Live data from Hacker News

Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

nytimes.com

301–310 of 570 posts

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

#301

> 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…

How does it know how to gps around? From what I know everything down there is a chemical reaction with some minimal physical motion, but how do you program it to know where to change and what and how.

It doesn’t know anything about where it “needs” to go. One of the weirder and more unintuitive things about molecular biology is just how fast everything moves inside a cell. The CRISPR molecule diffuses from one side of the nucleus to the other in a couple seconds and probably bumps into the entirety of the genome in a matter of minutes or hours. It’s very, very crowded inside cells, proteins and DNA and metabolites are constantly bumping into each other and are tumbling around at frankly incomprehensible rates. So, nothing needs to “know” where it needs to go, it simply gets pushed and jostled around until arrives there and then the attraction between the CRISPR’s RNA and the DNA takes over

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

#303
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be silly, the rich will want their babies to be perfect so gene editing will be legal and considered OK.

Can you explain why this is a bad thing, or is it just “”the rich” bad”?

Not OP, but presumably it's because it could cement a permanent divide between classes. We still have quite a bit of upward mobility in the US, but health is a tremendous predictor of future outcomes, so gating that to the rich is dangerous to the stability of society in that way.

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

#304
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose a downside (depending on your perspective) of this is that it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect. That's good if your goals are to detect genetic modification which may be considered cheating in competitive sports. That's bad if your goals are to detect genetically modified people and discriminate against them. I see a near future where the kind of people who loa…

I'm less interested in detecting genetic modification for the purposes of discrimination than making sure it's available to everyone. Assuming requisite safety of course.

I'm more concerned about the possible negative unintended consequences of making it available to everyone first. Genetic modification is well-explored Pandora's Box in science fiction and present humanity seems so ill-equipped in collective philosophy and reason to handle a paradigm shift of that magnitude.

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

#306
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Only 1% of the population has autism. Presenting autism as a considerable possibility for trollish behavior isn't much different than what the parent commenter did.

[flagged]

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

#308
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 1% of the population has autism. Presenting autism as a considerable possibility for trollish behavior isn't much different than what the parent commenter did.

[flagged]

now, confirmed.

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

#309
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fertility care often already included testing for common genetic disorders, and parents with a history of severe disease would often make the hard choice to try again. Due to recent Theocratic political shifts, it means more families will face the worst possible life for their children. Gattaca was a film years ahead of its time, and raises the question of what happens when people try to "fix" human beings beyond dis…

Disease is fuzzy word, it basically means below some made up bar for healthiness. Take dyslexia as a simple example. That disease can by definition not exist in an illiterate population. We have raised the bar and now they are diseased in need for a cure. The more we things we cure the higher we will reach and the higher we reach the higher we will raise the bar. I don't think that's a bad thing, but its worth bearin…

Various learning challenges would fall outside a lifetime of suffering, and often such kids have statistically higher IQ. ;)

I think it is more likely people will create synthetic diseases by experimenting on human beings with unique unpredictable gene expression.

He Jiankui already crossed the ethical boundary in 2018... only to discover his best intentions were still nonsense. The GMO kids he helped edit will have a lifetime to figure out if that alteration negatively affected them, and as adults consider how their own children may change.

People may cross the "Primum non nocere" line, but it can never ethically be justified =3

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

#310
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does EA means here ?

"Effective Altruism", something I find myself aligned with but not to the extremes taken by others.

Technically lesswrong is about rationalists not effective altruists, but you're right in a sense that it's the same breed.

They think that the key to scientific thinking is to forego the moral limitations, not to study and learn. As soon as you're free from the shackles of tradition you become 100% rational and therefore 100% correct.

Post reply on HN