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

CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 155 posts

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#21

Post by amoorthy »

refulgentis wrote: post #7
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #2

[flagged]

That 99% number is wrong. Additionally, it should set off alarms that the argument implies we should give people Down Syndrome . Using it to argue against helping people with Down syndrome is worse. The authors spell out why its wrong. [1] Their sample was exclusively from DS nonprofit mailing lists, got a 17% response rate, with a median household income of $100K, (2x median), and as they wrote, the results are like…

Wow, thanks for taking the time to share all this data with such clear points. Much appreciated, especially the personal anecdote to make all this be less academic.

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#22

Post by lynx97 »

almostjazz wrote: post #16
pixel_popping wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% doesn't make sense, not even 99% of people without Down syndrome are happy (far from it I believe).

What exactly is logically impossible about people with down syndrome being happier on average than those without it?

It would break the feeling of superiority of people without that disability. Fact. So they can't believe it.

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#23

Post by nathan_compton »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #12
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #2

[flagged]

If I told you I put a chemical into the water supply that gave people brown hair you’d probably think I am weird and stupid but not evil. If I told you the chemical gave people down syndrome you’d probably think I am evil. Whenever these topics come up there’s always people saying things like “but what if people like it?” And I can’t help but wonder, really? Are we really having this conversation? The answers are obv…

The answers are not obvious. Arguably, putting anything into the water supply is seriously ethically questionable, whether it changes only your hair color or lowers your IQ or raises it, for that matter. People have the right to accept or deny medical treatment. For treatment which occurs before birth clearly they cannot do that, but if you were meditating upon whether to apply a procedure or not, and you had adults who could understand the question and to whom the procedure would have been applied, taking their opinions into consideration on the subject is entirely valid.

You think of a person with Downs' as less than a person without it, clearly. But why should your opinion matter? If we accept treating Downs' in utero, should we accept genetic treatments to lower criminality? What about independent thinking? What about other "inconvenient" personality traits. Like why not allow some "authority" to eliminate any "negative" trait they wish from the population?

Obviously these are extremes and your position that considering the question with respect to Downs' leads to a straightforward conclusion: on balance, it make sense, but I think we should approach any question about modifying people with serious consideration.

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#24

Post by nathan_compton »

pixl97 wrote: post #15
CooCooCaCha wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I told you I put a chemical into the water supply that gave people brown hair you’d probably think I am weird and stupid but not evil. If I told you the chemical gave people down syndrome you’d probably think I am evil. Whenever these topics come up there’s always people saying things like “but what if people like it?” And I can’t help but wonder, really? Are we really having this conversation? The answers are obv…

>I don’t believe anybody actually thinks this way. Oh, there are far too many people that do. I mostly call them the "Hell for you, heaven for me" bunch, the doublethink/cognitive dissonance in so many is very very strong. https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-... “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” is a common example of this behavior.

I think this is a deeply flawed interpretation of the original commenter's post. They are suggesting that we think very carefully about imposing our standards of what constitutes a "good" person on the unborn. I don't see the problem, honestly.

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#25

Post by Karawebnetwork »

Scarblac wrote: post #14
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #2

[flagged]

But it's only possible for them to lead good lives when their parents basically dedicate the rest of their own lives to caring for them, I think?

Individuals have very different abilities and needs. Some are able to drive and work independently while others require ongoing support.

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#26

Post by pixl97 »

nathan_compton wrote: post #24
pixl97 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don’t believe anybody actually thinks this way. Oh, there are far too many people that do. I mostly call them the "Hell for you, heaven for me" bunch, the doublethink/cognitive dissonance in so many is very very strong. https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-... “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” is a common example of this behavior.

I think this is a deeply flawed interpretation of the original commenter's post. They are suggesting that we think very carefully about imposing our standards of what constitutes a "good" person on the unborn. I don't see the problem, honestly.

If humanity had the ability to think very carefully then the world would be a much different place.

The number one rule of thinking about the unborn would be thinking about those who are living first.

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#27

Post by bonsai_spool »

This is very clever - the X chromosome has a mechanism to shut itself down (which makes sense; otherwise cells in women would have twice as many gene products from the X chromosome as cells from men).

The linked research report[1] uses that mechanism, Xist, to shutdown chromosome 21, the extra chromosome whose presence causes Down syndrome. In its present form, it would need to be optimized for each potential patient and is unlikely to be used as a treatment paradigm, but the biological approach is clever.

[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2517953123

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#28

Post by [deleted] »

pixel_popping wrote: post #18
almostjazz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is logically impossible about people with down syndrome being happier on average than those without it?

It could be true because their surrounding/family... would take care better of them than the average person, that I might understand, but still, it's really a stretch. can you really say you're happy with something when you don't know what life without it looks like? You adapt. You make peace with it. That's human nature. Doesn't mean it's the best option.

[deleted]

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#29

Post by Glemllksdf »

JimmyBuckets wrote: post #2

[flagged]

They have a significant reduced live span and are far away from the normal population. They also can't reproduce (at least woman, only with very high risk).

Most people don't want to be unique, they want to be a part of the rest of the herde.

Its objectivly better to not have down syndrom.

And before i get downvoted: My stand doesn't mean i look down on peole with down syndrom. These two viewpoints are not exclusive. The same for the decision to abort a fetus with down syndrom doesn't mean that someone decided this, would look down on people with down syndrom.

Re: CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome

#30

Post by Glemllksdf »

m3kw9 wrote: post #10
JimmyBuckets wrote: post #2

[flagged]

You got downvoted because people fail to see from both sides. The people outside of course would compare and say this is the worse outcome, fix it no matter what, but once the person already have it, from their perspective, what do they think about it? Do they also compare, but maybe they cannot make that decision clearly, but it's also their choice so there is room to debate.

If there is no real downside to it, its not even a debate.

People with down syndrom have an avg iq from 50-60 which means that our society do not see them as independent human beings who are allowed to make all decisions themselves.

Also people with down syndrom do have reduced life expectency. In 1960 it was 10 now its at 60 (heart issues).

Post reply on HN