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

First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#171

Post by alistairSH »

plaidfuji wrote: post #160

I've seen most of these arguments for and against gene editing before, but the fact of the matter is that it will come down to the economic competitiveness of nations, as always. What concerns me in the long term is that gene editing will cause human genomes to converge to a single gold standard with proven mental and physical benefits, thereby reducing our species' genetic diversity and leaving us more vulnerable to…

Will it cause a convergence? Or, a divergence, as we engineer people for specificity? A dedicated military caste, intellectual caste, etc.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#172

Post by bluGill »

plaidfuji wrote: post #160

I've seen most of these arguments for and against gene editing before, but the fact of the matter is that it will come down to the economic competitiveness of nations, as always. What concerns me in the long term is that gene editing will cause human genomes to converge to a single gold standard with proven mental and physical benefits, thereby reducing our species' genetic diversity and leaving us more vulnerable to…

I don't think we will converge that much. Most gene differences are insignificant. Is it better to have black, or white skin (or any other skin color)? There is a lot of baggage associated with that question, and some people will make a choice - but not everyone will make the same choice (in a culture I would expect everyone to make the same choice, but other cultures will choose differently), and many people won't care.

There are some genes that I expect to be edited out. I'd give a lot to have the gene causing my high cholesterol edited out, as would my insurance company - the drugs I'm taking are not cheap. There are a number of other conditions that are genetic (and still more that science believes are genetic even though the genes haven't been found). This convergence is good though as these are genes that if you have are known bad - just not bad enough to prevent reproduction.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#173

Post by [deleted] »

ethbro wrote: post #161
rubatuga wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The medical dogma never comes down to do no harm, at least today. The Hippocratic oath is largely symbolic today. The main goal of a physician is to ensure the well being of their patient. This means that they will judge the risks/harm to the benefits and make a judgement, and receive informed consent. Anyway what’s abhorrent about the blastulation method? Furthermore, I don’t think there is a need to only let those…

As one of the earlier male in vitro embryos successfully carried to term in the US, I'll claim a unique perspective on the scientific creation of life. As a living, thinking human, I am grateful for everything that was done so that I may live. If the fertility lab had mixed chemicals differently, or deleted a propensity towards colon cancer, or changed my hair color, there's no way in hell I would have mourned my "un…

[deleted]

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#174

Post by Omnius »

alistairSH wrote: post #171
plaidfuji wrote: post #160

I've seen most of these arguments for and against gene editing before, but the fact of the matter is that it will come down to the economic competitiveness of nations, as always. What concerns me in the long term is that gene editing will cause human genomes to converge to a single gold standard with proven mental and physical benefits, thereby reducing our species' genetic diversity and leaving us more vulnerable to…

Will it cause a convergence? Or, a divergence, as we engineer people for specificity? A dedicated military caste, intellectual caste, etc.

This would imply that you had to choose a specialization when the "designed" human could just be best suited for all of those things. Physical and mental perfection.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#175

Post by strgcmc »

ethbro wrote: post #161
rubatuga wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The medical dogma never comes down to do no harm, at least today. The Hippocratic oath is largely symbolic today. The main goal of a physician is to ensure the well being of their patient. This means that they will judge the risks/harm to the benefits and make a judgement, and receive informed consent. Anyway what’s abhorrent about the blastulation method? Furthermore, I don’t think there is a need to only let those…

As one of the earlier male in vitro embryos successfully carried to term in the US, I'll claim a unique perspective on the scientific creation of life. As a living, thinking human, I am grateful for everything that was done so that I may live. If the fertility lab had mixed chemicals differently, or deleted a propensity towards colon cancer, or changed my hair color, there's no way in hell I would have mourned my "un…

Designing blond babies because society slightly prefers blonds, takes an implicit preference and makes it explicit. Not everyone will be able to afford all the "premium" upgrades on designing their babies (and you can bet that cosmetic features will be premium). People who can't afford blond babies or cute-nosed babies or skinny babies or w/e the hell the fad is, will find that their children grow up to be second-class citizens.

Blond babies might be grateful to be born and not mourn their unborn non-blond selves, but there still exist plenty of less fortunate other babies who do get born non-blond and will suffer as a result.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#176

Post by pcnonpc »

"The BGI Cognitive Genomics Project is currently doing whole-genome sequencing of 1,000 very-high-IQ people around the world, hunting for sets of sets of IQ-predicting alleles. I know because I recently contributed my DNA to the project, not fully understanding the implications. These IQ gene-sets will be found eventually—but will probably be used mostly in China, for China. Potentially, the results would allow all Chinese couples to maximize the intelligence of their offspring by selecting among their own fertilized eggs for the one or two that include the highest likelihood of the highest intelligence. Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

What do you think about this? From what I gather, the Chinese and much of East Asia do not have cultural resistance against using genetic engineering to increase their children's IQs. I will even guess that the governments will encourage their populations to use it.

Will the US, in particular the educated portion of the population, will adopt the practice soon after it is proven safe?

If China starts to do that en masse, Europe and the US will likely criticize them initially. Will they then be forced to adopt the practice soon afterwards? If so, how many years of lag approximately? How much resistance will there be on adopting the practice especially considering the left's belief on everyone's fundamental equality?

The denial about the importance of intelligence is quite obvious now at least by a significant percentage of Americans and Europeans. (They claim "hard work and culture are what matter.", ignoring twins and adopt studies) Will they wait for 1-2 generations until it's so obvious they cannot compete when they start to use genetic engineering themselves?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#177

Post by chiefalchemist »

88e282102ae2e5b wrote: post #107
chiefalchemist wrote: post #85

Wasn't there a HN post/thread a week or so ago about some scientist having a (new-ish) theory about DNA and the role specific genes play? If there's enough doubt that there's still room for other theories, is CRISPR really a good idea?

Well, you wouldn't want to modify a gene that isn't well-characterized, sure. But there are some things that are known with a great deal of certainty.

I remember they used to say that...when the world was flat :)

The issue I have with this type of engineering is there is no means of egress (if you will), no thought about how a recall would be implemented.

Humans are flawed. The history of engineering displays those flaws. But instead we purposely stand in our own blindspot and insist "no. THIS time I'll be different" completely forgetting the countless times that was said previously.

Long to short, our certainty is likely overstated. It wouldn't be the first time either.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#178

Post by Symmetry »

hirenj wrote: post #117
kanzure wrote: post #89

here's a TODO list i made for possibly interesting genome editing targets: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/genetic-modifications/ Many of these have low demonstrated correlation or significance so don't just blindly load everything on that document into your at-home CRISPR kit http://www.the-odin.com/gene-engineering-kits/ but it should be a good starting point for thinking about what can be modified, improved, disimproved, et…

I can't speak for all the genes on that list, but I wouldn't go around knocking out FUT2 just yet. We don't know the full extent of biological roles for it, and the functionality is probably redundantly encoded in multiple genes too. Specifically for viral interactions I reckon you'd be better off designing a small molecule inhibitor of viral binding via whatever lectin they have to whichever protein (or lipid for th…

Agreed. I'm a non-secretor and I've benefited from not getting a norovirus when I really ought to have. But if such a valuable trait hasn't reached fixation in the population there's bound to be a reason. It also has a variety of effects on susceptibility to other diseases, some positive, some negative.

https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs601338

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#179

Post by Symmetry »

thosakwe wrote: post #146

In my class just Monday, we watched a film titled Gattaca, which tells the story of a society fueled by eugenics, where most births are in-vitro modified babies, and there is clear discrimination against those with "imperfect" genes. It's crazy how close these things are to reality.

I hated that movie. It's nice to think that you could overcome a heart condition through willpower, but the flip side of that is that if someone has a heart condition and doesn't overcome it then it's their fault. In reality life is just biologically unfair and disease or infirmity isn't actually a moral failing.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#180

Post by zanny »

theWatcher37 wrote: post #100
dr_ wrote: post #94

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

I all honestly, we can not allow a gene-gap. Forget racism, what happens when a country can actually make it's people "better" (faster/smarter/live longer/stronger) by significant margins?

Are you going to declare war over it?

Unlike how a lot of science fiction portrayed it, it really does not look like genetic modification is going to be individually costly once it is "production ready". A lot of the fears are of creating an underclass of genetically inferior humans, and then the usual argument is you have to ban improvement based modifications for that reason, but why not just promote not having unmodified births the same way we somewhat incentivize aborting fetuses with significant defects already?

All it is moving the bar higher, so that the "average" natural birth just becomes acknowledged as a defect. This is not new - centuries ago children born with even some of the most debilitating mental retardations could still be useful as manual laborers doing the most simple tasks. The abolition of most of those tasks has made is so extraordinary mental deficiency is almost always absolutely crippling, to the degree parents often do decide to abort over it.

The bar was raised then. People only seem content with it because it is both uncommon and a burden to them to support the deficient. When we have superhumans, are regular humans not then also a burden?

Post reply on HN