Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 520 posts

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

#451

Post by timeon »

smeej wrote: post #125
zarzavat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some bioethics experts are concerned I do have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these people. My sister-in-law has a child with Down's syndrome and the situation basically ruined her life. She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed. To what end is that in the continuance of ethics?

Many ethicists value the continuation of someone's--anyone's--(literal) life over the continuation of anyone else's life style. I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't agree with them, nor saying anything about in which cases. It's just one of the primary things going on in the minds of those people, and you said you wondered.

> Many ethicists

Isn't it only just Vegans?

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

#452

Post by mathgeek »

smeej wrote: post #137
mathgeek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While "what is normal" is a reasonable question, a normal development is certainly closer to something that allows folks to achieve most things in any career/hobby/pursuit they choose.

Do you really see that as a "norm" being met by a majority of the population today? I don't think most people's lived experience is anything like that.

Normal being closer to what I said than what is usually achievable for folks with extra chromosomes? Yes, I do. I didn’t say it _was_ that anyone can achieve anything.

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

#454

Post by shlant »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #386
shlant wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just because something is "eugenics" doesn't mean it's bad or shouldn't be discussed.

No, I think discussing anything that essentially boils down to "some human lifes are not worth it" is not ok, no. There's always the slippery slope to consider. Especially if you're from Germany like me, that's one too far. History, you know. We also would do good if we'd learn from books like 1984 or brave new world.

> "some human lifes are not worth it"

do you give the same worth to a human "life" at 10 weeks as you do at 9 months?

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

#455

Post by heavyset_go »

tptacek wrote: post #447
renewiltord wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ polygenic score companies do exist. Just look at the circle around Jonathan Anomaly and you likely will find them all. I know of a couple that are going to go full open this year. You have to be of the right genetic origin because of the source data, but the truth is it's very risky to do embryo editing. It's hard to tell which way things will land. For all we know, gametogenesis may arrive first. And if that happ…

Does anybody believe IQ/EA PGS companies are a serious thing?

They exist[1] and take themselves seriously even if the rest of the world doesn't.

I met with Hsu before I realized who he was or what he was doing. A choice quote[2]:

> Testing embryos, however, is hugely controversial, because of both the scientific limitations of such polygenic scores and the prospect of designer babies. Undeterred, a company called Genomic Prediction last year began to offer to test cells plucked from an IVF embryo for millions of DNA markers to produce risk scores for some common diseases and for "intellectual disability" or low IQ. Co-founder Stephen Hsu, a physicist at Michigan State University in East Lansing who has branched into genomics, says that for now, the company is not returning genetic scores predicting high IQ because "society is not ready for it."

As for motivation:

> In July 2012, Michigan State University named him vice president for research and graduate studies. At the time, Inside Higher Ed and Lansing State Journal described the appointment as controversial, due to Hsu's comments endorsing research into using genetic modification to increase human intelligence, and his blog posts describing human race categorization as biologically valid.

And Hsu's cofounder[3]:

> Laurent Tellier, the founder of startup Genomic Predictions, used the 1997 movie “Gattaca” as inspiration for a DNA screening method that scores embryos with risk estimates for diabetes, heart disease, and other illnesses – and gives a report card on their predicted height and intelligence.

There's also Thiel investments in some people with questionable histories[4] when it comes to IQ PGS.

If you look at who is pushing for this, a lot of them are LessWrong and IDW adjacent, and they're selling to their audiences who believe strongly in things like IQ, genetic determinism and race. They take it very seriously.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/what-is-geno...

[2] https://www.science.org/content/article/screening-embryos-iq...

[3] https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/genetic-test-aims-to-predict-a...

[4] https://undark.org/2023/10/27/consumer-genetic-testing-scien...

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

#456

Post by Thorrez »

altcognito wrote: post #354
Thorrez wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

Just achieving the definition of alive doesn't grant you power over other human beings. It is not personhood. Ethics are more complicated than a black and white definition of when a magical boundary has been achieved.

I agree the personhood question is more complicated than the definition of life. And I agree that ethics are more complicated than just the definition of personhood.

However, regarding the question of personhood, I wonder, when does it begin?

Does it begin at birth? I think not, because a fetus a few days before birth is essentially no different from a newborn in terms of development and abilities. There's quite a wide variance in how soon or late a baby can be born and survive.

Does it begin some time between fertilization and birth? I think not, because that entire time is a period of continual growth. There's no instant where the fetus is suddenly transformed. The fetus is getting older, developing. Similar to how a born baby gets older and develops. If personhood were to begin in this stage, it would have to be gradual, meaning partial personhood for some period of time. But that doesn't make sense. How can someone be a partial person?

I'm not talking about a magical boundary. I'm talking about (a) a biological boundary, and (b) the question of personhood, neither of which are magic.

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

#457

Post by Thorrez »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #427
smeej wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but none of those are of the human species. A Hunan zygote is a unique living human organism, and I think history has shown us we must at least be very, very careful when we start arguing that some unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them. Maybe this really is different from all the things about which w…

> unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness. A person in a vegetative state doesn’t suffer when you pull the plug. The difference matters and is unmistakable between large organisms which have gone through a long process of developmen…

What about someone who is unconscious but will recover? Is it ok the pull the plug on that person? There won't be any suffering (unless friends or relatives mourn, but let's assume this person has no friends or relatives).

Regarding the size of the organism, and amount of time spent developing, what about a very early preemie who is unconscious but will recover?

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

#458

Post by Thorrez »

WOTERMEON wrote: post #425
smeej wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but none of those are of the human species. A Hunan zygote is a unique living human organism, and I think history has shown us we must at least be very, very careful when we start arguing that some unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them. Maybe this really is different from all the things about which w…

“Never again” has been said in a completely different context: fully developed humans killing other developed humans systematically on a huge scale across years. Don’t confuse ethnic cleanings and genocide with fully voluntary abortions, as sad as they may be.

"Never again" has been said in other contexts as well. E.g. slavery in the US. US slavery didn't exactly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The primary goal was economic.

Just because something isn't ethnic cleansing or genocide doesn't mean "never again" doesn't apply.

>fully developed humans

What's the definition of fully developed? Are physically and mentally disabled people fully developed? There have been large scale killings targeting them in particular. Are babies fully developed? There have been large scale killings that kill them.

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

#459

Post by Thorrez »

jajko wrote: post #309
Thorrez wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have a different opinion than yours. So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so. World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defender…

>So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life?

It's not just some definition. It's the scientific definition. Lots of people have the motto "I believe in science" but then reject the scientific definition of life when it comes to humans.

>If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so.

Well, we could survey those same biologists. I think they would say no. Does it have DNA of a unique person different from the person it's in? I'm not a biologist, but I think no.

>World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders?

https://www.solidarity-party.org/

Their 2020 presidential candidate is so life-at-all-costs that his website TLD is life: https://briancarroll.life .

>Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. You say these people are the last to force their viewpoints on protecting life onto other people, but also they aggressively force their viewpoint on protecting life onto other people? That seems like a contradiction to me.

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

#460

Post by Thorrez »

ookdatnog wrote: post #277
Thorrez wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would you consider a chimera resulting from the fusion of two embryos as two people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

I would say it's similar to one person dying and another person getting a ton of transplants from that person.
Post reply on HN