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

CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#51

Post by nyolfen »

jcranmer wrote: post #39
state_less wrote: post #15

I feel like this turns babies into technology. We might have version 1 where babies aren't likely to get HIV or some other malady. Next round, perhaps we'll see more height, different skin color, increased intelligence. If it's like any other product, it appears babies would be coming out of a factory and with tiers for different features you can buy based on your purchasing power. Sort of like buying an iPhone excep…

Okay, let's get this silly sci-fi trope out the way. Genetics doesn't work like that. We don't have a clue how to edit DNA to make people smarter or taller or stronger. And there's no sign that we're going to get to that knowledge sometime this century. Furthermore, what we do know about our genome and our proteome strongly suggests that lots of stuff are doing double-duty. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia als…

>We don't have a clue how to edit DNA to make people smarter or taller or stronger. And there's no sign that we're going to get to that knowledge sometime this century.

iterated embryo selection for those traits is at most 10-15 years away, though i suspect much closer

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#52

Post by tekproxy »

rmellow wrote: post #33
songco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ok and good thing if the results is only positive like "Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter". (Maybe not include Bigger?) The worst part of this is that it may not safe. If this introduced some flaws in the babies gene, how to control this, don't allow them have babies?

Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior. Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority d…

Dna is just information. Can you point me in the direction of the universe where information is easy to hide and control?

Look how easy information spreads now. Github, Wikipedia, music, YouTube, etc. You think dna is easy to drm?

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#53

Post by idrios »

joesb wrote: post #45
rmellow wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior. Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority d…

On one hand, I kinda agree with you. On the other hand, I usually stop and inspect myself whenever my reasoning that something is bad is not because it hurts me, but because I can't accept to see others improve. Good rule of thumb is that people should have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't violate other people's right. How does a rich family violate poor family's right by making their rich baby better…

> Good rule of thumb is that people should have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't violate other people's right.

On the micro-economics scale, I would not only agree with you, but argue that a successful society depends on it. Just as you should be allowed to participate in whatever harmless recreational activities you like at your own home, so should you be able to keep for yourself anything you've made or earned. Without these freedoms, people lose their incentives to be productive members of society.

However, this breaks down on the macro scale when feedback loops get out of control. Monopolies, duopolies and the like are pretty accepted as bad for economic growth because they have the resources to crush competition and have total control over markets. But monopolies are often just the result of a company that was first to market, had economies of scale, entrenched themselves through legislation, maintained an established brand, and had other feedback loops to strengthen themselves.

Just as we break up monopolies to give competition a chance, we should be working hard to break feedback loops that enforce hierarchy of classes so we can give everyone a chance to be successful or fail on their own.

The parent comment is correct that genetically engineered babies would likely be a mechanism for the socio-economically powerful to entrench their status further. It's not necessarily an argument for outright banning CRISPR babies, but giving more power to rich families absolutely does harm poor families by putting the poor families at a competitive disadvantage.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#54

Post by tejtm »

tekproxy wrote: post #52
rmellow wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior. Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority d…

Dna is just information. Can you point me in the direction of the universe where information is easy to hide and control? Look how easy information spreads now. Github, Wikipedia, music, YouTube, etc. You think dna is easy to drm?

Bayer manages.

Monsanto sues

About 271,000 results (0.36 seconds)

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#55

Post by anonytrary »

kingkawn wrote: post #23
jostmey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you seek medical authorization, you will find that no one will approve it

Because it will most likely lead to inhumane atrocities that would turn the general public against the technology for a generation

This anti-science stance is one based on fear, and that's not how society advances. Nothing should be banned from experiment and testing in controlled labs. Banning things preemptively out of fear is a sorry display of hubris. We do not know what technologies will be good or bad until we research and try them.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#56

Post by anonytrary »

rfreiberger wrote: post #21

Given the age of the babies and CRISPR technology, how long before we find a rush of Olympic records suddenly broken by surprise athletes?

You mean, how long until the olympic records stop being important to society? There are many things that were made obsolete by technology. Exerting human strength for sport may be made obsolete, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#57

Post by anonytrary »

bilbo0s wrote: post #16
state_less wrote: post #15

I feel like this turns babies into technology. We might have version 1 where babies aren't likely to get HIV or some other malady. Next round, perhaps we'll see more height, different skin color, increased intelligence. If it's like any other product, it appears babies would be coming out of a factory and with tiers for different features you can buy based on your purchasing power. Sort of like buying an iPhone excep…

The worst part is that by the time they were in Kindergarten, the newer models would obsolete them. Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter! Now 10% off!

That wouldn't be this scientists fault. We shouldn't blame the researchers, but should blame the people who wield the technology. We can't blame the guy who invented the firearm for every death related to firearms. Plus, he explicitly states here how he is against that future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th0vnOmFltc&app=desktop

Whether or not humans are responsible to equip technology is not really a concern to people who are advancing science, and maybe it shouldn't be.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#59

Post by dallashoxton »

rmellow wrote: post #33
songco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ok and good thing if the results is only positive like "Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter". (Maybe not include Bigger?) The worst part of this is that it may not safe. If this introduced some flaws in the babies gene, how to control this, don't allow them have babies?

Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior. Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority d…

Thing is that any society that hesitates on adopting genetic engineering out of some fear of exacerbating income inequality or whatever is going to lose out in the long run to any civilization that has no such ethical hangups about genetic engineering. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

Re: CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university

#60

Post by jobigoud »

duxup wrote: post #49
bilbo0s wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is that by the time they were in Kindergarten, the newer models would obsolete them. Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter! Now 10% off!

I wonder if a new version, new advancement would be a terror for everyone else. They'd drop a social step, can't do things, less needed, etc. The movie Gattaca explored this a bit. People in the film are heavily defined by their engineering. They might not BE just engineered, but being superior, or inferior is all encompassing. It becomes all they are. In the film it is a bit of a curse even for the best. Jerome fail…

Many people have trouble communicating with the younger generation because they have their own ways and use technology more intuitively.

Now imagine the generational gap if the youth is 20% smarter than their parents.

Post reply on HN