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

Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#81

Post by dang »

vlian2088 wrote: post #80
dang wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

I'm responding to flamebait, not posting it. and expressing my point of view in a sentence or two instead of the usual walls of watered down text common here does not make it unsubstantive.

If you mean you aren't intending to post flamebait, of course I believe you, but your posts have certainly been flamebaity in the sense that we use the term here, which is mostly about the effects such posts tend to have (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

Snark, provocation, denunciatory rhetoric, comments with high indignation/information ratio - all this is against the site guidelines. We're not talking about borderline calls here!

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#82

Post by vlian2088 »

arghwhat wrote: post #20
cm2187 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is "eugenics" has two meanings which is unhelpful for this discussion. 1) criminal practices of forced sterilisations, ethnic cleansing and mass assassinations to phase out undesired genes 2) the more generic practice of trying to improve the genetic characteristics of your children. I don't think there is much point in debating 1). But we would be naive to think we are not already doing 2). What else is…

A problem is that some see 2 as a subset of 1, upset at the idea that parents would wish to terminate pregnancies early that have strong indications of defects. I do imagine a good chunk of those people are of the horribly broken belief that abortions should be outlawed altogether, so not sure how many specifically go against such "filtering". Granted, if everyone were sequenced and had access to that information it…

>I do imagine a good chunk of those people are of the horribly broken belief that abortions should be outlawed altogether, so not sure how many specifically go against such "filtering".

no, it is quite quite bafflingly the other way around. those who are against abortions non-religiously almost always make exceptions for rape, risk to the woman's life or health, and things like Down's.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#83

Post by tsoukase »

At least in my country a blood sample is taken from every newborn to test for specific preventable genetic diseases (eg phenyl-ketonuria).

A baby will become a powerful adult after 30 years, when their DNA info might become valuable (for forensic, health, research or other reasons). It's a long time for the investment to return. Why not sequence all people's DNA now, obligatory by law. All that it's needed is a little saliva and a wide lab infra.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#84

Post by sometimelurker »

tsoukase wrote: post #83

At least in my country a blood sample is taken from every newborn to test for specific preventable genetic diseases (eg phenyl-ketonuria). A baby will become a powerful adult after 30 years, when their DNA info might become valuable (for forensic, health, research or other reasons). It's a long time for the investment to return. Why not sequence all people's DNA now, obligatory by law. All that it's needed is a littl…

> not sequence all people's DNA

While the people in power yesterday/today might not abuse databases of their entire population's DNA, those of today/tomorrow might. In the long-run, of 10y,20y, 50+y, you cannot guarantee this information will not be used for extreme harm. This is different that vaccines. Not everyone can be vaccinated, so to ensure that everyone is protected, everyone must be vaccinated. DNA sequencing at most only helps the person and at most their offspring. It should be a choice, and not mandatory.

> my country

out of curiosity, what country?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#85

Post by sometimelurker »

amelius wrote: post #38
newqer wrote: post #3

This is just one step away from eugenics. When the data is in the machine, you just know it will be used for malicious activities.

We're turning into bananas. > Almost all commercially sold bananas (the Cavendish variety) are exact genetic clones

The antidote to that (I think, I've got loose vibes about biology and genetics) would probably be introducing more variation via some manipulation of the genome, maybe crispr?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#86

Post by eru »

trollbridge wrote: post #9
eru wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like applying that label automatically makes it a bad thing. See https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/galton-ehrlich-buck for an elaboration.

So far, the gathering of great deals of data on people has not been used for purposes that benefit such people. For example, one of the biggest uses of mass surveillance and data collection is to improve the targeting of marketing, which generally does not benefit the people being marketed to, and indeed often is done to their detriment. And then a side effect of all of this is that this huge mass of data is just sit…

> So far, the gathering of great deals of data on people has not been used for purposes that benefit such people.

Do you know how they make shoes or clothing off-the-rack that fit most people?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#87

Post by eru »

cm2187 wrote: post #11
newqer wrote: post #3

This is just one step away from eugenics. When the data is in the machine, you just know it will be used for malicious activities.

The problem is "eugenics" has two meanings which is unhelpful for this discussion. 1) criminal practices of forced sterilisations, ethnic cleansing and mass assassinations to phase out undesired genes 2) the more generic practice of trying to improve the genetic characteristics of your children. I don't think there is much point in debating 1). But we would be naive to think we are not already doing 2). What else is…

> 1) criminal practices of forced sterilisations, ethnic cleansing and mass assassinations to phase out undesired genes

Whether it's criminal or not depends on the jurisdiction in question.

Even abhorrent things can be perfectly legal, and many good things are criminalised.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#88

Post by eru »

cm2187 wrote: post #30
arghwhat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no path that turns "I would like to terminate my pregnancy if the outcome is unfavorable" into "I would like to commit genocide on everyone whose genetics I do not like". Granted, someone who already wishes for or aligns with the idea of ethnic cleansing might start by only publicly sharing their wish for the former to begin with, but I don't see a sensible argument for it being a natural extension of the fo…

I agree, though one could make the argument that our modern nanny states have been pretty brutal at enforcing health policies during covid, and if they convince themselves that they can eradicate certain diseases by mandating DNA patching or pregnancy terminations, them doing so "for our own good" is in the realm of the possible. But we are in coercion territory. What I am saying that we already practice eugenics wit…

As far as I can tell, our modern nanny states haven't been 'pretty brutal at enforce health policies during covid'.

I agree that there were pretty strong restrictions, many of them unnecessary. But in most places the population was pretty compliant or otherwise ignored the demands. I don't remember much brutality.

What's your evidence for brutality?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#89

Post by pibaker »

inglor_cz wrote: post #58
laszlokorte wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I would like my child to not be deaf" -> "Many (most?) people would prefer their child to not be deaf" -> (3) "Deaf community shrinks" -> "Social support for deaf people is reduced/seen as not necessary" -> "Parents of deaf children are blamed for carrying out the child" -> "Parents are nudged (forced) to terminate the pregnancy" -> goto (3) In a some way this is already happening (eg Judges forcing cochlea implants…

Many people see the deaf community as something that should ideally disappear by curing them. I wonder if 100 years ago, the same activists would fight for survival of the leprosy community and its specific culture. I can understand glorifying pathology if nothing can be done about it. It is a form of coping, similar to the coping that we usually engage in with regard to death. But once the underlying condition start…

Should "many people" get to decide what the deaf community, whatever that means, should do, even when the people affected do not agree?

We are not even a hundred years away from when they tried to make Jews disappear forever.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#90

Post by cindyllm »

pibaker wrote: post #89
inglor_cz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people see the deaf community as something that should ideally disappear by curing them. I wonder if 100 years ago, the same activists would fight for survival of the leprosy community and its specific culture. I can understand glorifying pathology if nothing can be done about it. It is a form of coping, similar to the coping that we usually engage in with regard to death. But once the underlying condition start…

Should "many people" get to decide what the deaf community, whatever that means, should do, even when the people affected do not agree? We are not even a hundred years away from when they tried to make Jews disappear forever.

[dead]
Post reply on HN