GATTACA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, davos said:

Eventually using genetic editing tools to greatly reduce or even eliminate certain genetic diseases will be the norm.  We shouldn't hide from this technology.  We should make sure it is properly tested and that a proper regulatory and ethical environment is built around it to prevent abuse.  My concern with this is that it seems they jumped way ahead when we have only had successful animal trials not that long ago.  We would have been well advised to have a better understanding of what the risks and implications are before jumping into engineering traits in embryos. 

This is more or less position. I'm not against the technology, but I do fear they acted too hastily here without thinking through the potential consequences of their actions.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

There's no reason at all to introduce new things to the gene pool at this point, just replace the bad copy of the gene with a good one from the normal population, and that's not what happened here. From what I've read a gene has been deleted in order to prevent the production of a protein that HIV binds to. The ethical issues here are that there are other methods that work perfectly fine for preventing HIV infection for IFV, indeed since it's the father that was HIV positive and not the mother I don't actually see what this would prove writ HIV immunity, and that we can't be sure what the effect of not producing CCR5 protein will be. Which thinking about it more, I was being too dismissive on the potential impact on the children themselves. But as far as the impact of introducing these changes to the gene pool goes, its a change that exists in two people, two infants. In ~20 years, when we'll have far more advanced genetic engineering technology, then it will be introduced to the gene pool. So I'm not terribly worried about that.

Though regardless of how well this ends up working, this guy should probably have his license yanked for going about this with no oversight.

I appreciate the in-depth breakdown. Biology was my worst subject in high school, but that's largely because a beautiful woman I sat by in class.  I think you're correct to say that the likely impact will be small and not for a long time, but it's the lack of assurance that I was highlighting because unless I'm wrong, we cannot know for sure that that will be the case.  And if it was truly unnecessary, wouldn't that makes this all highly unethical?  

[TrueMetis]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I appreciate the in-depth breakdown. Biology was my worst subject in high school, but that's largely because a beautiful woman I sat by in class.  I think you're correct to say that the likely impact will be small and not for a long time, but it's the lack of assurance that I was highlighting because unless I'm wrong, we cannot know for sure that that will be the case. 

You're right, we can't ultimately know for sure, as unlikely as it is there is a possibility that this will cause harm above and beyond what it may do to the individuals.

Quote

And if it was truly unnecessary, wouldn't that makes this all highly unethical?  

Yes, this is ultimately pretty unethical for all sorts of reasons even if it works out 100% perfectly.

[Mudguard]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

If I recall correctly, CRISPR/Cas9 won't create alterations that can be passed on genetically; a "designer baby" will still pass on the unedited genes.

Most gene editing research is, I think, focused on that kind of genetic editing rather than germline editing in part because of those practical and ethical concerns.

No, if you use CRISPR/Cas9 technology to edit a single cell embryo, as was supposedly done by the Chinese researcher, every subsequent cell that develops from that edited first cell will essentially have the same DNA, meaning that all the cells of the person that develops from that edited embryo will have the alteration.  In this case, the edited gene could be passed to their future children. 

This is one of the reasons why the alleged research of the Chinese researcher is so controversial.  If the embryo survives and develops into an baby and then an adult, there is a chance the edited gene (and any unintentionally introduced alterations) could be propagated into the general population.

[Impmk2]

The more I read on this the dodgier it sounds.

This guy was on 'leave' from his institution, and this work was not published in any scientific journal and announced via the news media. Ie it's all completely unverified.

Basically it could all be bullshit.

 

[Lily Valley]

Neat.  I'll assume that the fetuses were tested for healthy development along the way.  As far as the mutation entering the gene pool, we have lots of variation between people already.  Evolution will work.  I think it could be used to cure a lot of diseases.  Sure, it's ethically a grey area.  That's not my field.  

[ithanos]

That this has happened is not unexpected. Kurzgesagt made an excellent video primer on CRISPR/Cas9 - for us laypeople - predicting such an event. 
 
However, the way this has come about seems highly unethical. This version highlights those concerns.  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/26/chinese-scientist-creates-worlds-first-genetically-edited-babies/

Quote

Tests suggest that one twin had both copies of the intended gene altered and the other twin had just one altered, with no evidence of harm to other genes, He said. People with one copy of the gene can still get HIV, although some very limited research suggests their health might decline more slowly once they do.

Several scientists reviewed materials that He provided to the AP and said tests so far are insufficient to say the editing worked or to rule out harm.

They also noted evidence that the editing was incomplete and that at least one twin appears to be a patchwork of cells with various changes.

"It's almost like not editing at all" if only some of certain cells were altered, because HIV infection can still occur, Church said.

Church and Musunuru questioned the decision to allow one of the embryos to be used in a pregnancy attempt, because the Chinese researchers said they knew in advance that both copies of the intended gene had not been altered.

"In that child, there really was almost nothing to be gained in terms of protection against HIV and yet you're exposing that child to all the unknown safety risks," Musunuru said.

The use of that embryo suggests that the researchers' "main emphasis was on testing editing rather than avoiding this disease," Church said.

The second symposium is today, so hopefully we get more details later in the week.
 

[Ice Queen]

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Something that strikes me about this is that I cannot imagine that we can stop it from happening.  I do not know a ton about CRISPR, but my impression is that it's being researched en masse now and is not something that's only possessed by a couple of government labs or something.  There's a ton of potential here for a cat that you cannot put back into the bag, so to speak.

and

There is a ton of potential for curing disease.

This is both terrifying and inspiring all at once.  Have at it, ethicists.  

Well, people being as shallow as they are, they're not going to have their embryos edited for, say, Addison's disease, MS, or any other potentially genetic disease. They're going to edit for a certain hair color, eye color, or engineering their kid to be the next Wayne Gretzky. And that will eventually lead us to the very premise of GATTACA referenced in the OP: discrimination based on genetics. People will pay higher insurance rates and may potentially be refused treatment for certain diseases because it will simply cost too much (or so they'll say) to treat a disease. 

DNA testing is now commonplace and commercially available. There have been fears for many years that insurance companies will use those data to jack up rates and prices. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

Neat.  I'll assume that the fetuses were tested for healthy development along the way.  As far as the mutation entering the gene pool, we have lots of variation between people already.  Evolution will work.  I think it could be used to cure a lot of diseases.  Sure, it's ethically a grey area.  That's not my field.  

I doubt many people have an issue with the fact that this technology can cure a myriad, and maybe all, diseases. The issue here is the lack of oversight and the process in which it was done. This scientist was completely reckless, and while I don’t think anything negative will come of this, it’s quite possible that something awful could result from similar actions.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Well, people being as shallow as they are, they're not going to have their embryos edited for, say, Addison's disease, MS, or any other potentially genetic disease. They're going to edit for a certain hair color, eye color, or engineering their kid to be the next Wayne Gretzky. And that will eventually lead us to the very premise of GATTACA referenced in the OP: discrimination based on genetics. People will pay higher insurance rates and may potentially be refused treatment for certain diseases because it will simply cost too much (or so they'll say) to treat a disease. 

DNA testing is now commonplace and commercially available. There have been fears for many years that insurance companies will use those data to jack up rates and prices. 

Yup. I remember seeing a report years ago that in the future, affluent individuals would be able to genetically engineer their kids to be more attractive and/or make them the next Michael Jordan. That seems far more unethical than engineering people to be immune to various diseases and birth defects.  

[S John]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. I remember seeing a report years ago that in the future, affluent individuals would be able to genetically engineer their kids to be more attractive and/or make them the next Michael Jordan. That seems far more unethical than engineering people to be immune to various diseases and birth defects.  

I completely agree with you, but to go on a tangent it makes me wonder to what extent you can engineer the intangibles.  It helps immensely that Jordan (just to roll with that example) was an athletic freak of nature in his playing days, but he was also extremely competitive and dedicated.  If Jordan preferred to sit around playing video games all day instead of practicing basketball he wouldn't have tapped into the potential of his genetics.  If we had 25 Jordan clones running around, but none of them had the attitude that Jordan had about the game then, without the drive and the desire to hone the skills, none of the 25 Michael Jordan clones can be the next Michael Jordan - even though they are literally Michael Jordan.  There's plenty of 6'6" athletes in the world, but only one Jordan.  Just interesting to think about.  If everyone were engineered to the same size and athleticism, I think it would still be very difficult to play a sport at a high level because the physical aspect is only part of it.  A very important part, but not everything.  

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. I remember seeing a report years ago that in the future, affluent individuals would be able to genetically engineer their kids to be more attractive and/or make them the next Michael Jordan. That seems far more unethical than engineering people to be immune to various diseases and birth defects.  

I don't see why this is more unethical. Affluent people have since the dawn of time tried to give their children every single advantage possible. From nutrition to exercise to environment to teaching to wealth to opportunity. How is this any more unethical than any of those things? Rigging the genetic lottery doesn't seem like any difference to me than being born rich. 

[maarsen]

39 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see why this is more unethical. Affluent people have since the dawn of time tried to give their children every single advantage possible. From nutrition to exercise to environment to teaching to wealth to opportunity. How is this any more unethical than any of those things? Rigging the genetic lottery doesn't seem like any difference to me than being born rich. 

By the time the third generation rolls around, grandaparents gifts have been squandered. I can foresee innumerable Michael Jordans wandering around with no interest in basketball, hoping to get a job on a GM electric car assembly plan. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

By the time the third generation rolls around, grandaparents gifts have been squandered. I can foresee innumerable Michael Jordans wandering around with no interest in basketball, hoping to get a job on a GM electric car assembly plan. 

I doubt very seriously that it'll be about getting Michael Jordan clones. That'll be the dream for, like, lottery winners in trailer parks, but for the actual rich who will be able to use this ahead of time it'll be about giving their kids incredibly long lives, intelligence, charisma and other designer traits that will keep the family line around for a while. They'll be going after the traits of Gates and Buffett and Obama and the like. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, S John said:

I completely agree with you, but to go on a tangent it makes me wonder to what extent you can engineer the intangibles.  It helps immensely that Jordan (just to roll with that example) was an athletic freak of nature in his playing days, but he was also extremely competitive and dedicated.  If Jordan preferred to sit around playing video games all day instead of practicing basketball he wouldn't have tapped into the potential of his genetics.  If we had 25 Jordan clones running around, but none of them had the attitude that Jordan had about the game then, without the drive and the desire to hone the skills, none of the 25 Michael Jordan clones can be the next Michael Jordan - even though they are literally Michael Jordan.  There's plenty of 6'6" athletes in the world, but only one Jordan.  Just interesting to think about.  If everyone were engineered to the same size and athleticism, I think it would still be very difficult to play a sport at a high level because the physical aspect is only part of it.  A very important part, but not everything.  

Oh you probably can't, and that's not exactly what I meant by saying the next superstar athlete. I'm just touching on how they can alter their physical size and strengths, and I'm sure they can make it far more likely for the baby to be a super genius. 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see why this is more unethical. Affluent people have since the dawn of time tried to give their children every single advantage possible. From nutrition to exercise to environment to teaching to wealth to opportunity. How is this any more unethical than any of those things? Rigging the genetic lottery doesn't seem like any difference to me than being born rich. 

It would be extremely unethical if 99% of the people are priced out of this technology, because it won't take very long for their to be two different sub-spices within humans, hence the title of the thread.

And on a grimmer note, we can to some degree hypothesize what happens when one far out evolves the other.   

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It would be extremely unethical if 99% of the people are priced out of this technology, because it won't take very long for their to be two different sub-spices within humans, hence the title of the thread. 

Again, I don't see how this is different than the current system. Genetics, as great as they are, are not nearly the win that wealth is as far as predictive quality of life. How is that any more unethical than billionaires already? How is that any more unethical than sports cars existing when people are starving? 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

And on a grimmer note, we can to some degree hypothesize what happens when one far out evolves the other.   

I'm far more concerned with non-human intelligence than I am better humans. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I don't see how this is different than the current system. Genetics, as great as they are, are not nearly the win that wealth is as far as predictive quality of life. How is that any more unethical than billionaires already? How is that any more unethical than sports cars existing when people are starving? 

Yeah, but my point is a small group people would have all that plus they'd turn themselves into super humans. 

Quote

I'm far more concerned with non-human intelligence than I am better humans. 

?

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, but my point is a small group people would have all that plus they'd turn themselves into super humans. 

So? 

Again, what would that change compared to what we have now? What would Warren Buffett be different if he was a bit smarter than he is now? They might be really really good humans, but they'd still be human. 

Now, if you're talking about genetic alterations that are adding things to the human genome to make it different than a baseline human, that's a different and far more dangerous thing to do on a lot of levels - but making people better humans doesn't scare me that much. It's unfair, but so is being born rich. 

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

?

Humans have limits to their abilities and expertise. Their bodies and brains and emotions all have a certain spectrum, and while we're not 100% sure what every combination looks like we can extrapolate that we're not going to get, say, Spider-Man or something. As long as we stay within the actual human genome, there's only so much we can do, and only so far humans can go as far as being evil. 

And honestly, humans are plenty good at being evil while staying on the baseline. I don't see that changing. 

But nonhuman intelligence? Intelligence that does not think or dream or behave like humans do? That's far scarier. 

[lokisnow]

11 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Well, people being as shallow as they are, they're not going to have their embryos edited for, say, Addison's disease, MS, or any other potentially genetic disease. They're going to edit for a certain hair color, eye color, or engineering their kid to be the next Wayne Gretzky. And that will eventually lead us to the very premise of GATTACA referenced in the OP: discrimination based on genetics. People will pay higher insurance rates and may potentially be refused treatment for certain diseases because it will simply cost too much (or so they'll say) to treat a disease. 

DNA testing is now commonplace and commercially available. There have been fears for many years that insurance companies will use those data to jack up rates and prices. 

Want to make this so controversial republicans immediately ban it forever?

leak that we can edit genes so that black babies are born white. 

This would rightly horrify the entire black community and would immediately terrify all white republicans into immediate action, because it would mean that black people would look just like them and that would be beyond the pale.

but of course according to dr Seuss the republican sneetches would immediately decide to remove stars upon thars, that is to say the white republicans would En masse decide to change their children’s skin color in retaliation to black people claiming whiteness.

[lacuna]

Why is it a given that prices will be gouged to a level only available for the super rich? The science is out there and available. I envision "package deals", "affordable rates", "limited time offer" "NOW 50 % OFF ON HAZEL EYES!".