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. One thing he had over most of the "valids" was the opportunity to choose his path. The valids' parents made choices for them (Jerome was made to be a swimmer, the 12-fingered pianist, etc.). It's not wholly different than seeing a child prodigy fail as a functioning adult. They don't all,…

That's the thing. If he was the better athlete then they didn't do the generic engineering well at all.

For me the message seemed to be "don't do generic engineering because it cannot beat motivation" which discounts the potential overlap between the two and also undersells the potential gains of genetic engineering.

What if his competitors were 10x smarter and 10x faster swimmers than he was as well as being equally motivated?

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#143

Post by fasteo »

Note that this will not stop some kids from getting these type of diseases, collectively known as mitochondrial myopathies.

Some of them arise sporadically [1]

  In chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia (CPEO) — a myopathy with the defining features of ophthalmoplegia and ptosis — Δ-mtDNAs are found only in muscle (implying that the deletion event occurred after fertilization in the muscle lineage of mesoderm).
How do I know ? I have a mitocondrial myopathy (CPEO). My mother was perfectly healthy and all my brothers and sisters (5) are also ok.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959762/

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#144

Post by dawidloubser »

BurningFrog wrote: post #103
pyre wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone that wants to participate (or at least compete).

Only if you see life as a competition against your fellow humans.

Life, arguably, is a competition. Evolution inherently rewards winners.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#145

Post by mnw21cam »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #119
jack9 wrote: post #116

> But the science does raise ethical questions, including how any child from the technique might feel about having DNA from three people. That's not an ethical problem. Also, not a problem since, it's not any kind of problem to consider how kids might like PB&J sandwiches either.

You can't just brush it off and say it isn't a problem. Having 3 biological parents is incredibly rare and could have weird social effects for the child. It is an ethical concern if it affects how they relate to other people.

How is this different to someone who has two parents, but has had a kidney transplant from a third person?

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#146

Post by mnw21cam »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #134

So let's say in the future that the child needs a bone marrow donor. Does this cause any new wrinkles in finding a good match?

Not at all. 100% of the genomic DNA of the child comes from the two parents. This is where all the genes that determine rejection live. The mitochondria are actually a completely separate organism that live inside our cells and perform a useful function - they are often fairly diverse anyway.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#147

Post by orblivion »

afarrell wrote: post #21
heydenberk wrote: post #8

Notably, this prevents transmission of a disease that is "fatal to any baby conceived", which makes this as uncontroversial a case of a "designer baby" as I can imagine. After this, the ethics get much more complicated.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

How about a more general philosophical problem. It calls into question what is really a human. Supposing you say don't care about this concept. Then I would ask of you why you care to continue the human lineage at all. Why not just end all the lines now?

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#148

Post by shostack »

c3534l wrote: post #128

Yeah, because fuck adoption. It only counts if it has your DNA, right?

OK, I'll bite...

Having a child is a very personal decision. There are many factors, and for some, they may not feel adoption is right for them.

It doesn't mean "fuck adoption," and it certainly doesn't give you the moral high ground to judge those who decide that having their own child is the right decision for them.

And I'd add that three people having one child is a better ratio than two people having one for purposes of population control if you extrapolate out the math.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#149

Post by Jtsummers »

lqdc13 wrote: post #142
Jtsummers wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. One thing he had over most of the "valids" was the opportunity to choose his path. The valids' parents made choices for them (Jerome was made to be a swimmer, the 12-fingered pianist, etc.). It's not wholly different than seeing a child prodigy fail as a functioning adult. They don't all,…

That's the thing. If he was the better athlete then they didn't do the generic engineering well at all. For me the message seemed to be "don't do generic engineering because it cannot beat motivation" which discounts the potential overlap between the two and also undersells the potential gains of genetic engineering. What if his competitors were 10x smarter and 10x faster swimmers than he was as well as being equally…

A better athlete than his brother. Not than everyone. Each valid was designed by the parents for something, or in the case of his brother just generally enhanced because they weren't filthy rich.
Post reply on HN