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

What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#21

Post by mirimir »

vore wrote: post #12
mirimir wrote: post #9

Let's say that we accept the "my body, my choice" argument for legal abortion on demand. It applies to eggs, sperm, unimplanted zygotes and preterm fetuses. So why doesn't it also apply to CRISPR editing of our somatic and germline cells? I suppose that we could carve an exception, in the interest of the public good. As we have for the War on Drugs. But that's a dangerous path, if one cares about personal freedom.

Germline editing has consequences far beyond "my body, my choice". If your offspring have genetic defects from gene editing, and their offspring also have the same genetic defects, then "your choice" has consequences far beyond just you that "personal freedom" can't cover. If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected: far less consequential than possibly ruining generations to come. I don't know what the W…

> I don't know what the War on Drugs has to do with anything here.

Arguably, "my body, my choice" applies to drug use.

But then, there are similar objections regarding public welfare.

[For the rest, see my reply to sho.]

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#22

Post by mirimir »

x220 wrote: post #13
mirimir wrote: post #9

Let's say that we accept the "my body, my choice" argument for legal abortion on demand. It applies to eggs, sperm, unimplanted zygotes and preterm fetuses. So why doesn't it also apply to CRISPR editing of our somatic and germline cells? I suppose that we could carve an exception, in the interest of the public good. As we have for the War on Drugs. But that's a dangerous path, if one cares about personal freedom.

>As we have for the War on Drugs The war on drugs hasn't benefited the public.

True. But that's one argument that's typically made for it.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#23

Post by ramblerman »

chrischen wrote: post #19
technotony wrote: post #2

The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…

I think the strongest argument against gene editing is the tendency for societal biases to be taken to the extreme. Gene editing is drastic and has the potential to greatly reduce genetic diversity in a population since people tend to want to become “normal”, or meme certain popular traits. If you gave minorities the ability to become a white males in America, would they? Certainly many would and it would mean losing…

I can't help but find this incredibly condescending.

You would take away a technological advantage from majorities and minorities alike because their choices might not lead to your ideal of diversity utopia.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#24

Post by mkhalil »

x220 wrote: post #14
wz1000 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why most countries have some sort of public funded compulsory education.

Yeah, but a moratorium on gene editing is the equivalent of banning all schools.

Not even remotely right.

Banning all schools will affect all children.

Banning gene-editing will effect the children of the wealthy, or those who's parents chose to go that route.

A better example will be banning private schools, but even then, that requires the child to at least work hard and the parents to constantly invest for a child to get any value out of it, as oppose to gene editing.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#25

Post by identity-haver »

keiferski wrote: post #18
wetpaws wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone prefer having less intelligent people to having more smart people for the sake of eqality is beyond me.

The entire history in Europe of the past 2,000 years is precisely this - the preference for equality over excellence. See: Beyond Good and Evil , Nietzsche.

I'm not really sure where to start here. There was more "excellence" in the Roman Republic and prior times than the following 2000 years of European history?

This is a familiar critique that seems to conflate the modern self-esteem craze, communism, and the utopian "equality of outcome" with the traditional religiously based idea of equality, which is that every soul is made in the image of and has equal responsibility before God and that's it. The Lockean idea of human rights is cladistically derived from this.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#26

Post by mirimir »

sho wrote: post #15
vore wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germline editing has consequences far beyond "my body, my choice". If your offspring have genetic defects from gene editing, and their offspring also have the same genetic defects, then "your choice" has consequences far beyond just you that "personal freedom" can't cover. If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected: far less consequential than possibly ruining generations to come. I don't know what the W…

> If your offspring have genetic defects [..], and their offspring [..] > If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected By aborting, you're not merely potentially saddling your offspring with genetic defects - you're denying them the most basic right to exist in the first place! And their offspring, too. You're shutting down that whole line before it can even start. I'm pro choice, but this line of argument…

I do see vore's point. By aborting, you just deprive the gene pool of some genes that are on average not much different from anyone else's. But by using CRISPR, you're adding potentially damaging stuff to the overall human gene pool.

However, one could say the same about people who get exposed to mutagenic chemicals or radiation. Even through choice, as with airline crews. And once you start setting rules about who can reproduce, you have the specter of eugenics.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#27

Post by dmitriid »

wetpaws wrote: post #4
technotony wrote: post #2

The main thing* holding back this is that we don't understand the human genome enough to make really useful edits. It's very rare that there's a change that would be better done with germline engineering than somatic cell engineering or gene therapy. One day that won't be true however, and that's when the problems will really begin. To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further…

Why would anyone prefer having less intelligent people to having more smart people for the sake of eqality is beyond me.

Governments in general would prefer less intelligent people in the populace for the sake of power and control.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#28

Post by chr1 »

bencollier49 wrote: post #20
Ultimatt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I agree with the first premise. If the technology was relatively safe and robust you could just routinely "edit" all births with a package of corrections for all known rare genetic diseases. There are several hundred well understood variants that are disease causing and correctable with editing a fertilised egg, with essentially zero available treatments later on.

Would you correct carriers as well (heterozygous with no symptoms). What about where the gene was advantageous in a heterozygous configuration? Would you eliminate all sickle-cell genes?

That's not something that you can decide for other people. If some people like their sickle-cell gene no one can force them to remove it, and similarly if they don't like it no one should be able to force them to keep it.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#29

Post by Thiez »

sho wrote: post #15
vore wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germline editing has consequences far beyond "my body, my choice". If your offspring have genetic defects from gene editing, and their offspring also have the same genetic defects, then "your choice" has consequences far beyond just you that "personal freedom" can't cover. If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected: far less consequential than possibly ruining generations to come. I don't know what the W…

> If your offspring have genetic defects [..], and their offspring [..] > If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected By aborting, you're not merely potentially saddling your offspring with genetic defects - you're denying them the most basic right to exist in the first place! And their offspring, too. You're shutting down that whole line before it can even start. I'm pro choice, but this line of argument…

You may be pro-choice, but you would probably oppose the right of mothers to end the lives of their children (and descendents of those children) after pregnancy. So I don't see what is strange about the argument; you are allowed to terminate a pregnancy, but you do not necessarily have the right to inflict arbitrary other life changing modifications on your children. Like, no doctor would agree to amputate the legs of an unborn child without medical necessity (when asked by the mother), and I think 'my body, my choice' does not apply there.

I will admit there is a bit of a grey zone; few (if any?) places outright prohibit pregnant women from smoking and drinking, despite the possible negative consequences, but such behavior is still generally frowned upon.

Re: What Is the World to Do About Gene-Editing?

#30

Post by iguy »

bencollier49 wrote: post #20
Ultimatt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I agree with the first premise. If the technology was relatively safe and robust you could just routinely "edit" all births with a package of corrections for all known rare genetic diseases. There are several hundred well understood variants that are disease causing and correctable with editing a fertilised egg, with essentially zero available treatments later on.

Would you correct carriers as well (heterozygous with no symptoms). What about where the gene was advantageous in a heterozygous configuration? Would you eliminate all sickle-cell genes?

IIRC this has already happened with Tay-Sachs, although not by editing, just by testing (either before marriage, or of embryos). I think the disease is now more common among non-Ashkenazim, who are unlikely to be tested.

Seems like a useful test case to think about, and read about, rather than relying only on imagination.

Post reply on HN