Live data from Hacker News

CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

nature.com

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#31
post #5

> The investigation also found that He’s experiment ran counter to national regulations forbidding people with HIV from using assisted reproduction — an allegation reported for the first time in the Xinhua article. What is the rationale behind this regulation? Is it that the baby is likely to be infected with HIV or is there some other reason?

Well, if you want to dig more, I've found one regulation[0](technical standard rather) mentioning something maybe related. It says, I quote:

> 2、禁忌症

> (1)有如下情况之一者,不得实施体外受精-胚胎移植及其衍技术

> ① 男女任何一方患有严重的精神疾患、泌尿生殖系统急性感染、性传播疾病;

> ② 患有《母婴保健法[1]》规定的不宜生育的、目前无法进行胚胎植入前遗传学诊断的遗传性疾病;

> ...

Translated to English and overly sum up: IVF-ET is forbidden if:

1, The donor or the receptor is currently carrying STD (Or genitourinary infection, or severe mental illness);

2, The patient not recommended to be pregnant according to the 《母婴保健法[1]》(Mother and child health-care law);

3, The patient is suffering from hereditary diseases that cannot be diagnosed with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.

The rationale that you are curious about is still unknown here, but I do think this document and the law mentioned can be a good start if you want to figure it out. Sadly though, this field is far out of my range of knowledge, I can't even translate most of them for you (And That page on npc.gov.cn is still loading after 5 mins of waiting).

[0] http://www.moh.gov.cn/open/uploadfile/2005112816435508.doc (人类辅助生殖技术规范)

[1] http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/gongbao/2000-12/05/content_500462... (母婴保健法)

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#32
post #28
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is that by the time they were in Kindergarten, the newer models would obsolete them. Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter! Now 10% off!

I'm 26 right now and I'm not planning to have kids until I'm 35 for this exact reason. I don't want my kid to say: "Daddy, why do other kids have disease resistance and I don't? Do you not love me? Or were you one of those stupid anti-CRISPRers who don't believe in science (the anti-vaxxers of the next decades)?" I'd rather wait for 5-10 years to make sure I don't make a lifelong mistake.

I did the same thing with my last computer. I waited years because something better was just around the corner.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#33
post #19
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is that by the time they were in Kindergarten, the newer models would obsolete them. Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter! Now 10% off!

It's ok and good thing if the results is only positive like "Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter". (Maybe not include Bigger?) The worst part of this is that it may not safe. If this introduced some flaws in the babies gene, how to control this, don't allow them have babies?

Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior.

Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority does to that divide.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#34

I feel like this turns babies into technology. We might have version 1 where babies aren't likely to get HIV or some other malady. Next round, perhaps we'll see more height, different skin color, increased intelligence. If it's like any other product, it appears babies would be coming out of a factory and with tiers for different features you can buy based on your purchasing power. Sort of like buying an iPhone excep…

There could be concern of breeding/creating a superrace by the rich, but historically people select for superficial traits - what is fashionable - as they do in dog-breeding. Or over-selecting for some narrow performance characteristic, as in racehorses.

It seems to me the just way is similar to how bread is legally required to be fortified with vitamins to avoid e.g. rickets. And how education is legally required. Beyond these community accepted minimums, knock yourself out.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#35
post #28
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is that by the time they were in Kindergarten, the newer models would obsolete them. Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter! Now 10% off!

I'm 26 right now and I'm not planning to have kids until I'm 35 for this exact reason. I don't want my kid to say: "Daddy, why do other kids have disease resistance and I don't? Do you not love me? Or were you one of those stupid anti-CRISPRers who don't believe in science (the anti-vaxxers of the next decades)?" I'd rather wait for 5-10 years to make sure I don't make a lifelong mistake.

Every year you wait, your sperms carry more and more mutations.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#36

I feel like this turns babies into technology. We might have version 1 where babies aren't likely to get HIV or some other malady. Next round, perhaps we'll see more height, different skin color, increased intelligence. If it's like any other product, it appears babies would be coming out of a factory and with tiers for different features you can buy based on your purchasing power. Sort of like buying an iPhone excep…

Pros: The people born this way will lead happier, more fulfilling and productive lives.

Cons: Seems kinda weird to commercialize children.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#37
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 26 right now and I'm not planning to have kids until I'm 35 for this exact reason. I don't want my kid to say: "Daddy, why do other kids have disease resistance and I don't? Do you not love me? Or were you one of those stupid anti-CRISPRers who don't believe in science (the anti-vaxxers of the next decades)?" I'd rather wait for 5-10 years to make sure I don't make a lifelong mistake.

Don’t wait too long, reproductive tissue begins to degrade in your 30s.

Source?

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#38

I feel like this turns babies into technology. We might have version 1 where babies aren't likely to get HIV or some other malady. Next round, perhaps we'll see more height, different skin color, increased intelligence. If it's like any other product, it appears babies would be coming out of a factory and with tiers for different features you can buy based on your purchasing power. Sort of like buying an iPhone excep…

Pros: The people born this way will lead happier, more fulfilling and productive lives. Cons: Seems kinda weird to commercialize children.

Pros: The people born this way will lead happier, more fulfilling and productive lives.

Cons: Companies or powerful governments influenced the design and meaning of "happier, more fulfilling and productive lives" such that their own agenda is fulfilled.

Maybe that fate would not affect everyone, but what temptation there would be to make a designer workforce. The perfect employee. The perfect citizen. The perfect subordinate.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#39

I feel like this turns babies into technology. We might have version 1 where babies aren't likely to get HIV or some other malady. Next round, perhaps we'll see more height, different skin color, increased intelligence. If it's like any other product, it appears babies would be coming out of a factory and with tiers for different features you can buy based on your purchasing power. Sort of like buying an iPhone excep…

Okay, let's get this silly sci-fi trope out the way. Genetics doesn't work like that.

We don't have a clue how to edit DNA to make people smarter or taller or stronger. And there's no sign that we're going to get to that knowledge sometime this century.

Furthermore, what we do know about our genome and our proteome strongly suggests that lots of stuff are doing double-duty. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia also provides antimalarial resistance. That makes the argument for changing DNA one way or the other much more difficult to make.

And, furthermore, even applying CRISPR to human cells is still not exactly successful yet. Of the two CRISPR babies, one was mosaic (i.e., the edits didn't reach all the cells) and the other was heterozygous (i.e., didn't reach both copies of DNA), and neither actually contained the desired deletion. So all the ethics violations were in pursuit of a project that would have scored at best a C (just to underscore how much of a monster He was).

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#40

I feel like this turns babies into technology. We might have version 1 where babies aren't likely to get HIV or some other malady. Next round, perhaps we'll see more height, different skin color, increased intelligence. If it's like any other product, it appears babies would be coming out of a factory and with tiers for different features you can buy based on your purchasing power. Sort of like buying an iPhone excep…

Pros: The people born this way will lead happier, more fulfilling and productive lives. Cons: Seems kinda weird to commercialize children.

We already commercialize children with all toys, private school, video games.
Post reply on HN