Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#311

Post by cogman10 » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:31 AM UTC

vtbassmatt wrote: post #157

cogman10 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mental impairment shouldn't be understated. We are talking about people that will perpetually need care and supervision. Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be great if society could give these people more than poverty after their parents die, but as it stands, unless that person was born into wealth they are looking at misery when the state becomes their caretakers. I have a child with a server mental disability, I…

This starts from an incorrect premise — that everyone with Down syndrome “will perpetually need care and supervision” — and then heads downhill. “Misery” and “ends up in a hellhole” are choices society has often made in the past for people with intellectual disabilities, but they aren’t a law of physics or fundamental moral law. What are the ethics (and societal obligation) of supporting someone who’s had a severe st…

The same, which is why I support universal healthcare and expanding healthcare to include nursing support/housing for the disabled.

If someone gets cancer, then yeah they should be covered such that they aren't made homeless because of their disease.

If someone has a stroke that leaves them unable to work, again a social safety net that keeps them from being homeless should be in place.

The ethics are pretty simple. It's reasonable for a good society to support those in need through force of taxation. Just like it's good for a society to keep the water clean through force of taxation and regulation. Everyone benefits or has the potential to benefit from such a universal system that protects them from circumstances outside their control.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#312

Post by n4r9 » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:33 AM UTC

foolfoolz wrote: post #80

puppycodes wrote: post #10

Interesting, I wonder what else this might lead too! Encouraging we might be getting somewhere. I used to live near a Down syndrome center where a bunch of folks lived and I remember this one lady who was kitted out with Britney Spears everything, lunchbox, t-shirt, hat, and headphones. Everyday I passed by the bus stop she would be dancing her heart out to a Britney track waiting for the bus and it made my world a l…

we are going to become very good at this. eliminating genetic errors, choosing to be straight, tall, etc

Reminds me of that story about the casting of Patrick Stewart as Picard. Apparently Roddenberry originally had in mind a youthful, virogous figure much like William Shatner was for Kirk. So Stewart auditioned in a toupee to compensate for his baldness. An impressed Roddenberry realised that the toupee was pointless. Later when a reporter asked him why baldness hadn't been cured by the 24th Century, he said that society would be so advanced that no one would care anymore.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#313

Post by throwaway342334 » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:34 AM UTC

Tade0 wrote: post #299

lurk2 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an attitude exclusive to progressives. The chief grievance here is that the historical “solution” to the “problem” of Down Syndrome has been abortion. Opposition comes from the pro-life movement (which is generally conservative) and disability advocacy groups (which are generally liberal). A novel therapy that does not result in the termination of the pregnancy might satisfy the conservatives, but it does…

Hailing from a particularly conservative country I can tell you right now that it's not going to satisfy the conservatives, as their core belief is that the world is zero-sum and tampering with that, in their view, wrong.

As a conservative, my position on genetic intervention is about ethics, human digniity, and the sanctity of life and not some kind of blanket opposition to treating genetic disorders.

I have no moral problem with a therapeutic intervention that improves a life by treating a debilitating disorder with no cost of life.

I will have moral problems when those ideals are inevitably twisted and loosened over time to not just treat disorders, but pick attributes like intelligence, strength, skin color, attractiveness, etc.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#314

Post by bregma » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:37 AM UTC

gabaix wrote: post #189

llmthrow103 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have an aversion to the word "eugenics" because it's often connected to atrocity propaganda from World War II. I'm not suggesting that every country should have genetic purity tests and policies on the level of Israel, just that we should understand that policies affect what kinds of people are more likely to be produced.

What policies post World War II have had eugenic effects on the population?

The policy forced sterilization of indigenous people that went on from the postwar period up until the start of the 21st century is an excellent example.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#315

Post by bboozzoo » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:39 AM UTC

HPsquared wrote: post #264

akie wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 3 month old fetus is not a person and therefore doesn't count under "anyone"

That's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? I mean, are newborn babies really people? The Romans didn't think so. I don't see the big philosophical difference. They can't earn money or pay taxes, and are 100% dependent on parental care and resources. And how about sleeping people? I mean they're unaware of their surroundings. Are sleeping people real people? Sure, they'll inevitably wake up in a few hours, if nothing go…

> Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.

Unless it dies in pain and suffering hours, days, months or a few years after birth due to a defect that we already know can never be cured or fixed by other means. Somehow societies that are least interested or capable in providing any aid to these traumatized families revel the most in their suffering.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#316

Post by 9dev » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:40 AM UTC

calf wrote: post #302

9dev wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do think you’re being hyperbolic. We’re waging a life that doesn’t exist yet against two parents and possible a healthy child that could be. Accommodating for a human that exists, if suffering, is clearly a moral obligation. Doing so when it’s not a human but a husk still is not, and deciding in favour of the very human parents—who also have a right to happiness—is definitely ethically valid. In a related disc…

So what if one doesn't exist yet and another could be? Then both are possibilities. Your sentences look superifically logical but they make no actual sense.

I'm not sure I get your point. Care to elaborate? In one case, we're talking about assured suffering. In the other, the absence of suffering. Both are hypothetical, but in one case, we know about the outcome. There's obviously a difference here.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#317

Post by vtbassmatt » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:45 AM UTC

landl0rd wrote: post #212

vtbassmatt wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that people with Down syndrome are “utterly dependent on [their parents] for their entire lives”? All children come with a severe “emotional and mental cost”, have you seen the world today?? We knew with (well beyond) reasonable certainty that our son would have Down syndrome and chose to continue the pregnancy. We’re not religious and not part of any pro-birth political cohort; it was absolutely an…

Because I grew up across the street from a forty-year-old woman with it. She will be dependent on her parents for the rest of her life. Still lives there. They make the best of it, but frankly, their lives pretty much suck (though she seems very happy with hers). They are no longer people but first and foremost caregivers. All parents have a stage of that but it’s temporary. I’d imagine some downs patients have more…

I have another reply in this tree talking about outcomes and independence being much worse not even all that long ago. I won’t repeat it all here but it squares with what you observed in an older neighbor growing up.

Also: did they tell you they were miserable or felt stuck in Groundhog Day? If not, then it’s not a safe assumption. AFAIK many caretakers and family members report satisfaction with their lives despite the added complications. (Maybe your neighbors really were miserable, and if so, just know it’s not the norm anymore.)

The early genetic testing for Down syndrome is pretty accurate now. If it’s still a major worry for you about having kids, get the testing done early enough to terminate. I strongly hope that no one terminates out of ignorance about the realities - both positive and negative - of Down syndrome, but have no problem at all with informed choices.

People with Down syndrome aren’t “downs” or “downs patients”, though. It’s easy to dismiss this as language policing or, as another thread hinted at, performative. But the words we use and how we view the world are part of a feedback loop on each other. Synecdoche-izing people as merely a medical diagnosis colors whether society treats them as full members or not. And unlike, say, the Deaf or autism communities, it’s not currently a subculture or something that many people with Down syndrome identify as.

As an internet stranger, I’m asking folks to consider using “person with DS” instead of “DS patient/person/etc”.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#318

Post by throwaway342334 » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:46 AM UTC

nice_byte wrote: post #78

heavyset_go wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Willing to bet money that it will, there's a ton of investment right now in what I'd call blatant eugenics. There are companies right now making bank on embryo selection based on genetics, the next step is modifying genes instead of rolling a crap shoot and hoping to get what they want. Funnily enough, such companies are funded by and led by some HN subcultures' favorite people, I would know because I was recruited b…

preventing down syndrome is "eugenics"?

Yes, modifying genetics to select for "desirable" traits and remove "undesirable" ones is essentially modern liberal eugenics.

Just because something is labeled "eugenics" doesn’t automatically make it bad or good—outcomes depend on how ideas are applied.

Historically, eugenics didn’t have genetic tools, so efforts focused on social policies, like promoting abortion or family planning, to influence who could reproduce.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#319

Post by frotaur » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 10:52 AM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #270

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s alive as a zygote, so without even looking at the paper I don’t disagree. The person you responded to said “hardly a life” though, so I don’t think they literally mean is it a cell that’s alive.

It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism.

Yes, but that is not a good arguments. Example of unique living organisms include bacteria, tardigrades, or paramecia.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#320

Post by ben_w » Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 11:01 AM UTC

phs318u wrote: post #85

foolfoolz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we are going to become very good at this. eliminating genetic errors, choosing to be straight, tall, etc

...blonde, blue-eyed, round-eyed, strong-jawed, big-dicked, big boobed, you name it, you can have it!

> big-dicked, big boobed

And Facebook is already, with no ironic self-awareness, showing me ads for both.