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

341–350 of 570 posts

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

#341

Post by globular-toast »

Brystephor wrote: post #318

This is incredible work. Its jaw dropping to learn that something like this is possible at all. Sometimes I wish I could work for a company whose products make a meaningful positive contribution to the work. Do companies like this have a need for SWEs? Are there opportunities for a backend SWE without any background in hardware or biology?

> Do companies like this have a need for SWEs? Are there opportunities for a backend SWE without any background in hardware or biology?

Of course they do. Biology and medical research can't get enough software people. But they're not as well funded as advertising or spying companies, for example, so you might have to take a significant pay cut.

I wouldn't pigeon hole yourself as a "backend engineer". Why do people do that? Software is software. The bit that matters is the core model and algorithms etc. Whether it's exposed as a web server, a CLI or just a library is a peripheral detail.

It's totally possible for a decent software engineer to learn just enough biology to get by. The limiting factor might be your interest, though. But if you have that then go for it. Get a book on genomics right now.

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

#342

Post by biofox »

declan_roberts wrote: post #101
jmcgough wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this effort is the culmination of 50 years of research. Could be the last harrah of the NIH with the amount of cuts we've had and the scientists who are taking jobs in other countries.

Unfortunately a staggering amount of research in other countries is largely funded by the NIH/USA.

And those grant awards need to demonstrate how they benefit the USA. Many are (were) related to disease surveillance in developing countries to prevent pandemics, or collaborations with countries that are more advanced than the US in niche areas.

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

#343

Post by [deleted] »

_bin_ wrote: post #311
jhickok wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems like more of an issue with accessibility of the treatment than the treatment itself If we could make most children smart, productive, ambitious, courteous, civil, conscientious, honorable, strong... the value to society is probably high enough to justify covering it for almost anyone.

[deleted]

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

#344

Post by dmurray »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #254
jjcm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was on Microsoft insurance which was quite gold plated at a time One of the biggest perks of working for Microsoft for a long time was their health coverage. I can't tell you the number of times I'd be doing initial paperwork for a doctor's appointment and the receptionist would be like, "Oh you have THAT insurance, we're going to do all of the tests." I've heard they since cut back on it a little, but it truly w…

Circa 2005, Stanford FTEs had nine (9) health insurance plan choices. ;P

Is that better or worse than having one really good one?

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

#345

Post by pishpash »

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…

Also presents a terrifying prospect of malicious use.

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

#346

Post by pishpash »

mondaygreens wrote: post #328
palisade wrote: post #322

Does this mean when they grow up, their own offspring will also have this defect and require a correction? And, if so, does this mean it is now introducing this defective gene into our gene pool? I know this is an issue with caesarean section. It is becoming more prevalent because those who require it are surviving, making it more likely to happen in their offspring.

How can they pass it on when they don't have the defect any more?

If by "they" you mean their gametes, those were not edited. Only a component of their corporal shell was modified.

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

#347

Post by foreigner »

palisade wrote: post #322

Does this mean when they grow up, their own offspring will also have this defect and require a correction? And, if so, does this mean it is now introducing this defective gene into our gene pool? I know this is an issue with caesarean section. It is becoming more prevalent because those who require it are surviving, making it more likely to happen in their offspring.

We get half of our genes from each of our parents. So unless this person has the extremely unlikely misfortune of partnering with someone else with the same rare mutation, their offspring would only have a 50/50 chance of inheriting their copy of this gene. There are also medical procedures (PGD) to bring that chance to virtually 0%.

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

#348

Post by lentil_soup »

declan_roberts wrote: post #101
jmcgough wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this effort is the culmination of 50 years of research. Could be the last harrah of the NIH with the amount of cuts we've had and the scientists who are taking jobs in other countries.

Unfortunately a staggering amount of research in other countries is largely funded by the NIH/USA.

What a shortsighted view.

The technology used on this same article was funded by Max Planck (Germany), Sweden and the NIH to a french and a USA scientist. Should those collaborations stop?

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

#349

Post by concordDance »

jhickok wrote: post #303
_bin_ wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is already true to a great extent. A family with lots of genetic health conditions are probably going to remain poor.

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

#350

Post by lentil_soup »

mmooss wrote: post #336
jordanpg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so what?

Indeed - does it matter who performed the research? If the CRISPR reasearch were performed in another country, would that change the outcome for the infant?

It was indeed researched by a combination of countries and institutions
Post reply on HN