Live data from Hacker News

UK to allow babies from three people

bbc.com

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#81
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the GATTACA argument that unequal access to genetic modification will foster even greater socioeconomic inequality than we already face today. The film imagined a future in which genetic superiority could be measured by percentile and that job eligibility was based almost exclusively on your genetic score. The implication is that the widespread but costly availability of genetic modification in tandem with f…

> There is the GATTACA argument that unequal access to genetic modification will foster even greater socioeconomic inequality than we already face today. Absolutely nothing we can do artificially will have as great of an impact than genetically gifted individuals having children together ... which is already happening and has been happening for eons ... I mean, that's what evolution is. The smart get smarter, the fas…

> The smart get smarter, the fast get faster, the strong get stronger, and the inferior disappear from the gene pool.

That stopped some time ago for humans, at least in industralized countries. Modern medicine, long periods of peace and (eventually) welfare provisions have taken care of that. This is a further step in that direction.

Evolution works over huge numbers, both in life and death; by effectively reducing the death-count around the globe, we're progressively abolishing it for humans.

> If anything, genetic modification will allow the less gifted to pool funds and improve their own gene pool in a way that was simply not possible before.

I fear that "pooling funds" could signal a mischaracterization of poor people as "less gifted", which is absolutely not the case. "The poor" are the ones who have historically improved our genepool, by constantly churning huge numbers of children who would then proceed to fight to death (often literally) for survival and success. "The rich" have always opted for in-breeding, low numbers and social welfare among their peers, resulting in weak genes and lots of hereditary diseases surviving the centuries. In this sense, "the poor" have absolutely nothing to gain from genetic manipulation: children are their only resource and they will continue to produce as many as they can, resulting in a stronger and more variegated gene pool without having to add anything to the process.

The GATTACA scenario is real in the sense that a certain mindset is common around modern elites, a view that the rich must be somehow superior to the poor (smarter, healthier, harder-working, etc) otherwise they wouldn't be where they are. Policies like Tony Blair's suggestion that "fat people should pay more for healthcare" are appallingly neo-darwinistic, but they've also been mostly rejected out of a sense of human decency. I expect this will continue to be the case; as a lot of modern history reminds us, it takes very little to send entire populations back to the Middle Ages, and genetic discrimination would light a very powerful fuse.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#82

It seems to me that the 'three people' metaphor is a bit misguided. I'd look at it as an organ donor-ship to an embryo - just a special organ that gets copied into every cell.

It's not, really, it's the other way around. The "mother's" nucleus is transplanted into the donor's nucleus-less egg (which has all the mitochondria). The appropriate analogy would be transplanting one person's brain into another person's body.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#84
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the GATTACA argument that unequal access to genetic modification will foster even greater socioeconomic inequality than we already face today. The film imagined a future in which genetic superiority could be measured by percentile and that job eligibility was based almost exclusively on your genetic score. The implication is that the widespread but costly availability of genetic modification in tandem with f…

> There is the GATTACA argument that unequal access to genetic modification will foster even greater socioeconomic inequality than we already face today. Absolutely nothing we can do artificially will have as great of an impact than genetically gifted individuals having children together ... which is already happening and has been happening for eons ... I mean, that's what evolution is. The smart get smarter, the fas…

"I mean, that's what evolution is. The smart get smarter, the fast get faster, the strong get stronger, and the inferior disappear from the gene pool."

That's not "what evolution is". See [1] for why this is a fundamentally wrong way to think about it.

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#85
Just to add for (evolution): GATTACA Argument Darwinism

We have to keep in mind that, e.g. in Japan the fertility rate is 1.4/woman.

The rich people make less children than poor.

Beside, in rich countries fertility rate is dropping, especially in big cities.

Therefore, one way of seen this could be just as palliative.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#87
I really hate this sensational "from three people" thing.

It's a mitochondria transplant.

We don't start calling people "frankenstein's monsters" because they've had a lung transplant, even though that technically makes them a "person from FOUR people!" Shock!

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies" Well...this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans.

But no DNA is being modified.

Technically you are correct, no DNA is being modified. However, the mix of genetic material is being altered.

Re: UK to allow babies from three people

#89
post #60

I can just hear the guy who wrote the software for creating UK birth certificates: "I know for sure that I need to display two parents max on these." And I feel for the poor programmer whose job it is to deal with the brand-new edge case of putting three parents' names on one.

For most purposes I think two parents would be enough, even if the child was born using more than two parents. Generally the decision to have a child, and the decision to be a family is complicated enough with two people. A third person to have "rights" over the child can only mess up stuff.

In Australia children are assigned independent legal representation in the Family Law Courts. Australia has taken steps to shift away from parents having rights over children and moving toward children having rights (to be safe, cared for, to see their parents, etc).

I would hazard a guess there is a possibility, down the track, that a court will have to determine whether a child has a right to know from whom her DNA comes.

It will be interesting to see, from the comfort of my arm chair, how this all unfolds over time.

Post reply on HN