First gene-edited babies claimed in China • Hacker News Board

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#41

Post by xtrapolate » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:38 AM UTC

skosuri wrote: post #5

The edited gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function, but is the entry point for HIV. So editing for prophylaxis. This was probably done because if there aren’t a ton of loss of function beneficial traits, and probably with the main desire to be first. Except, if the reports are true, this is not just an experiment but a person (or people). I guess the main desire is to normalize editing. Brave ne…

> "gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function"

It's in the article:

> "Even if editing worked perfectly, people without normal CCR5 genes face higher risks of getting certain other viruses, such as West Nile, and of dying from the flu. Since there are many ways to prevent HIV infection and it's very treatable if it occurs, those other medical risks are a concern, Musunuru said."

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#42

Post by NamTaf » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:38 AM UTC

elcomet wrote: post #38

dqpb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's ethically black What does that mean?

Edit: misread

No, they mean that ethically it's black in the same way that we describe blackhat vs whitehat hackers.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#43

Post by wycs » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:38 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #28

wycs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children compared to future citizens of nations that do not share our taboos.

Genetic engineering might be able to prevent certain inherited diseases, but otherwise major net improvements are unlikely. A boost in one area tends to cause problems in other areas. That's why evolution through natural selection hasn't significantly increased average human intelligence over the past few thousand years. The average human genome appears to be close to a local maximum.

This is not true. Intelligence is polygenic. The average human is no Von Neumann. At the very least genetic engineering could raise average IQ to Von Neumann’s level. We know that phenotype is possible with no ill effects. It will likely take us much further.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#44

Post by fooker » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:39 AM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #8

> It's "unconscionable ... an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal. This is 100% correct. (COI: Kiran was my postdoc while I was a student in the lab a decade ago.)

> not morally or ethically defensible

Sure, that won't stop progress by people who do not follow your flavor of morality or ethics, though.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#45

Post by thomasfedb » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:40 AM UTC

Moral frontiers aside, current gene tech is still not where we'd like it to be in order to pull of these sorts of things and know we haven't done harm. Side edits are a big problem with CRISPR-Cas9.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#46

Post by DennisAleynikov » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:41 AM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #31

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. It's ethically black as far as I am concerned but it has already happened so we must see where this takes us. IVF born edited zygotes might have serious complications but ideally its a healthy human being. (for everyone's sake)

> It's ethically black What does that mean?

"unethical" would probably have worked better. sorry for the confusion

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#47

Post by nradov » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

wycs wrote: post #43

nradov wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genetic engineering might be able to prevent certain inherited diseases, but otherwise major net improvements are unlikely. A boost in one area tends to cause problems in other areas. That's why evolution through natural selection hasn't significantly increased average human intelligence over the past few thousand years. The average human genome appears to be close to a local maximum.

This is not true. Intelligence is polygenic. The average human is no Von Neumann. At the very least genetic engineering could raise average IQ to Von Neumann’s level. We know that phenotype is possible with no ill effects. It will likely take us much further.

You haven't addressed my point. No one disputes that intelligence is partly genetic. However if it was possible to raise intelligence through genetic engineering with no ill effects then why hasn't evolution increased the incidence of that phenotype already?

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#48

Post by BurningFrog » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #28

wycs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children compared to future citizens of nations that do not share our taboos.

Genetic engineering might be able to prevent certain inherited diseases, but otherwise major net improvements are unlikely. A boost in one area tends to cause problems in other areas. That's why evolution through natural selection hasn't significantly increased average human intelligence over the past few thousand years. The average human genome appears to be close to a local maximum.

Human intelligence has not increased because it has not been strongly selected for. If it was maximized, at the expense of other traits, a lot could definitely happen.

> The average human genome appears to be close to a local maximum.

Absolutely, but it's maximized for the environment we lived in 10-100 generations ago.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#49

Post by skosuri » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:44 AM UTC

wycs wrote: post #35

wonderwonder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is not so much the effect of a lack of CCR5 but rather the accuracy of the genetic procedure and whether or not anything else was unintentionally affected. If it was accurate and only desired change was implemented, we have opened pandora's box.

In the short term I think the risks are overstated. Vastly increased health and intelligence looks like it will be possible to select and/or edit for, as well as the elimination of Mendelian disease. The scale of this good is so large it overwhelms most scruples.

"Vastly increased health and intelligence"... again, you keep making assertions without any reference.

Re: First gene-edited babies claimed in China

#50

Post by joshvm » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 5:45 AM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #23

rm2889 wrote: post #6

This is quite interesting. There is a certain very small percentage of the world's population that is immune to the HIV virus. These people's T-cells have the CD4 receptor, but not the CCR5 receptor. The HIV virus needs both these receptors to successfully affect the host's cells. The absence of the CCR5 receptor still allows the person's T cells to function normally, so if this works, it can pave the way to creating…

Does CCR5 have no other purpose? Hard to believe that it'd exist if it wasn't needed.

Apparently removing it may have other consequences:

> Even if editing worked perfectly, people without normal CCR5 genes face higher risks of getting certain other viruses, such as West Nile, and of dying from the flu. Since there are many ways to prevent HIV infection and it's very treatable if it occurs, those other medical risks are a concern, Musunuru said.