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

Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#51

Post by logfromblammo »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #5
Zikes wrote: post #3

> They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many ethicists believe should never be taken. In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for ar…

> In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for artificially selecting for them then there should be no ethical quandaries beyond "but, that's cheating!" Or creating a permanent underclass from those who were unfortunate to have parents who couldn't or wouldn't give them the enhancements - and for that to carry…

The cost of a germ-line genetic enhancement is front-loaded on the first generation to get it. After that, the cost of sperm is incredibly cheap.

Newly-developed gene modifications will first appear in children of the wealthy. The sons of the rich will have plenty of one night stands. Many of them will be with women who have timed their ovulation and will collect the used prophylactics on their way to the bathroom. If you're poor, you just need to teach your daughters how to pick the right marks, and your grandchildren can inherit many of the traits that the rich are willing to pay for.

But this problem will only last a few generations due to purely technical limitations. The politics now will only determine whether gene modifications will be available on the open market or grey market in the future, because they will definitely be available on the black market and in the "secondary" market.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#52

Post by clusterfoo »

jaredhansen wrote: post #34

With apologies for the somewhat flip turn of phrase, if we outlaw human genome editing, then only outlaws will edit the human genome . States in general do not have a good track record at preventing things that can take place in a small room, with inexpensive equipment and few personnel. Consider the kinds of equipment, and its associated cost, needed for genome editing -- and compare to that required for development…

Agreed. This is the crux of the problem: if we're worrying about this leading to an "underclass"... does anyone think its illegality will prevent the ultra-wealthy from funding this technology?

And who will be overseeing the research? If it must be conducted in the dark and on a budget, does anyone doubt that human experimentation will take place?

No thanks.

Ethical or not, the cat is out of the bag and the only way is forward.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#54

Post by wnevets »

greggman wrote: post #20
wnevets wrote: post #7

Banning these methods won't stop the wealthy from using them. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. GATTACA here we come. edit: grammar

We've been at GATTACA since long ago. GATTACA is about a guy trying to sneak into the space program even though he has genes that say he's got a weak heart. How is that not already part of the space program? Requirements to be an astronaut http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/featu... * Distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected * Height between 62 and 75 inches. Both of those are based on…

Thats a very literal & narrow interpretation of the movie. Ethan Hawk's parents weren't upset when he was born because wasn't going to be in the space program, they were upset because he had inferior genes.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#55

Post by logfromblammo »

[deleted] wrote: post #45
jaredhansen wrote: post #34

With apologies for the somewhat flip turn of phrase, if we outlaw human genome editing, then only outlaws will edit the human genome . States in general do not have a good track record at preventing things that can take place in a small room, with inexpensive equipment and few personnel. Consider the kinds of equipment, and its associated cost, needed for genome editing -- and compare to that required for development…

[deleted]

An ethical moratorium doesn't outlaw the tech outright, but it does influence sources of funding, availability of laboratory facilities and capital, and the diversity of personnel willing to advance the state of the art.

It would be similar to the impact that an executive order by G.W.Bush had on stem cell research in the U.S. It was delayed by a few years, and some research moved overseas, but then the issue largely became moot when the tech progressed past the need for embryo harvesting.

At most, this would slow down gene mod tech for a few years, as the pressure in the djinn bottle builds. As long as we don't annihilate our civilization, it is practically inevitable that every human will one day have ready access to cheap gene mod tech, in the same way that they now have ready access to networked computer resources.

The only way to reasonably keep this tech out of the hands of the irresponsible public is to convince scientists to not develop it in the first place. And that's what this is. I question the motive behind the suggestion, but that's my foil hat talking.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#56

Post by Zikes »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #47
Zikes wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a trip on tumblr sometime and you'll see that the psychological drive to be a unique and special snowflake is strong enough that you have nothing to worry about.

The moment you mention the word "tumblr" as if it has a particular meaning, you lose all credibility.

If that's what it takes to lose credibility for you then I can't say I've lost anything of value.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#57

Post by Zikes »

diminoten wrote: post #42
Zikes wrote: post #3

> They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many ethicists believe should never be taken. In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for ar…

> In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, What are you talking about? The concept of beauty changes every generation (so what would we select for?), and IQ/fertility has, at best no definitive correlation (and many would argue it has a negative correlation)[0]. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

I'm talking about self-driven evolution. In the past it was selecting for traits which suited the environment of the time, and perhaps that did not include intelligence per se, but the concept remains valid.

I also never claimed that in all of human history we always chose the same traits for beauty, but we have always selected for what we felt like "beauty" was at the time, even if that meant selecting against an "uglier" option. It was never a straight line, and it probably never will be.

Beauty changing every generation may actually be a boon to the process, as well. If the majority of one generation selected for a particular beauty trait then it would lose its appeal, driving diversity as less people selected for it or more people selected alternatives.

We humans are a fickle lot, at least until we find the fickle gene.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#58

Post by diminoten »

Zikes wrote: post #57
diminoten wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, What are you talking about? The concept of beauty changes every generation (so what would we select for?), and IQ/fertility has, at best no definitive correlation (and many would argue it has a negative correlation)[0]. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

I'm talking about self-driven evolution. In the past it was selecting for traits which suited the environment of the time, and perhaps that did not include intelligence per se, but the concept remains valid. I also never claimed that in all of human history we always chose the same traits for beauty, but we have always selected for what we felt like "beauty" was at the time, even if that meant selecting against an "u…

You seem to forget that being attractive and having more kids are in no way correlated. Ugly people have kids too.

If you're not saying we're selecting for intelligence or beauty, then what are you saying? You claim "the concept holds true", but I'm not sure what the greater concept you're trying to explain is. That humans are still evolving?

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#59

Post by thwarted »

Zikes wrote: post #3

> They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many ethicists believe should never be taken. In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for ar…

In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for artificially selecting for them then there should be no ethical quandaries beyond "but, that's cheating!" There are no scorekeepers of the universe, nobody's going to give us karmic demerits for finding a shortcut.

I like the "there are no scorekeepers of the universe" line.

The ability for humans to use the intelligence that evolution has provided them for whatever they see fit, including the ability to better themselves and better the species as a whole (or, sadly and unfortunately, to hurt each other), should be considered part of the evolutionary process. Just because humans have intelligence doesn't mean they exist outside of evolution. In fact, not using our evolved intelligence to influence our genetic makeup is avoiding thinking about how and why we have this intelligence to begin with.

The ability for an organism to influence the genetic makeup of itself and its descending, through either gross methods like breeding/natural selection or discrete methods like genetic engineering/modification is really just one step out of many on the evolutionary ladder.

Re: Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

#60

Post by Zikes »

diminoten wrote: post #58
Zikes wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about self-driven evolution. In the past it was selecting for traits which suited the environment of the time, and perhaps that did not include intelligence per se, but the concept remains valid. I also never claimed that in all of human history we always chose the same traits for beauty, but we have always selected for what we felt like "beauty" was at the time, even if that meant selecting against an "u…

You seem to forget that being attractive and having more kids are in no way correlated. Ugly people have kids too. If you're not saying we're selecting for intelligence or beauty, then what are you saying? You claim "the concept holds true", but I'm not sure what the greater concept you're trying to explain is. That humans are still evolving?

> You seem to forget that being attractive and having more kids are in no way correlated.

Attractiveness plays absolutely no role in reproduction? I honestly don't know how to respond to that, I hope you've just phrased it poorly.

I'm not saying we're not selecting for intelligence or beauty, I'm saying we're not selecting for the same intelligence and beauty every generation. A few thousand years ago intelligence was being able to tie a pointy rock to the end of a stick, and that sure played a role in natural selection. "Intelligence" as I intended to convey is broadly defined, it's not just the modern definition of IQ but the skills to survive and thrive in the environment of the time.

Post reply on HN