China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations' • Hacker News Board

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#21

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #18

wahern wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> natural system of transcription, translation, and protein synthesis at the core of DNA still makes mistakes. Exactly, which means the system is resilient , which means it's more forgiving of random mutations introduced by gene editing, which is perhaps why most scientists are less concerned than you think they ought to be. Imagine if we took the same approach to surgery--overly worried that scar tissue of any kind…

To play devil's advocate: Scar tissue doesn't get passed to offspring or propagated throughout the population though.

To play the angel's advocate (or whatever is the next-step reverse of devil's advocate): natural selection helps eliminate problematic genes in populations. A good chunk of harmful mutations will prevent people from procreating, either by killing them first, or making it unlikely for them to find a mate.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#22

Post by throwawaylolx » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

ggggtez wrote: post #4

>While the team targeted the right gene, they [created] novel edits whose effects are not clear. Welp. If it's not the right gene, you can bet it's probably just going to cause cancer or something.

It is the right gene; it's allegedly not the right allele.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#23

Post by sudosysgen » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #21

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Scar tissue doesn't get passed to offspring or propagated throughout the population though.

To play the angel's advocate (or whatever is the next-step reverse of devil's advocate): natural selection helps eliminate problematic genes in populations. A good chunk of harmful mutations will prevent people from procreating, either by killing them first, or making it unlikely for them to find a mate.

Not nearly as much in 2019's modern societies.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#24

Post by ak217 » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #16

deusofnull wrote: post #3

Back in my genetics class in Uni, unitended mutations from gene editing struck me as a concern almost immediately. and its scary to think about. these unknown mutations could be benign, harmful, or even helpful, but if they entered the population through procreation... i mean i had an anxiety that the whole human genome could be damaged at a fundamental level. the complexity of the biological machinery that occurs du…

> natural system of transcription, translation, and protein synthesis at the core of DNA still makes mistakes. Exactly, which means the system is resilient , which means it's more forgiving of random mutations introduced by gene editing, which is perhaps why most scientists are less concerned than you think they ought to be. Imagine if we took the same approach to surgery--overly worried that scar tissue of any kind…

There's a huge difference between somatic and germline editing. Surgery is like somatic editing. It's elective, based on medical need, and its effects are confined to one individual. Germline editing is more like forcing an entire population to undergo surgery that is claimed to enhance their bodies.

Nobody is particularly concerned about somatic editing where a medical need exists. Everybody is rightly freaking out about germline editing because it's non-elective for the babies, its consequences are permanent and can be severe, and we aren't good enough at it yet (not even the somatic variety) to claim anything about its safety.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#25

Post by magic_beans » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

hatracksat wrote: post #17

Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…

You are talking about two human beings. HN can be shocking for its collective lack of empathy, but this is a new low.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#26

Post by hatracksat » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

magic_beans wrote: post #25

hatracksat wrote: post #17

Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…

You are talking about two human beings. HN can be shocking for its collective lack of empathy, but this is a new low.

The genes won't care that the scientists playing with them were unethical. The only reason your attitude seems appealing is because nobody wants to believe eventually this strategy will give the Chinese a superior understanding of gene editing.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#27

Post by kkwak » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

hatracksat wrote: post #17

Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…

true, if tech is the only goal. but I would choose to be lower tech in this case. But perhaps my choices would affect those who might come after me... (That too is both ways though).

Some might bring up all the medical advances that came out of the tortures and "studies" from Japan and Nazi Germany. Certainly many advances were made... My friend once told me that there are certain medical "study" records available that US researchers reference from WW2 in Japanese records.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#28

Post by mwfunk » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

hatracksat wrote: post #17

Who cares about unintended consequences if you're the first person to study them? China gets to deal with a novel problem and will get novel rewards eventually because the west let itself get soft. EDIT: To all the people making Nazi comparisons, we stole the atom bomb from the Nazis. Their science across multiple disciplines was on par or superior. We're smarter than them now because we /destroyed/ them. It's easy t…

Medical ethics cares? Anyone who possess humanity and ethics and morals care? Maybe you don't care, but if so, you're a very different kind of person than I am, with very different values (or a lack of values) that I don't relate to at all.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#29

Post by wahern » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

ak217 wrote: post #24

wahern wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> natural system of transcription, translation, and protein synthesis at the core of DNA still makes mistakes. Exactly, which means the system is resilient , which means it's more forgiving of random mutations introduced by gene editing, which is perhaps why most scientists are less concerned than you think they ought to be. Imagine if we took the same approach to surgery--overly worried that scar tissue of any kind…

There's a huge difference between somatic and germline editing. Surgery is like somatic editing. It's elective, based on medical need, and its effects are confined to one individual. Germline editing is more like forcing an entire population to undergo surgery that is claimed to enhance their bodies. Nobody is particularly concerned about somatic editing where a medical need exists. Everybody is rightly freaking out…

IIRC, when I studied biology in secondary school and as a freshman in college, it was believed that gametes were completely isolated and untouchable by viral infections. Turns out this is not true. But if you believe that gametes are incredibly fragile, I can see how it would be easy to believe this as otherwise you'd expect to see mutants everywhere.

I realize the stakes are higher for germline editing, but rationally speaking higher stakes alone don't change the calculus.

Re: China gene-edited baby experiment 'may have created unintended mutations'

#30

Post by vannevar » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

hatracksat wrote: post #26

magic_beans wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about two human beings. HN can be shocking for its collective lack of empathy, but this is a new low.

The genes won't care that the scientists playing with them were unethical. The only reason your attitude seems appealing is because nobody wants to believe eventually this strategy will give the Chinese a superior understanding of gene editing.

What good will a superior understanding of gene editing be if we cease being a civilized society where scientific research can be nurtured in the first place? Ethics are not optional to science, they are integral to the social foundation upon which science rests.