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

Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 570 posts

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#261

Post by gr_norm »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #260
gr_norm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer. H…

So obviously we should not be excited about it? Lose me with that noise.

Do point out where that was said, and I will be happy to correct it! It's important to have nuanced opinions and discussions about things.

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#262

Post by vmurthy »

MrZander wrote: post #11

> To accomplish that feat, the treatment is wrapped in fatty lipid molecules to protect it from degradation in the blood on its way to the liver, where the edit will be made. Inside the lipids are instructions that command the cells to produce an enzyme that edits the gene. They also carry a molecular GPS — CRISPR — which was altered to crawl along a person’s DNA until it finds the exact DNA letter that needs to be c…

Cue the book "The Code Breaker" [0]. I read it a long time ago and such an incredible book and journey by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuel Charpentier. Do check it out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Code_Breaker

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#264

Post by tptacek »

beeflet wrote: post #229
jjcob wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a slippery slope. Fixing defects is rather straightforward, since it's usually a single gene that needs to be edited. If you want make your baby smarter, taller, or more handsome, it's not so easy because these traits involve 1000s of genes. For this reason I do not think that curying diseases will lead to designer babies.

>For this reason I do not think that curying diseases will lead to designer babies. Well, you're wrong. Where is the line drawn for what constitutes a disease? Retardation? Autism? Eventually every child below, say, 130 IQ will be considered disabled and unable to find work. Apply this to every other trait: cardiovascular health, strength, height, vision, etc. All forms of weakness can be considered a disease. The en…

He wasn't saying that curing diseases wouldn't lead to designer babies because he objects to the idea (though he might). He's saying that the factors that lead to a "130 IQ" score are, to the extent that they're causatively genetic at all, highly polygenic. Molecular genetics results aren't putting us on a track to predict polygenic behavioral traits (I guess except smoking?), let alone control them.

It's helpful to evaluate claims on this thread in the context of the story. It's possible (though still a very open question) that complex behavioral traits will generally become predictable or maybe even controllable in the future. But those would require breakthroughs (including basic science discoveries breaking in the direction baby-designers want them to) more significant than the announcement on this story.

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#265

Post by alexashka »

gr_norm wrote: post #227
silver_silver wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an insanely callous and shallow take. I don’t even know where to start. You’re trying to claim the moral high ground by complaining that a privileged child didn’t suffer and die? Do you even understand the point of reducing poverty?

An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer. H…

[flagged]

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#266

Post by squigz »

gr_norm wrote: post #227
silver_silver wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an insanely callous and shallow take. I don’t even know where to start. You’re trying to claim the moral high ground by complaining that a privileged child didn’t suffer and die? Do you even understand the point of reducing poverty?

An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer. H…

> An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer.

I'm as negative about the rich and powerful as anyone but this is such a cynical take - that might have been applied to many medical treatments in the past that have become relatively commonplace and easily accessible to people of all classes, at least in sane countries with sane healthcare systems.

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#267

Post by squigz »

efilife wrote: post #212
koala_man wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> that the child will die at some point

So what? So a father shouldn't celebrate medical advances that mean their kid doesn't have to die after a week? And if it does, they should just be like "Ah, that's life!"

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#268

Post by gr_norm »

alexashka wrote: post #265
gr_norm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer. H…

[flagged]

Certainly, you may choose to conduct yourself like this. I won't stop you! And other people who might've otherwise seen your point will be turned away from it. I prefer to have constructive conversations with people I view as equals, not stupid or infantile.

Observe that the replies to my post do engage with the argument I made.

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#269

Post by jjtheblunt »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #112
MrZander wrote: post #11

> To accomplish that feat, the treatment is wrapped in fatty lipid molecules to protect it from degradation in the blood on its way to the liver, where the edit will be made. Inside the lipids are instructions that command the cells to produce an enzyme that edits the gene. They also carry a molecular GPS — CRISPR — which was altered to crawl along a person’s DNA until it finds the exact DNA letter that needs to be c…

> That is one of the most incredible things I have ever read. This is even more great reading behind the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna

Also

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuelle_Charpentier

Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

#270

Post by gr_norm »

squigz wrote: post #266
gr_norm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer. H…

> An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer.…

Indeed, my view is heavily American-centric. And the trends of the past-- which you're right about-- may not apply to the future given increasing wealth inequality, the cost-of-living crisis, and the climate crisis (for which undoubtedly the poorest of us will be forced to shoulder most of the burden).

I'm explicitly not saying this work shouldn't be done, it should! But it does not exist in a vacuum, and it would be silly to pretend that it is not colored by vastly unequal access to modern healthcare. The reason I get excited about technology is because of the potential it holds for making us all happier and freer to do the things we like for longer. We are lost if we do not at least speak about the thunderclouds on the horizon for this philosophy of technology.

Post reply on HN