Did you mean to post the same link for both?
Its not the same
Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
461–470 of 570 posts
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#462Honestly the biggest barriers to a lot of advancement right now in biology from medicine to our food supply depend squarely on getting uneducated people over their aversions to modern science. It is crazy. We are really at the “I don’t trust that locomotive/airplane/car” stage where what the public understands about the field is so far away from the state of the art and the risk considerations that have been put in p…
The problem is there is so little optimistic futurist media, the number of optimistic movies I've seen about the future I can count on my left hand. I can't square the blame entirely on Hollywood, but it's a shame there is so little discussed about the American state-of-the-art, something I believe China does better is center technological development in discourse, I see very little talk of the modern miracles we've witnessed outside of HN
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#463Research funded by the NIH which our government is actively gutting
Also, several of the key doctors and researchers were not born in the US. I'm sure plenty of researchers are now thinking twice about working in or moving to the US.
Edit: Still reading the article, but so far researchers working in the US have come from India, Russia, born to Taiwanese immigrants, and more.
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#464[flagged]
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, I'll bite: Who then was the first patient of any age to have a custom gene-editing treatment?
I know of at least one YouTuber who took a homemade treatment that alerted his GI system DNA to produce lactase so he could eat pizza again: https://youtu.be/J3FcbFqSoQY
That's not gene editing, but you could call it a gene therapy - he's introducing new fragments of DNA/RNA into his cells which then just float around and cause the right enzyme get made. Sometimes called upregulation. This is different to actually editing the existing DNA in the cell.
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#466I think it was here a few years ago that I read a comment saying that sick children will be the Trojan horse for normalizing gene editing of humans, because who could say no to sick children, right? Well, guess it's here now, so how long utill the eugenics wars start?
Not to argue semantics here but eugenics is arround selective breeding, this would allow for the opposite, even more breeding, especially in populations with hereditary ailments that would have refrained from the act in prior years. I do agree however that it is imperative greater common-sense regulations surrounding "aesthetic" or "performance" "modifications" (such callous words for young life) will need to be enacted.
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So much vitriol. I understand it's cool to hate on EA after the SBF fiasco, but this is just smearing. The key to scientific thinking is empiricism and rationalism. Some people in EA and lesswrong extend this to moral reasoning, but utilitarianism is not a pillar of these communities.
Empiricism and rationalism both tempered by a heavy dose of skepticism.
On the other hand, maybe that is some kind of fallacy itself. I almost want to say that "scientific thinking" should be called something else. The main issue being the lack of experiment. Using the word "science" without experiment leads to all sorts of nonsense.
A word that means "scientific thinking is much as possible without experiment" would at least embedded a dose of skepticism in the process.
The Achilles heel of rationalism is the descent into modeling complete nonsense. I should give lesswrong another chance I suppose because that would sum up my experience so far, empirically.
EA to me seems like obvious self serving nonsense. Hiding something in the obvious to avoid detection.
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “How to make superbabies” article demonstrates a couple of fundamental misunderstandings about genetics that make me think the authors don’t know what they’re talking about at a basic level. Zero mention of linkage disequilibrium. Zero mention of epistasis. Unquestioned assumptions of linear genotype-phenotype relationships for IQ. Seriously, the projections in their graphs into “danger zone” made me laugh out lo…
The EA community is generally incapable of self-awareness. The academic-but-totally-misinformed tone is comparable to reading LLM output. I've stopped trying to correct them, it's too much work on my part and not enough on theirs.
I once went into a LessWrong IRC server.
I posted a question where I referred to something by the wrong name.
Someone said I was confused / wrong, so I corrected myself and restated my question.
For some 10 minutes they just kept dogpiling on the use of the wrong term.
Never a bunch a stupider people have I met than LessWrong people.
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#469Could this be used to actually change the DNA of transgender people?
Even if it did, wouldn't the development of the wrong genitials for their preferred sex make an edit like this meaningless? The existence of XX AMAB and XY AFAB people goes to show that it's more about what happens in utero than what genes you have after birth.
Re: Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's gonna be that hard. All cells that blood reaches were happily taking mRNA vaccine.
No they were not. A vaccine triggers an immune response, not a functional change. mRNA vaccines are highly localized: you get a sore arm because most of it only gets taken up by muscle cells around the injection site, which spend some time producing the antigen and triggering a primary immune response (the inflammation aka the sore arm).
What I find interesting about the covid mRNA vaccine is I remember being sick in March 2020 and I can't remember being sick since.
I can remember getting a sniffle at night and waking up fine the next morning a few times.
I think I had two doses of covid mRNA vaccine.
I have actually forgot what it is like to be sick. It almost feels like the covid vaccine gave me some kind of super immunity. I never get the flu shot either. I have not had the flu in 5 years for sure.