Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

51–52 of 52 posts

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#51

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #29

anvandare wrote: post #8

First one to get the (nuclear|genetic|quantum decryptor| ...) superweapon wins. That's been always true. Any government who's currently protesting and proclaiming they never will partake in it are either (1) idiots or (2) lying.

This was a straightforwards application of well understood and disseminated science, it is entirely unlike a secret superweapon. Even if this technique is banned in the US and not in China I have no doubt that many Americans would still play medical tourist to have enhanced babies. There might be large differences in the willingness of Chinese versus American parents to have their children modified but that isn't a m…

The Manhattan project was also a straightforward application of known science. The US didn't discover nuclear fission in the desert. Atomic weaponry had been known to be possible for decades; the US was just the first to do it.

I strongly support further research in this area and think that regulatory means to stop it will be both ineffectual and harmful.

Re: Editing Babies? We Need to Learn a Lot More First

#52

Post by candiodari » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #23

candiodari wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the event reported on is almost certainly a scam (HIV resistance ? Seriously ?). But let's assume it's valid. But I don't agree at all with the sentiment. Most/all current gene editing is about fixing known issues, and in nearly all cases (at the moment) it seems like the edited gene, even if it goes disastrously wrong, would still be superior to the "natural" gene. E.g. MVD, MS, ... Should we also outlaw (and…

This seems like a reasonable justification but there still the ethical thorn of "the child did not ask/consented to this". If science ethics can get beyond that border, then the new standard might be to seek out rare genetic defects throughout the world and attempt treatments in parallel.

You must really hate abortion then. At that point not only did the child not consent, we can be VERY sure it would disagree.

(and just so you know. The human brain "boots", as in starts processing information and interacting with it's environment, on the 16th day after conception. When the embryo doesn't look remotely human yet, and importantly a solid 5-12 days before even an attentive woman would realize she's pregnant, and therefore presumably before any abortion)

Post reply on HN