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

CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#21

Post by iklos55 »

sfeng wrote: post #14
influnza wrote: post #11

We are terrified, because we don't know, how to handle it yet. This should not stop us, the humanity. Our descendants will figure it out. There is no progress, if we are afraid of mistakes. The real problem is when we don't learn. Gattaca is a good example, what we should avoid.

FYI: I don't know if English is your first language but you are using commas excessively. All the commas in the first four sentences should be removed and the final comma should be 'of'. EDIT: Also, the second sentence should be "This should not stop us (humanity)."

FYI: I don't know about your language skills in general but https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commata#English. Point I want to make: Please stop correcting so many people in general on HN.

Edit: Yes, this was not a perfectly warranted criticism. Yes, I may come off as smug. It's my opinion that needing perfect english should not be a requirement to have a conversation about tech in general.

I often get the feeling that in an academic setting every native English speaker assumes that everyone needs to be perfectly conversational in his English but when asked which other languages they even tried to learn you often learn that the English native hasn't put considerable amount into learning something else. Again, did not want to offend anyone.

I personally do not get offended, I like to learn. Still, I often experience corrections by an English native which are simply not called for.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#22

Post by legitster »

baldfat wrote: post #4

We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…

I am definitely not 100% on board with editing embryos, but income inequality is the weakest possible criticism. You could argue against literally anything on the grounds that it could lead to inequality: IVF, adoption, education, medical care, technology, owning a computer, being on Hacker News.

Just because something is being doled out injustly doesn't mean it shouldn't be doled out at all.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#23

Post by badosu »

sfeng wrote: post #17
badosu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, broadly speaking, the idea is that there may be a subtle underlying mechanism in gene expression that we are unaware of. So maybe you'll be able to remove a gene that could cause albinism in an individual, then 25 years later discover that the individual has become sterile. It may seem otherwise but we still know very little on how a set of genes encodes information of how an organism will develop.

While I'm sure some variant of that will occur at some point, many genetic disorders are relatively simple and well understood. Even if we are still learning, there are dozens of disorders we could eliminate if we had robust genetic editing capability with pretty good odds of success.

"... many genetic disorders are relatively simple and well understood."

Are they, really?

As far as I know (and I am not a specialist, so someone more qualified may correct me), gene transcription and translation is far from well understood.

It's as if we don't have access to the source code for the compiler, only the machine code and the syntax. You can draw correlations and infer causality from your changes, but you can't really be sure.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#24

Post by hesdeadjim »

lawless123 wrote: post #12
baldfat wrote: post #4

We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…

We ethically should.

Agreed 100%.

Why assume it's going to lead to some dystopian future when technological progress has shown that advances like this come down in cost immensely over time. Even an insurance system would want in on subsidizing these procedures if it meant an upfront cost versus long term or lifelong expensive treatments.

Edit: Why even assume it would be an insurance subsidy -- the government has a strong motivation to reduce health care costs for >= 65 year-olds and if you could eliminate or reduce costs through early genetic engineering the argument can be made that the government itself should subsidize as a public health initiative.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#25

Post by tomdell »

iklos55 wrote: post #21
sfeng wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI: I don't know if English is your first language but you are using commas excessively. All the commas in the first four sentences should be removed and the final comma should be 'of'. EDIT: Also, the second sentence should be "This should not stop us (humanity)."

FYI: I don't know about your language skills in general but https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commata#English . Point I want to make: Please stop correcting so many people in general on HN. Edit: Yes, this was not a perfectly warranted criticism. Yes, I may come off as smug. It's my opinion that needing perfect english should not be a requirement to have a conversation about tech in general. I often get the feeling that…

He gave a helpful pointer on comma use, and you wrote a smug and incorrect response. Congrats.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#26

Post by mljoe »

baldfat wrote: post #4

We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…

There is something significant about humanity no longer being bound by the tyranny of natural selection. We a species who have the power, however limited, to shape the landscape to our will and desire. Now we can also conquer our own biology. To be this is poetic, utopian even.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#28

Post by itchyjunk »

sfeng wrote: post #7
0xbadf00d wrote: post #6

I would agree that this is a significant milestone - however I would have thought that there's still a large amount of randomness in protein expression meaning you would still be painting in "broad strokes" as opposed to granular detail of traits.

I don't really know what you mean. Genes encode to proteins, if a disorder is genetic it generally means one or more genes are incorrect, encoding to the wrong proteins. If genetic expression was significantly random, how would we identify genetic disorders to begin with? How would they be hereditary?

Well, it's not all one:one though [1]. If you're messing with transcription factor, who knows what the domino effects will be. Tiny changes might end up triggering phenotypes [2] already present that wouldn't have been expressed without those edits.

The idea that there is only about 2% difference between a chimp and man highlights this point.[3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_factor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype [3] http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/chimp-genome

Disclaimer : Not arguing for or against.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#29

Post by zero_shift »

antisthenes wrote: post #19
baldfat wrote: post #4

We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and…

> Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and guarantee the gender of your child. That's a straight up violation of the Hippocratic oath and blackmail/racketeering combined. We should enforce it strictly, vigilantly, and put doctors who attempt to do this in jai…

> How do you address this with policy? The same way we should be addressing inequality right now.

How _will_ we address this with policy? The same way we already do: meaning that we do not, and in fact are thrall to an army of lobbyists and interest groups who would have us believe this inequality is not just necessary but in fact morally redeemable.

Re: CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

#30

Post by itchyjunk »

badosu wrote: post #23
sfeng wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm sure some variant of that will occur at some point, many genetic disorders are relatively simple and well understood. Even if we are still learning, there are dozens of disorders we could eliminate if we had robust genetic editing capability with pretty good odds of success.

"... many genetic disorders are relatively simple and well understood." Are they, really? As far as I know (and I am not a specialist, so someone more qualified may correct me), gene transcription and translation is far from well understood. It's as if we don't have access to the source code for the compiler, only the machine code and the syntax. You can draw correlations and infer causality from your changes, but yo…

Not an expert either: Even when we know how it happens, we don't know when it happens i.e. when certain chunks of replication is triggered and when it's not. Environmental factor, hormones, diet, mix of them all and much more etc.
Post reply on HN