Scientists: It's Time To Resolve the Ethics of Editing Human Genome

An anonymous reader writes: We've previously discussed a system called CRISPR-cas9, which is dramatically reducing the cost and effort required to do gene editing. In fact, the barrier to entry is now so low that a group of biologists is calling for a moratorium on using the method to modify the human genome. Writing in the journal Science (abstract), the scientists warn that we've reached the point where the ethical questions surrounding DNA alteration can be put off no longer. David Baltimore, one of the group's members, said, "You could exert control over human heredity with this technique, and that is why we are raising the issue. ... I personally think we are just not smart enough — and won't be for a very long time — to feel comfortable about the consequences of changing heredity, even in a single individual." Another group of scientists called for a similar halt to human germline modification, and the International Society for Stem Cell Research says it agrees.

Comments

fathers

[bigdavex]

I can see fathers objecting to their daughter's suitors on the grounds that they are GMOs. They'll start to demand labeling.

Re:fathers

[meta-monkey]

"List of upgrades includes 'magnum-sized dong.'"

Hrrrmmmm...

Re:fathers

[Catbeller]

I once thought Bob Heinlein was a bit too cynical in "Friday", a world of the near future where designed humans - optimized for health, etc. - were considered subhuman ungodly creatures that were trained from birth to be subordinate to the point where Friday was trained to be a prostitute from birth. And once again, Grandfather knew his fellow Missourans well - and I must move my needle downwards again. A baby made in a back seat by two morons who can't find a condom is superior, "ethically" speaking, to a baby with maladapted genes removed.
I'm old enough to recall the moment where the "Genetic Ethics" profession was born. I believe it was when Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammalian clone that made it out of the chute alive. The "ethics" chair was created that week, and self-appointed experts at once popped up on TV to tell us what was right and what was wrong. The nature of journalists embraces the idea of the professional expert, so these carpetbaggers hopped up to take charge.
Most of the "ethicsists" are fundamental christian types or outright clergy, I'd guess from my Heinlein-trained cynical mind, as most media censors are. I do not take orders from them.

Re:fathers

[Hartree]

We demand all natural chemical free son-in-laws!

Re:fathers

[BarbaraHudson]

The worst part was that most of those self-appointed ethicists was that, just listening to them,, it should have been painfully the underlying objection was quasi-religious, No testing, no studies, no empirical evidence, just mental masturbation.

Ask anyone suffering from a chronic disease if they would like the genes involved to be edited out in their offspring - there will be plenty of motivated volunteers. After all, they have first-hand experience with what it's like with bad genes.

And yes, Heinlein was AMAZING !!!

Re:fathers

[GameboyRMH]

A baby made in a back seat by two morons who can't find a condom is superior, "ethically" speaking, to a baby with maladapted genes removed.

This. We've modified the human genome in most imaginable ways already, most often with no real aim, but the moment we do it intentionally and purposefully it's a big ethical problem?

Reminds me of the idiots who are categorically opposed to all geoengineering.

Re:fathers

[Catbeller]

Amen, brother Alec.

Re:fathers

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since I learned about the Mighty Mouse gene, and the more I read about the genetic effects which cause our physical fitness level, I've been really contemplating the moment that genetic engineering becomes good enough to induce changes like that in people.

The mighty mouse gene, for those who don't know, is a combination of genes which, if they are both correct, will cause a lab mouse to become highly muscular, very lean, and very energetic. It also causes them to live 10% longer. In Germany, they found a woman with one of the two genes, who was an accomplished triathlete. Her child was of particular interest, because he had both genes, and exhibited extreme strength for his age.

We already, as a society, judge someone who has lucked upon the Mighty Mouse gene who naturally is stronger and thinner as a better and more virtuous human being than someone who did not luck upon that mutation as a better person. If we could level that playing field by allowing everyone with the economic means to have that potential advantage, to me it's a muddy ethical water. You might argue that we don't know the consequences of action, but I'd argue we definitely know the consequences of continued inaction: Inequality based on a mistake that occurred at our birth.

A lot of people here have another advantage: We happen to have, because of genetic accidents, a higher than average affinity for technology and the like. We happen to have a very useful genetic advantage, and people judge us as better more virtuous people for a mistake that occurred at our birth.

If we judge someone by a genetic accident like their skin colour, we have collectively (and correctly) decided that's wrong. Now, that's a genetic accident that I don't think we ought to be changing. Racism isn't really a chromatic problem. However, we also judge people by genetic accidents like their inherent intelligence, their inherent physical fitness, their height, and other things with a strong genetic element. What if for those things, we could eliminate inequality by rewriting the genetic accidents that caused it?

Imagine the boon for freedom of choice. Right now, what you do with your life is going to be in part decided by the genetic accidents you've been blessed or cursed with. A person who comes from a fat family probably isn't going to be an Olympic athlete, no matter how hard they work. A person whose family has a large number of people with an IQ of 80 probably isn't going to head out and become a rockstar computer programmer, no matter how hard they work. If you could correct for these accidents, then people would be free to choose whatever they wanted to do, and they'd be limited only by their willingness to do the hard work to achieve.

Re:fathers

[ColdWetDog]

Think Saurons, think SS shock troops, think of all the 'cool' things that humans have aspired to in the past (and future).

Now, just placing ethical constraints on these sorts of experiments won't get you very far. It's not like a full blown DNA lab is beyond any villainous billionaire with a volcano (or small country with some sort of GDP).

I suspect that in our children's lifetimes (not particularly ours, the technology is still pretty primitive and new) that genetically 'enhanced' humans will start to appear. Then it will seem like our dystopian science fiction authors were but Pollyannas.

Re:fathers

[ColdWetDog]

Yeah, no DNA!

Re: fathers

[websensei]

As if the chasm between haves and the have-nots wasn't wide enough already... now lucking into a wealthy family will get the "born on 3rd base" advantages amplified by an order of magnitude.

Specific consequences are impossible to predict, but I susect the kind of permanent, intergenerational inequality this would engender would not make for a more peaceful planet.

As a cancer survivor (grade 4 GBMO), I am a natural mutant with a lot at stake. But altering genes to prevent disease is not the same thing as optimizing your progeny's IQ or height.

Re: fathers

[Anonymous Coward]

You could make the same argument against all sorts of therapies. We wiped out polio and other diseases in the first world using vaccines, we mass produced antibiotics, and in so doing improved the quality of life for people in the first world. You could say "We should stop producing antibiotics and vaccines because people who can't afford them don't get the benefit!" -- If you wanted to really push it, you could claim "We should not use our knowledge of nutrition! It isn't fair that someone in the first world should know what to eat to be healthy when a poor person in a wartorn nation can't!"

But in reality, a rising tide lifts all boats. The same technologies that help those in the first world eventually become less expensive and are implemented in the developing world, and so the quality of life for all people is improved.

Look at cell phones. You could argue that their existence is a huge advantage to the most privileged people on earth, and by the logic you've presented, we should throw the technology away. However; that same technology is now being rapidly deployed to developing nations, and having that instant access to information is helping farmers get access to resources they simply didn't and couldn't have before. The tide is rising, and it's not just helping the richest people, but the poorest people have a better quality of life.

Re:fathers

[ShanghaiBill]

Yes, if they saw the Neanderthal that my daughter is dating, they would have to admit that almost any genetic modification would more than likely be an improvement.

Re:fathers

[ultranova]

A baby made in a back seat by two morons who can't find a condom is superior, "ethically" speaking, to a baby with maladapted genes removed.

Which is bullshit. What's being debated is whether it's right to make experiments who's consequences a person who can't consent to them has to carry. If your attempt to remove "maladapted genes" ends up causing early-onset dementia, what are you going to do?

The two morons have a right to procreate. So far, every attempt to curtail that right has resulted in material fit to inspire horror writers. On the other hand, there's no fundamental right to perform human experiments on helpless victims.

Finally, even assuming realiable genetic technology, it's highly questionable whether human species is mature enough to take over trait selection from nature. Remember, it's these same morons who "can't find a condom" who get to custom design their kid. Do you believe the result would be an improvement?

Re:fathers

[Anonymous Coward]

Barcode tattoo in the back of the neck! And a clean shaven head, a black suit, white shirt and red tie!

If that guy comes looking for you, dive to the ground, play possum, and pray that he will be fooled and walk away.

Re:fathers

[ShanghaiBill]

What I find most disturbing is their presumption that "they" have the right to decide for "us". Each individual should decide for themselves what is and isn't done with their genome. It is nobody else's damn business.

Re:fathers

[artur9]

Most ethicists I would wager are trained in the branch of philosophy known as Ethics.

The religious types generally fail out of that :-)

Re:fathers

[maorb]

A lot of people here have another advantage: We happen to have, because of genetic accidents, a higher than average affinity for technology and the like. We happen to have a very useful genetic advantage, and people judge us as better more virtuous people for a mistake that occurred at our birth.

The 'mistake' didn't happen at our birth. Most people tend not to procreate randomly, instead finding a partner with traits they find desirable. Intelligence is a common trait to select for in a prospective partner. While there are still unforeseeable consequences such as predispositions towards certain cancers and diseases as well as birth defects, intelligence and strength are traits that are too often purposefully selected even before conception to call a mistake since the odds were skewed in your favor based on your parents dating habits, which were decidedly not random (although likely not done with genetics at the forefront of the mind).

Re:fathers

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to see parallels between the upcoming genome engineering of the 21st century and the eugenics of the early 20th century (which ultimately helped lead to the holocaust).

Genomic engineering will be an amazing tool which will wipe out all sorts of diseases, starting with the single-gene ones. But it will also be something corrupted by people for all sorts of less than ideal ends. Eugenics was a machete that governments used to try to artificially select for or against whole groups of people. Genomic engineering will be a scalpel used on a more individual level and the results will probably be more subtle, but no less weighty.

Re:fathers

[Ambassador Kosh]

Using CRISPR-CAS9 you can modify an adult organism just fine. It is only in science fiction where this stuff can't only be done before birth.

Also this technology has only existed for a few years. Originally CRISPR-CAS9 was ABANDONED by the creators as not workable. It took others to prove it worked at a genetic engineering competition. Now it has becoming the standard by which we judge other techniques in about a year.

This stuff is moving faster than any of these prediction makers can imagine. I also have not ethical problems with genetic engineering on humans. It should follow the same rules as any other medication. We know some of the genes in your body that allow you to develop cancer in the first place and we know sequences that make better versions of the gene that essentially make you immune to cancer. The idea of getting an upgrade so that if you have cancer it will be cured and you could not get it again or get the treatment and never have to worry about it is GREAT.

We can do this for many other diseases beyond just cancer. Why shouldn't I work to make humans healthier, stronger, smarter, faster, longer lived? Why are these pathetic meat bags we are stuck in right now the pinnacle that can't be improved on? Screw that and screw the people that want to make it so these changes can't be made because no matter what people will continue to do this work and continue to make these enhancements. If you try to make it illegal it will only end up restricting access.

Re: fathers

[Ambassador Kosh]

CRISPR-CAS9 is CHEAP to duplicate. That is what makes it so easy to work with and why it is advancing the technology so quickly. These treatments will not just be for the wealthy, they will be for everyone. The companies working on this RIGHT NOW are not targeted at a tiny percent of people they are targeted at the bulk of the population.

Stop getting ideas from science fiction. I have not seen a single piece of science fiction yet that was even a tiny bit correct on genetic engineering. It is not expensive technology, it is not really even very hard to do once you understand how. Doing it on an adult organism is fine. The idea that this is only an enhancement that can be given before birth is ridiculous.

Re:fathers

[Eunuchswear]

Each individual should decide for themselves what is and isn't done with their genome. It is nobody else's damn business.

And, presumably, the business of the ofspring that you create with that genome.

If you screw it up be prepared to be sued.

Re:fathers

[Anonymous Coward]

You would have a point it it was possible to modify your genome after your birth. It isn't. So the decision should be made by the parents.

Re:fathers

[Eunuchswear]

Your daughter is dating someone with a markedly bigger brain than yours?

Re:fathers

[angel'o'sphere]

So shaving and a haircut is not enough? Pity!

Re:fathers

[the gnat]

Most of the "ethicsists" are fundamental christian types or outright clergy

The people writing the letter referred to in TFA are not professional ethicists at all - they are practicing scientists, including one of the people who figured out how the system in question works. (Disclaimer: I know one of them personally and I've had a handful of interactions with another.) If any one of them is at all religious, it's news to me. I'd guess they're totally in favor of genome editing in general, especially since several of them are involved in companies that have this goal. The ethical issue is whether to leap right into modifying embryos with an unproven and potentially unsafe technology, which amounts to experimentation on unwilling human test subjects.

Re:fathers

[the gnat]

I also have not ethical problems with genetic engineering on humans.

Do you have an ethical problem with genetically engineering an embryo and accidentally creating new problems that result in an individual crippled from birth, or doomed to a short and miserable life span?

Re:fathers

[Coren22]

I would imagine that if the scientists wanted to experiment to find what genes possibly cause Alzheimers, most people with that disease would gladly step up to be in the experimental group.

Re: fathers

[angel'o'sphere]

I guess you SF collection is then pretty smal :)

Re:fathers

[micahraleigh]

To say it differently: I would never trust a scientist to explain morality to me.

Re:fathers

[ShanghaiBill]

Your daughter is dating someone with a markedly bigger brain than yours?

Well, he may be smart enough to hunt down and kill a mammoth. He would certainly have no problem eating one. He was just born in the wrong millennium.

Re: fathers

[Applehu Akbar]

In 1963, only an infinitesimal minority of the very rich could afford the first liver transplants. As we slid down the learning curve, the operation became more common. As soon as we can use those evil frankenpeople techniques to grow clone organs in pigs, transplants will become ubiquitous and cheap.

Re:fathers

[Applehu Akbar]

Almost all of us are the result of a genetic choice that resulted in your parents deciding to procreate and have children who were like themselves. Eugenics is the imposition of one specific genetic choice by the government.

Re:fathers

[John_3000]

Yeah, I don't get it either. What is the problem. Genetic editing happens semi-randomly with every fertilization, via recombination. Chromosomes break and exchange pieces. Very often the results are not particularly good.

Re: fathers

[ArmoredDragon]

I have two chronic, heritable diseases, and yes, I would like them edited out.

Re:fathers

[ShanghaiBill]

If you screw it up be prepared to be sued.

At least in the United States, children cannot sue their parents for wrongful life. If they can't sue for birth defects caused by alcohol or drug abuse, they shouldn't be able to sue over GMO either.

Re:fathers

[Coren22]

I am not a medical professional, so forgive me if I am way off base.

If APP is possibly the cause of Alzheimers, wouldn't it be easier to find out on willing subjects? If it cures the disease, but causes other problems, then we could study those problems and see what happens.

Re:fathers

[Austerity Empowers]

That's what kills me about this article. Scientists worrying about non-science smells fishy. Murder isn't "wrong" any more than having black hair is wrong. We have a social agreement that we don't kill each other under most conditions, the end. Editing our genome isn't wrong at all, but there are social issues that need to be dealt with, and it's definitely not a matter for science.

It's going to devolve in to class warfare with teh equivalent of environmentalism (i.e. our gene pool may be changed permanently, and the original diversity lost). There will be corporate interest selling "needful mods" that in some cases may be dangerous and unhealthy. Basically it's headed for the same mess we already know about and enjoy.

Re: fathers

[wasteoid]

It is the realization of the movie Gattica.

Re:fathers

[radtea]

What's being debated is whether it's right to make experiments who's consequences a person who can't consent to them has to carry.

And this differs from having children the old fashioned way how?

That is the crux: every child born is a genetic experiment today. We hope that it doesn't end up with too many defects. We hope that it's born with eyes (I know someone who wasn't). We hope that it's born without any non-lethal developmental defects (I know a couple of people who have them, caught and fixed by surgery before they became fatal.) We hope they won't develop Type I diabetes (like several of my friends have)... and so on.

Every one of these things is a crap-shoot, and everyone who has kids today is performing an uncontrolled genetic experiment every time.

To claim that this process is necessarily going to be made worse by adding some human intelligence to the mix is problematic. The claim that there is no conceivable therapeutic benefit to engineering certain classes of genetic defect out of the germline is disingenuous, unless you think everyone everywhere for the rest of time is going to have good gene therapy available to them while growing up, which is insane.

To claim "we can't predict what the effects might be so we shouldn't do the research" is bizarre: if we don't do the research, admittedly mostly on animal models, how will we ever know what the effects are? Once we've done the research, we will have a high confidence in the effects, just as we do with any other therapeutic intervention. We all know that iatrogenic disease is a major cause of death and suffering, so wringing our hands about germline modification as if it was unique in that respect is at the very least strange and at worst deeply hypocritical.

All power gets used, and it's understandable that people should be concerned about how the power to edit the human germline will be used. The possibilities for abuse are considerable. If we are ever able to create Brave-New-World style designer slaves, happy in their subjugation, we probably will, for some value of "we".

But the debate should be about how to use this power wisely, not whether we should develop it at all. Someone will, and it's better that that happen out in the open than in some secret lab in $EVIL_NATION or funded by $EVIL_BILLIONAIRE.

Re:fathers

[binarylarry]

Does Higgins know about this?

Re: fathers

[shutdown -p now]

If you want to start banning tech on the grounds that it is only accessible to the rich(er) folk and confers advantages, we should probably start with the Internet.

Re:fathers

[rraylion]

ahhh.... the science is not done on CRISPR-CAS9 -- it works -- kind of, 60% of the time. Oh and if the cell it touches is in the middle of mitosis all bets are off on what mutation it will produce -- oh yeah it also has big problems with gamete cells, you know eggs and sperm. Oh yeah that right it also has this other isssue with....

CRISPR-CAS9 works in a lab in a controlled environment. very controlled. the science is moving faster no doubt, but its not there yet.

the second they get it down pat, i would love for more efficient mitochondria.

Re: fathers

[sjames]

And the $500/month drugs some people take cost $2 to produce a month's worth. Cheap to produce doesn't at all translate to cheap for the end user for anything related to medicine.

Re: fathers

[Catbeller]

Terry Pratchett certainly would have volunteered. But now he's dead.

Re: fathers

[Catbeller]

Frank Herbert's "The White Plague". Damned scary and plausible, not TV sci-fi. There are many others. Ignore Hollywood - aint no science in that SF.

Re: fathers

[Catbeller]

Discard the broken embryo? Yes.

Re:fathers

[ultranova]

And this differs from having children the old fashioned way how?

"The two morons have a right to procreate. So far, every attempt to curtail that right has resulted in material fit to inspire horror writers."

To claim that this process is necessarily going to be made worse by adding some human intelligence to the mix is problematic.

Not necessarily, but possibly. Whether the risks outweight the benefits is what the debate is about. Or at least the meaningful parts of it; I have no doubt there's people who are using it as a proxy for some other, unrelated issues.

But the debate should be about how to use this power wisely, not whether we should develop it at all. Someone will, and it's better that that happen out in the open than in some secret lab in $EVIL_NATION or funded by $EVIL_BILLIONAIRE.

True enough, I suppose.

Re:fathers

[ChrisMaple]

Science can inform ethics in practice. The scientific information that arsenic is poisonous is relevant to deciding if it's ethical to feed your husband arsenic.

Ethics falls under the purview of philosophy. It is the rational study of subjectivity.

"The rational study of subjectivity" is what psychology pretends to be.

[Ethics] is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions---the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. (from The Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand.)

Whether or not you like Ayn Rand, that's a good working definition

Show me in nature a thing that which can be measured whose number tells us that murder is wrong.

OK, I'll do that. Recognize that not all ethical systems are equivalent; some of them are self-contradictory or absurd, and I'm avoiding that. I'll start by observing that ethical systems are used by animals that think and act, to guide their thinking and action. In the ethical system I'm proposing here, the purpose of the system is to support and advance the wellbeing of its user. (There's some contradiction involved in a system that does not have such a purpose, a creature that acts against its wellbeing tends to destroy itself, ending any need for an ethical system.) Another observation is that thinking and acting animals, through the mechanism of cooperation, can support and advance their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. Just to make things obvious, I'll state that this is the right condition. Failing to use cooperation when it can be advantageous to one's wellbeing is by comparison self-damaging, and wrong in this ethical system. For my hypothetical example I choose the situation where I measure in nature the count of other thinking and acting animals in my vicinity available for cooperation to support and advance my wellbeing, and the count of that number is one. Murdering that thinking and acting animal eliminates any possibility that it will support and advance my wellbeing, and is therefor wrong. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Show me a study that can be done to show what is the best favorite color.

If that is even possible, it falls into the domain of esthetics, not ethics.

Scientist's views on ethics are just as valid as the pope's views on what makes a good strip club.

I suspect you are trying to say that a scientist's views on ethics are of poor quality. Scientists think for a living, and this gives them at least a better chance to have a good ethical system than the average person's (Yes, I'm equating valid with good). Whether bad schooling or a tendency not to be religious results in bad ethical views in practice I do not have enough data to evaluate.

Re:fathers

[ChrisMaple]

Accidents, properly defined, fall outside the realm of ethics.

At best, risk levels can be defined, and a cost-benefit analysis performed. Generally speaking, we're talking about serious people consciously and conscientiously evaluating an important decision, not some fool deciding the daughter must have yellow feathers even if it means a bird-brain.

In principle, the decision to take a risk with genetic engineering does not differ from deciding to drive a car.

Re: fathers

[ChrisMaple]

Once drugs come off patent competition usually drives the price down. Also, FWIW, there are many countries that extort drug companies into much lower prices in those countries, refusing to recognize the patent.

Re: fathers

[sjames]

The drug I had in mind was never on patent, it's been in use since the 18th century. They got a sweetheart deal from the FDA and upped the price immediately.

Deals between holders of an expired patent and generics producers to NOT compete are increasingly common. Even things that have never been patented are marked up well beyond reason.

Re:fathers

[beastofburdon]

I would trust the scientist far more on morality than a priest or a preacher.

Re:fathers

[Stuarticus]

Do you mean he's over or under 15 years old?

Re: fathers

[Stuarticus]

I don't think the cost if transplants comes from paying for the liver, it comes from the hours of surgeons and nurses time, the various drugs and the aftercare. In fact, if you have to pay for a special pig to be raised to match your specifications then I think costs are likely to rise rather than fall...

Re:fathers

[micahraleigh]

Oh, I see!

We can ask scientists about science and morality.

But we cannot ask preachers about science OR morality.

Good thing we have these pointed, one way rules in place.

Just like the way ethics should be lopsided, pointed, one way, et cetera.

Excuse me, I think some rich people owe me a million dollars.

Re:fathers

[Catbeller]

The White Plague, by Frank Herbert. An SF novel I made a rule never to mention online because it would give people ideas. A lone scientist splices a killer virus with a XX-chromosome seeking component and kills half the distaff half of the human race. And now, it can happen. Say, putting influenze together with HIV and letting fly. The possibilities are infinite, and you are right, someone will try.

Re:fathers

[Catbeller]

Noted. This time they are, and we should listen to what they have to say. But I do not wish to wait another quarter century for genetic repair technology. I know people who will die horribly. agony, from their genetic defects. We need the tech right. Now.

I'm all for this

[dixonpete]

Ask anyone with Cystic Fibrosis about the morality of gene editing.

Re:I'm all for this

[hooiberg]

The fact that hereditary edits can me made, does not imply that we can immediately cure all hereditary diseases as well.

Although, do not mistake me, I am all for it, were we able to remove those diseases from the world.

Re:I'm all for this

[B33rNinj4]

I agree. There are many diseases that would really benefit from this.

Re:I'm all for this

[Chris Mattern]

Of course we can't cure all hereditary diseases at once with this. But the OP talked about Cystic Fibrosis; it's hard to think of a better candidate to use this technique on than CF. Cystic Fibrosis's genetic basis is simple and well understood. It's just one gene, which has been thoroughly studied. Editing it in germ plasm to eliminate it should not pose insurmountable obstacles.

Re:I'm all for this

[morgauxo]

But we don't want the DISEASES to benefit. We want to get rid of those!

Re:I'm all for this

[arth1]

I agree. There are many diseases that would really benefit from this.

I fear you are right, and that some diseases would benefit by our preventing other diseases. Given that our focus is usually on the "worst" diseases, on average the competition opens to more benign diseases, but there will be exceptions. And some relatively benign diseases that seems easy to cure might become a target for a genetic "quick fix" that might, unbeknownst to us, open up for other diseases.

The interaction between different diseases and genetic "flaws" is not well understood, but we know there are interactions. Like, for example, how sickle cell anemia gives increased resistance against malaria. There are likely a lot of genetic conditions that cause ailments that were introduced because they also gives an advantage, which at an early point was a net win for some individuals. We don't have the full picture yet, so I would say there is a risk, and especially if treating relatively "benign" conditions.

Re:I'm all for this

[Stem_Cell_Brad]

One point is that the off-target effects have a chance of messing up other parts of the genome while repairing the CFTR mutation. We still don't really have a good handle on how bad these off target effects are, and how to control them. So, until that is figured out, I don't think it is such a slam dunk decision.

If we can eliminate these concerns, then the decision seems rather simple in cases like CF.

Re:I'm all for this

[LWATCDR]

Like every technology it will be all about how you use it.
Should the mutation that causes CF be removed from the gene pool or does having just one copy give some benefit?
Should we take control of our evolution?
What about people that want to order children that are super tall so they can play basketball? Or super smart. Or have big breasts?
What about if we can remove any genetic factor in sexual preference?

What is good use and what is a bad use? What should be allowed and what should be banned?
Fixing DF seems like an easy answer.

Re:I'm all for this

[Catbeller]

Or EDS. Or diabetes. Or spinal bifida. Or congentital blindness. So many, many things can go away. So much agony, so many lives saved, both that of the victims and their families. And the resources we spend to research "treatment" to be sold at ruinous profit. The miracle fairy has arrived, and they want to shoot it in the head, or at least make themselves a lucrative profession of judging, for us, what we can and cannot cure, because Jesus or whatever.
There ain't no discussion we can have. We either do it or we don't. "Discussion" is just a delaying tactic, as those who oppose GM will never let go of their delusions. Like abortion or birth control, those who believe it shouldn't happen will never back down, and will do anything up to and including shooting doctors in the head to stop it.

Re:I'm all for this

[Dr_Barnowl]

I always thought Star Trek's objection to this was a bit hokey - the episode where Geordi points out that the technology to save a colony of carefully genetically managed humans wouldn't have existed without his VISOR having been invented.

His VISOR was no doubt based on a huge number of components that were individually created for other purposes.

What's more of a surprise is how few enhanced humans there are around in Star Trek. The tricorder seems a clumsy and stunted way to extend the human sensorium.

Re:I'm all for this

[DarkOx]

There are a number of diseases like this, sickle cell comes to mind as well. Watch out though sickle cell does confer +1 malaria resistance and given the warming trends...

Re:I'm all for this

[jedidiah]

There are plenty of far less benign conditions to worry about before we get to Cickle-Cell anemia and bespoke babies. There's an ample supply of quite willing guinea pigs that have few other options (and those options are pretty grim).

Re:I'm all for this

[jedidiah]

I'm not convinced that GMOs aren't responsible for my own rare acquired genetic disorder. Looking at the underlying biochemistry and noting how pesticides and herbicides relate to that is really quite scary.

Again. It's not "the science", it's who is using the technology.

Is it some monk or college professor or is it some herbicide company that wants to be the Microsoft of corn.

Scope and scale also matters. Stuff that's being thrown into the environment like DDT is potentially much more problematic than anything consumed in small doses by humans.

Re:I'm all for this

[Applehu Akbar]

The great thing about this type of genetic modification is that the anti-science left and right will get selected out of the population by, ironically, a new process of intelligent design. A century from now there might be an "Amish island" where tourists can go to look at the last of them.

Re:I'm all for this

[blue9steel]

What's more of a surprise is how few enhanced humans there are around in Star Trek.

Well, for humans it was due to our revulsion of the practice after the Eugenics Wars, but it was unusual that they ran into so few other species that had done so.

Re:I'm all for this

[ShanghaiBill]

One point is that the off-target effects have a chance of messing up other parts of the genome while repairing the CFTR mutation.

That is NOT their point. They are not saying we should hold off until technology improves. They are saying that, in principle, individual people should not be allowed to own and control their genome, and that a group of super smart elites, like maybe themselves, should decide what is right and wrong and then have the power to impose that decision on everyone else.

Re:I'm all for this

[arth1]

There are plenty of far less benign conditions to worry about before we get to Cickle-Cell anemia and bespoke babies. There's an ample supply of quite willing guinea pigs that have few other options (and those options are pretty grim).

Unfortunately, I fear that there are also a supply of quite willing and rich guinea pigs who want lesser problems fixed, or bespoke babies. Unless regulated, research tends to follow the money.

Re:I'm all for this

[Ambassador Kosh]

Why is this always about children?

What if you want to make yourself smarter? What if you want to make yourself immune to cancer? What if you want to make yourself live longer? What if you want to make yourself heal better and faster?

Screw evolution. At the rate it is going everyone in the human race will be able to process bread in another few hundred thousand years. Evolution is slow and I see no reason to wait for it. Especially given all the things that we want as humans that has NO selective pressure and hence will NEVER be selected for.

Re:I'm all for this

[bazmonkey]

I must point out that "the 10 tallest NBA players ever" and "the 10 best NBA centers ever" are disjoint sets.

Tru 'dat, however "10 totally average-height individuals" is also disjoint. If you wanted your children to even have a likely chance, height is certainly desirable in this case. Being 8 ft. tall versus 7'1" might not help a whole lot, but being 7' vs. 5'10" will.

Re:I'm all for this

[the gnat]

Bullshit:

research is needed to understand and manage risks arising from the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Considerations include the possibility of off-target alterations, as well as on-target events that have unintended consequences. It is critical to implement appropriate and standardized benchmarking methods to determine the frequency of off-target effects and to assess the physiology of cells and tissues that have undergone genome editing. At present, the potential safety and efficacy issues arising from the use of this technology must be thoroughly investigated and understood before any attempts at human engineering are sanctioned, if ever, for clinical testing. As with any therapeutic strategy, higher risks can be tolerated when the reward of success is high, but such risks also demand higher confidence in their likely efficacy.

Re:I'm all for this

[angel'o'sphere]

Just nitpicking, but we did not talk about morality but about the ethics.

And obviously mindless editing and fixing a desease are two different things :)

Re:I'm all for this

[LWATCDR]

"What if you want to make yourself smarter? What if you want to make yourself immune to cancer? What if you want to make yourself live longer? What if you want to make yourself heal better and faster?"

That would genetic treatment versus editing the genome and that is a different issue. Some changes will only be possible pre-birth and some pre-conception.

Re:I'm all for this

[canadiannomad]

Unfortunately, I fear that there are also a supply of quite willing and rich guinea pigs who want lesser problems fixed, or bespoke babies. Even if regulated, research tends to follow the money.

FTFY

Re:I'm all for this

[tnk1]

Which is a valid concern. Some genes may lend themselves to easy understanding of what they do, and thus correcting a specific issue will be fairly straightforward.

However, "fixing" some genes may have unintended consequences. I'm sure most African-descended people in the US could care less about malaria resistance, and would prefer to not have to deal with sickle cell, but it may not be as simple for those people still in Africa. And that's just the obvious case. There may be some genes that are terminal for humans, but are needed to live at the same time.

What's more, we may first find out about that problem when we try it out on someone, if we don't take the appropriate care.

I'm not going to assume that we could never figure it all out. It's basically like debugging a nasty piece of software. It will take a long time, but not an infinite amount of time. The question is what we're willing to do before we know everything there is to know about our genome. And then, what are we willing to do to ourselves or other people when we are able to.

If you develop some notion of human "perfection" and everyone tries to apply it to themselves, we could end up with a species that is maladapted in some way that we didn't think of, or didn't want to accept could happen.

Re:I'm all for this

[Coren22]

I think you are missing the point he was trying to make. Some of the best NBA players aren't tall. Being tall helps with dunking, but has other negative implications in basketball. If you are very tall, it is easier for someone to steal the ball from you. Just take a look at the players from space jam (I know...not very good sample, but an example)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Mugsy is 5'3" and is a great player. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Re:I'm all for this

[Coren22]

I always considered the Borg more advanced in this than the humans. They tried to use technology to augment the natural abilities of the person. Unfortunately, they also used technology to subvert the person's own desires to make them slaves.

If I were Captain Picard after being rescued, would I ask for the doctor to remove all the augments? I doubt it, some of them were probably quite useful if they could be made to work without the Borg control included.

Re:I'm all for this

[ChrisMaple]

Are you aware that the Amish are growing in number far more rapidly than the general population?

Re:I'm all for this

[Applehu Akbar]

That's because the Amish are not apocalyptics. The anti-science left, on the other hand, welcomes the disappearance of mankind and is not about to play any part in perpetuating it.

Lord Baltimore, eh?

[damn_registrars]

While this time he does have a point - there needs to be an ethical discussion - he is another character who has ruffled a lot of feathers after winning his Nobel Prize. He's up there with James Watson and Kary Mullis in the realms of prize winners who some of us wish would just go away so we can go back to just doing science.

The cat's out of the bag

[Dr. Zim]

I don't think a resolution passed by an NGO or a couple of research groups are going to stop this. There's too much profit potential for successful edits. What would a parent pay to have a child that was free of a genetic defect? Blonde hair and blue eyes? Etc...

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[jimbolauski]

Before you can perfect editing the genome without side effects you are going to mess things up. That is the ethical dilemma that needs to be answered who do you practice on.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[itzly]

First practice on consenting adults with nasty diseases that have a good chance to be cured using gene therapy.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[Dr. Zim]

Before you can perfect editing the genome without side effects you are going to mess things up. That is the ethical dilemma that needs to be answered who do you practice on.

Certainly! But our* corporations have a pretty crappy record of balancing ethics and profits.

* Humankind's. No country or race has any claim to superior ethical behavior.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[BarbaraHudson]

There's also too much profit for the professional nay-sayers to keep opposing it. Same as any cult where the leader needs to have a flock to fleece.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[Livius]

I don't think a resolution passed by an NGO or a couple of research groups are going to stop this.

It isn't necessary to stop this in order to have a conversation about it.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[jedidiah]

They certainly don't have any more rights than an infant does.

So that means that the "consent issues" are all up to the parents.

There are a number of situations where gene correction could be warranted. Some of these "nasty diseases we could cure with gene editing" are hereditary. So fixing them in the womb might not be such a bad idea.

That would actually PREVENT some abortions and prevent some parents being in the position to contemplate one.

What nerve? I think you just nuked yourself actually.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[Catbeller]

Embryo. Fetus. Baby. Three different things. The first has no brain. The second has yet not brain, but is usually illegal to terminate in later stages because of the fuzziness of the definition unless the mother is in danger (unlesss you live in Ireland, so, dead mother is fine, praise God). We don't experiment on any of those three. And the idea of the "unborn" is a cute trigger - but a zygote ain't an embryo ain't a fetus ain't a baby. But you are now including in your "unborn" category the not-yet-conceived! Well done. A fourth category, those not yet even a zygote, perhaps not even a spermatazoan or an ovum waiting in their respective chutes. Which logically renders your concept of the unborn = that-which-was-willed-by-God-to-be, doesn't it? The entire concept of anti-birth control is a religious one, a belief that man is getting in the way of God's will that a certain person be born at a certain time. And one must note, not a concept that was ever mentioned in your holy book. Ancient fertile crescent and mediterranean women used birth control, and God never found time to proscribe the practice. And abortion was usually done by stoning the baby's parents to death by mob (along with that sacred Unborn), or stabbing the mother and sacred Unborn to death with a pointy piece of metal, praise Yahweh, his will be done. And God commanded the heads of the babies of the current inhabitants of land the Israelites were passing by be dashed upon the rocks, if future Abrahamic real estate was at stake. Yet again, praise Yahweh.
Thanks for playing.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[jedidiah]

I think that's a very personal sort of judgement and one that should be reserved strictly for the mother. This part of motherhood is not delegable. It's a big responsibility. How it's handled will impact the resulting person for the rest of their life. The resources available to the mother (and no one else) will have a great impact.

If the mother doesn't cooperate and take her responsibility seriously, there is nothing that an busybody can do to change the situation. So the mother has to agree of her own free will or it doesn't really work.

This is why the government should not get in the middle of the decision.

It's also good public policy to support the mother in any way we can once she decides to treat "the blob" as a person. It benefits us all if she gets the best result possible.

Vitamins. Food. Medical care. Schools. Perhaps even training.

Moral Majority busybodies usually want to take all of those things away.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[Ambassador Kosh]

Absolutely!

That is what we are ACTUALLY doing! This technology is being practiced on consenting adults and some minors that have diseases that will kill them in pretty horrible ways. Diseases for which there is NO HOPE of ANY KIND. Stuff that just slowly kills you and that we can't mitigate it with medication. If you have the disease you die slowly and painfully. For those people there is there ONLY chance and I have no problems with trying to help them.

I know that we will kill some of them accidentally. We will even make things worse sometimes. There is no way around that. Even if we studied this for the next ten thousand years that would still happen. The history of medicine is red with blood. Most things even seem trivial when we look back on them but nobody foresaw them looking forward. As part of this industry it is very likely that I will be responsible for many deaths and countless more are saved. All I can do is do everything within my power to use all the resources at my disposal to make as few mistakes as possible and learn from the ones that are made as quickly as possible and as much as possible.

Re:The cat's out of the bag

[ChrisMaple]

Can't we practice on the undead instead?

Many people do not care, when money is involved

[hooiberg]

Even if scientists in the Western World ban human editing, there are many parts of the world (For example China; India; South America) where ethics are not always that high up the list of priorities. The technology will be used, as long as there is money to be made by doing so.

From that point of view, we might as well open up the technology for every one to use, and let everybody handle it as he or she sees fit.

Ethics?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I know that 'genetic engineering' is something that attracts somewhat nebulous 'ethics' questions like shit attracts flies; but the concerns in TFA seem more like 'risk questions' rather than 'ethics questions'(except in the weak sense that it's very plausibly unethical to do highly risky things that will end up affecting large numbers of people if they go badly).

I don't wish to say that there aren't ethical questions(or, if there aren't, they could be raised); but "Scientists say that germline modification is a dangerously risky idea because we don't really know what we are doing, and once we do it the only way to stop it will be to track down the one we modified and sterilize or incinerate all his/her descendants." and "Scientists have ethical issues with genetic engineering because it is squicky" are two very different types of argument.

In terms of risk assessment, the argument against germline work seems much stronger, since you will pretty much have to get eugenic on a potentially nontrival number of people if you fuck up; but modification of individuals seems to slot rather neatly into the same basic cost/benefit calculus that we use for drugs, surgery, and other matters medical: yeah, it sucks that there are risks; but the world is rotten with diseases and conditions where the current standard of care is really depressing, so as long as you keep it to informed-consenting subjects, what's the problem?

The next genome editing holy war.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once we decide that editing the human genome is ethical, it will only lead to another huge controversy. Do you use vi to edit the human genome or Emacs?

Re:The next genome editing holy war.

[arth1]

Once we decide that editing the human genome is ethical, it will only lead to another huge controversy. Do you use vi to edit the human genome or Emacs?

Obviously, one would use the Genome Editor.

IGMC...

Re:The next genome editing holy war.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you use vi to edit the human genome or Emacs?

Emacs, of course: M-x genome-mode

Dialogue

[Livius]

There's no stopping technology, and many cases, e.g. genetic disorders, where there will little desire to do so.

But starting the discussion is a good idea.

Re:FRIST

[Chrisq]

post!!!!111111111111

Thanks to genetically engineered faster than human reaction times.

Unethical to ban

[Roger W Moore]

The fact that hereditary edits can me made, does not imply that we can immediately cure all hereditary diseases as well.

True but fatal, genetic diseases are a good reason not to ban use of the technique so that research on using it to cure them can proceed. However I would support strong regulation to limit it to cases where there is severe disability or greatly shortened life span. Indeed I would go as far as to say than an outright ban in these cases is unethical because of the potential to cure these diseases.

There may be risks for the first to undergo any treatments developed but this has to be set against the risk of certain death in some cases. We allow this to happen - with proper controls in place - for new drugs, why should this treatment be different?

Re:Unethical to ban

[jedidiah]

Like any tech, it's not "the science" but how you use it. Who is using it and what are they using it for?

This tech can be used to cure people that have a death sentence, or whose current treatment options have odds like Russian Roullette or involve drugs too expensive for the British NIH to sanction.

A total ban sounds like Bush-like nonsense.

Re:Unethical to ban

[Ambassador Kosh]

So you support regulations that say that I can't work with others and develop a gene upgrade therapy that can be used on adults to make you immune to cancer and cure you if you already have it? You would support bans that I can't upgrade the human immune system? That I can't make it so that you heal faster and more completely?

Why do you want to ban any of that?

What right do you have to ban any of it?

Why do you think banning will do any good at all?

Why do you think that I and others would follow the ban to any degree at all and not just move to another country that is willing to allow us to do this? You can't just fear the future and stick your head in the sand. If this stuff is all done publicly you can make sure that rules are followed, that standards are met before human trials etc. If you try to ban it that won't stop it at all but it will stop all the safety protocols you would want someone to follow.

This technology is cheap to do. You could setup a home lab and work with this stuff.

In the end you can support all the bans you want but I will continue to do work in this area and continue to work to improve humanity, to bring an end to the disease and suffering of so many.

Re:Unethical to ban

[the gnat]

I will continue to do work in this area and continue to work to improve humanity

Considering how little thought you've given to the potential downsides of such experiments, I'd guess that it's considerably more likely that you'll fuck up and produce a bunch of horribly malformed fetuses and live humans with fatal genetic problems. Fortunately, the ensuing lawsuits should put you out of business quickly.

Re:Unethical to ban

[angel'o'sphere]

How many variations of cancer do we have?

And you want to heal/prevent all of them with "gene editing"?

How retarded are you that you believe we are so retarded to believe you that?

Re:Unethical to ban

[Roger W Moore]

So you support regulations that say that I can't work with others and develop a gene upgrade therapy that can be used on adults to make you immune to cancer and cure you if you already have it?

In so much as cancer is a fatal genetic disease I have no problem with that. However I see no way that you can possibly make someone immune to cancer. One of the causes of cancer is damage to DNA caused by e.g. radiation. Altering the arrangement of genes in no way prevents things like radiation damage.

You would support bans that I can't upgrade the human immune system?

Yes I absolutely would. This technique changes your inherited DNA and, if applied to enough people then we will end up with a single, genetically identical immune system protecting us all. You only have to look at agriculture to see what a disaster mono-cultures can be and yet you are proposing this for the human race? Our immune systems may not be perfect but the diversity is one of its strengths.

That said if you research this area without applying it to humans then I've no problem. With enough understanding - and safeguards (like ensuring variety) - it could be possible. But because the changes are inheritable it should initially be restricted to those unlikely to reproduce so if there are problems they will not be permanent ones that we have to deal with for generations.

A half billion years too late, I think

[Catbeller]

We perform a human genome modification every time we make a baby. The results are not spectacularly successful; we've an enormous number of genetic defects.

Time to kick the dice bag away, and let humans sort it out instead of god. Modify away. No more diabetes. No more lupus. No more EDS. Let it end. Human evolution is now in our own hands.

Re:A half billion years too late, I think

[Catbeller]

Yes it will, because of the law of unintended consequences. So then we would have to reiterate, and fix the new problem. There is no turning back, and the price for refusal to move is the continuation of horrific diseases that we could easily remove or cure.

The discovery of germs and infection directly created the human population boom that is currently destroying the ecosphere as we know it. If we still didn't wash our hands when we deliver a baby, women would still die from birthbed infections whil quite young, or suffer uterine damage sufficient to prevent future impregnation. When we started cleanliness regimes, we pretty much destroyed the natural world as we've known it for the last million years or so.

Fear of future consequences must be informed by rational risk analysis - math. The question must be answered properly - what is the risk -the actual numbers- of things that do go wrong, measured against the actual numbers -people who live in misery, costs paid, family life ruined- of people who have genetic defects. Right now, we've no data and cannot have data about the first set of numbers, which is what you are demanding to know. We do know the numbers of the second question.

As for genetic modification of crops. A few points. Almost all the food we eat was genetically modified, the old fashioned way, by humans. Curious fact: corn does not exist in nature any more. Corn cannot self-fertilize - humans have to do it. We modified the genome so much that the original is lost and the artificial is all that's left. That may seem bad, esp with the misunderstanding that fructose is somehow different and more deadly than sucrose, but the GM corn we grow, along with the GM wheat we developed the old fashioned way in the 1960's, bought enough breathing room that the population bomb didn't go off in a big enough way to kill off billions of people, as would have happened if we hadn't created those strains. The bomb is STILL ticking, and the population growth is accelerating again. We cannot have survived without the corn and wheat mods, and will not survive another generation- speaking worldwide, not just the western cultures- without more GM plants that can survive the upheavals to come. To stop iterating is to kill billions. It's that simple. We are no longer under nature's control. We are under our own.

Re:A half billion years too late, I think

[jedidiah]

Once you do something, you have to be prepared for the fact that YOU WILL SCREW UP because you probably will. How can a population of people so heavily biased towards IT not be aware of this? It's like any other system or set of processes. You have to prepare for the worst because you know that sooner or later the worst is going to happen.

It's not IF we will screw this up but WHEN and what do we do about that.

With tech we far too often ignore that discussion because it's not easy and it's not pleasant.

Re:A half billion years too late, I think

[blue9steel]

As for genetic modification of crops.

It's not the modification itself that bothers me, it's the total lack of long term study requirements and no efforts to avoid cross pollination with traditional crops. Sure, maybe plants that produce their own insecticide are the bees knees and totally safe, or maybe they build up toxins in the environment like DDT did and we'll all be getting horrible cancers in thirty years. Personally, I'd just like there to be a bit more science involved then, yes Fish genes are safe, Tomato genes are safe so Fish genes + Tomato genes are safe.

Re:A half billion years too late, I think

[Ambassador Kosh]

We screw up with EVERY medicine we make. We KILL people during the development. NOTHING we do can change that. Many of the people I know working on drug development do everything they can imagine to make sure it does not happen but it still does and with each drug we learn something new. In almost all cases the deaths are from things we could not predict ahead of time. We learn, add it to how we do things and don't make the same mistake again.

Re:A half billion years too late, I think

[angel'o'sphere]

Most of diabetes are nutrition problems and not genetic.

By combining eggs with sperm, the defect rate actually is extremely low, unless one of them _already_ has a defect.

Re:A half billion years too late, I think

[angel'o'sphere]

Foresomeone who has so many opinions, you know quite few.
E.g. birthbed infections strictly speaking don't come from 'not washing hands'. They where prone in the time where doctors experimented/cut open corpses (in various degrees of rotting, with various invections due to which said corpses had died) . The doctors jumped right from the lab to the birth giving woman, and because of dead corpse poison etc. the women often died. Ofc, that would have been aboided with proper desinfections.
However if a random stranger with unwashed hands helps a pregnant woman to give birth, the risk of an infection is close to zero.
For millennia women gave birth without nasty high childbed deaths.

The rest of your post is equally wrong ... if corn would not self 'fertilize' as you call it, we had no harvests.

Regarding risk, you are mixing up risk with likelihood ...

Re:A half billion years too late, I think

[ChrisMaple]

It's possible that a modification will result in some horrific disease.

Yep, it's possible, but only in those who were undergoing a repair attempt in the first place. That's going to be a very small number of people, everyone else on earth is unaffected.

Science Fiction Fear.

[jellomizer]

Most of the fear around genetic manipulation falls around Science-Fiction scenarios. Which in order to make it entertaining they will often play with the worst case scenarios. Super soldiers, Freaky Person/Animal hybrids, etc. which to get such a case means a lot of experimentation, that would lead to a lot of dead or grossly Ill people. Such science on humans is already unethical, as your are giving birth to a bunch of people with a high chance of failure, and Illness.

However the goal for Genetic Manipulation in humans, isn't making someone a super human, but an average human. For people with genetic traits that make people sick and prone to disease. Giving them a chance to live a healthy normal life.

Re:Science Fiction Fear.

[blue9steel]

However the goal for Genetic Manipulation in humans, isn't making someone a super human, but an average human.

That may be your goal but I guarantee it won't be the goal of the people with the most money available to invest in this technology. Life extension or more gifted children will be their primary wants.

Re:Create

[50000BTU_barbecue]

But having an economic underclass of humans designed to be disposable cheap labor is fine? We don't need any specific technology to act in scandalous ways towards each other.

Natural equilibrium

[Bismuthprince]

I think this is a problem that will eventually work itself out. Genetic modification is, essentially, not much more than a far more efficient form of eugenics/breeding; this has gone on since humans found out two black goats don't get a white one.

At least so far human nature has shown to prefer the natural over the synthetic when given the choice; the presence of flaws and irregularities is often seen as a sign of beauty in small amounts. There will be people who choose to genetically alter their offspring to better suit their wants, but people will grow accustomed and able to pick out the slight tells in this, just as we get an eerie feel of fakeness with people raised extremely strictly; their flawlessness is offputting.

It'll be great for solving some of the obviously awful hereditary diseases and conditions, some people will go overboard and be a great lesson for the rest of us.

Don't listen to troglodytes

[sinij]

Natural evolution takes millions of years and doesn't select for traits we would find useful. It is time to take matter into our own hands. Start hacking genome. Sure, there will be numerous failed experiments and disasters along the way, but self-programming is the only way we can get better. Do-nothing alternative eventually leads to resource exhaustion and collapse of our civilization.

Ethics? Who cares about some rigid individualist standards that are based on logically bankrupt bearded-man-in-the-sky concepts, ones still subscribing to such dated notions will be left on the heap of history. There is no ethical problems with species struggling for improvement, but there is imperative to do so.

Re:Don't listen to troglodytes

[sinij]

You have to start somewhere, even if it is "blind hacking". If we keep waiting for perfect solution, it will never happen.

Re:Don't listen to troglodytes

[jedidiah]

Nobody is talking about "blindly hacking the genome" at this point. There are some very well understood negative mutations. We know what these genes should look like and we know what these genes do look like when they are broken.

Remember the Human Genome project? That wasn't all for naught. What we're doing now builds on that.

Nobody is even talking about the Frankenstein stuff yet.

GMOs are much more Frankenstein than this stuff.

Re:Don't listen to troglodytes

[Gilgaron]

Give the starving chloroplasts! The gift that keeps on giving.

Civilization IV had a quote...

[HighOrbit]

Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.

But not yet please. I have two issues: First, We still don't know enough to prevent unintended consquences or complications. We could edit-out one problem and accidently edit-in another.But one day, in the not-so-distant future, perhaps another generation or two, yes - definately. We should erradicate all heritable diseases.

The second thing, I would draw the line between correcting errors/curing diseases and between creating eugenic supermen. Please no Gattica-style selection of socially prefered traits to create a dis/u/topia of ubermenchen and untermenchen.

The quote was from Bob Edwards who until a few years ago was host of NPR Morning Edition. (BTW, the quotes in the game were all narrated by Leonard Nimoy, which was super cool)

Re:Civilization IV had a quote...

[0xdeadbeef]

We still don't know enough to prevent unintended consquences or complications

Yes we do, the "consequences" are every human being without the genetic disease, or every human being who already has the desirable trait you're inserting. It's just like rocket science - smarter people than you understand it more thoroughly than you, and every risk you can possibly conceive of they have already considered.

You people talk like this shit is like fucking magic, as if there is a metaphysical price that must be paid for every boon the technology gives you. Me am play gods!

Please no Gattica-style selection of socially prefered traits to create a dis/u/topia of ubermenchen and untermenchen.

Who are you to tell your hypothetical superiors they should not exist? You're not concerned with the risks, you just envy imaginary people.

Re:Civilization IV had a quote...

[silas_moeckel]

Whats so wrong with ubermenchen??? If it's the parents choice coupled with a strong prohibition on government or business use of DNA should be reasonable.

Re:Civilization IV had a quote...

[Catbeller]

Aging IS an inherited collection of diseases and disorders we haven't needed to select out of the pool because we only need to be alive about 25-30 years to pass on our genes. And it is a horrible thing to inflict on a human being. You may think it a natural process, but that is because you haven't experienced it on the sharp end yet. I'd rather die on a timer, healthy and whole at the end, then to die of thousands of breakdowns over the same period.

You are young and healthy, naturally, about thirty years. About ten of those is you as an adult. The other fifty years you will die slowly, and in the end, horribly, disfigured and crippled by autoimmune attacks on your joints and breakdowns in your brain and organs. All naturally, because *you are supposed to have died at the age of 37*, because Genes Said So.

And cancer is a natural cause of death as well. Accept that nature wants you dead and skip all that sciencey treatment! :)

Re:Civilization IV had a quote...

[Ambassador Kosh]

This is not something that has to be done on the unborn. We CAN and DO use it on adults! This is not like Gattaca. That is a movie and this is real life. In nearly every scifi movie, book, tv series etc genetic engineering is always about the unborn and making design babies. In reality that is complete and utter BS. It is a little easier to edit the unborn but you can certainly modify adults just fine. Adults also have more money and willingness to pay for treatments.

Also this technology is not a generation or two away. It is at most a decade away.

Re:Or how about

[meta-monkey]

Define "scum." I find your comments abhorrent. How certain are you you wouldn't be selected for "removal?"

There are different levels

[gurps_npc]

I see three levels of genetic engineering:

1) Copying DNA from one human to another.

2) Copying DNA from a non-human into a human (or a large amount of human DNA into a non-human creature)

3) Creating our own DNA from scratch.

These three things are dramatically different. Set 1, modifying a human to be like another human - for example giving anyone that wants the gene for blue eyes, the gene for blue eyes, is almost within our grasp - technologically and ethically. I see no problem with allowing that at all.

Set 2 is much more problematic. We don't know enough to do it safely and need to set up a long term panel to do it. Luckily right now it is too difficult for us to intentionally do. Hopefully by the time we learn how, we will have the proper safeguards in place.

Set 3 is pure science fiction now. Our knowledge of DNA is no where near advanced enough to attempt this in any but the most random manner. It should be forbidden at least until Set 2 becomes routine, then we might be able to do it safely, along with whatever new safeguards we will need to enforce.

Re:There are different levels

[itzly]

1) Copying DNA from one human to another.

As long as you don't copy the DNA of a Disney princess...

Re:There are different levels

[Livius]

modifying a human to be like another human - for example giving anyone that wants the gene for blue eyes, the gene for blue eyes, is almost within our grasp - technologically and ethically. I see no problem with allowing that at all.

You realize that includes selecting gender, right?

Re:There are different levels

[Catbeller]

We have been able to select gender for quite a while.

Re:There are different levels

[Livius]

And it has not worked out well so far.

Re:There are different levels

[Catbeller]

How then?

Re:There are different levels

[Ambassador Kosh]

Just so you know we can already do all 3 of those things. Even creating custom DNA sequences is something that has been done and continues to get better.

We have not put DNA from another creature into humans but that is just because we have not done it not because it is hard to do.

We have done that for LOTS of other organisms though.

Forking the human species?

[Applehu Akbar]

I don't see any ethics problem with treating genetic diseases, which is where this tech will be applied first - though I'm sure that in both the more progressively-inclined and the most God-fearing parts of the US and Europe there will be a Natural Disease Coalition, led by the likes of Dolce and Gabbana, promoting breast cancer as the Lord's will.

The ethics will get interesting when we start to see lines of humanity modified to fit extreme environments, such as microgravity or underwater. At some point there will be speciation, when humans adapted for one environment can no longer breed with "root" humanity. Our common heritage will eventually have to be taught as history.

There will be life on Mars, and it will probably be the result of intelligent design.

Re:Forking the human species?

[Wootery]

The ethics will get interesting when we start to see lines of humanity modified to fit extreme environments

Or, far more likely, to be stronger, prettier, smarter.

Re:Forking the human species?

[Applehu Akbar]

This will happen too, but in this area there will be no forced speciation. A steady drift toward choosing similarly-enhanced mates, but no specific point at which the species divides into two or more non-interbreedable groups. Instead, we will se gradual decline in the numbers of the unenhanced.

Re:Forking the human species?

[JustNiz]

Interesting. I always thought of Intelligent Design as a fake history to allow people of low IQ to continue to believe in magic, but maybe its time hasn't come yet, is all.

Re:Forking the human species?

[Applehu Akbar]

That's intelligent design by us, of course. A wolf is natural; a beagle is the product of intelligent design.

Re:Forking the human species?

[JustNiz]

Not sure many faith over science types would consider selective cross-breeding the same as intelligent design but I get your point.

Sure, it doesn't affect me, but ZOMG "morals"!1!

[0xdeadbeef]

It's time to resolve the ethics of telling other people what they can and can't do with their own DNA and reproductive choices.

And the resolution is: you can butt right the fuck out. It's none of your god damned business.

Ask the Pirate Bay about that

[Catbeller]

Ask people who try to download movies how effective American law can be. Doors are being kicked down all over the world - and after the new secretly negotiated treaty is slammed up our collective Terran ani, watching Dobie Gillis illegally will subject you prison time all over the planet. When Americans get Jesus about their notions, armored goons move in all over the world. Genetic modification will be no exception (except in cases of corporate profit, of course).

Re:Ask the Pirate Bay about that

[blue9steel]

Genetic modification will be no exception (except in cases of corporate profit, of course).

Well, it's too important to be available to just anyone, it's vital that we implement a hefty bureaucracy and strong regulatory oversight so that only people with connections and large bank accounts can work the system well enough to get the treatments, thus preserving the status quo of the current elite. Meanwhile we can boast about how well we're "protecting everyone from the dangers of unchecked human genome modification".

Re:Or how about

[wonkey_monkey]

It literally makes perfect biological sense as a species.

There are many more aspects to humanity than biology. And I suspect your idea of "scum" has very little to do with biology as well.

Anyone who disagrees is disingenuous at best.

How very scientifically minded of you.

"Heritable disease" or "survival trait"

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Should we really eradicate all heritable disease, or post-edit the afflicted to mitigate effects?

Like for example, the often cited benefit of being heterozygous in the sickle-cell anaemia gene. You are more resistant to malaria, a definite survival trait.

My point is that if you reduce genetic variability by always using the 'best' gene variant, your species becomes more vulnerable to extinction due to a sudden environmental change.

If you come up with a lot of gene variants as a patch for a broken one, all of them far more workable than the broken one, then gene editing could result in MORE genetic variability and a more resilient species overall, however, I doubt investment would be done to come up with multiple good solutions.

--PM

Re:"Heritable disease" or "survival trait"

[jedidiah]

> Should we really eradicate all heritable disease, or post-edit the afflicted to mitigate effects?

We aren't even to the point of that yet. We're still barely scratching the surface of the obviously harmful stuff that will KILL YOU pretty quickly once it manifests.

Sickle-Cell is an entirely different iceberg here.

There's plenty of time for these people to cure cancer and other more exotic things that you've never heard of while the rest of us argue what other things this tech should be used for.

Current regulations will already likely keep Pandoras box closed for the time being.

Re:Create

[itzly]

And some people are fine with beheading others that don't believe in their god. And sometimes even if they believe in the same god, but in the wrong way.

Re:Or how about

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's a "troll" gene, then Tyrannicsupremacy is a candidate for treatment. If there's a "fall for trolling" gene, then you are.

Cowards!

[Graydyn Young]

These people want to put a stop to progress because they think humans are some kind of holy ground that must not be tred upon. Does anybody ever even consider the suffering caused by NOT pursuing gene mods?

I have to suspect that the real reason they are arguing against mods is that suffering and dying of muscular distrophy, or cystic fibrosis, or any other horrible genetic condition, is "natural".

Those people out there that are willing to accept the risks inherent to genetic modification shouldn't be limited by cowards that are OK with people dying, as long as they don't get their own hands dirty.

Re:Cowards!

[Anonymous Coward]

These people want to put a stop to progress because they think humans are some kind of holy ground that must not be tred upon. Does anybody ever even consider the suffering caused by NOT pursuing gene mods?

I have to suspect that the real reason they are arguing against mods is that suffering and dying of muscular distrophy, or cystic fibrosis, or any other horrible genetic condition, is "natural".

Those people out there that are willing to accept the risks inherent to genetic modification shouldn't be limited by cowards that are OK with people dying, as long as they don't get their own hands dirty.

But the risks go beyond the individual. Aside from introducing a modification to the general population that might not want it, if something goes wrong with the genetic modification, who's going to pay for it? Who's going to subsidize some one who is permanently injured because they were willing to take the risk.

Personally, I think it should be banned because humans are idiots. Look at what we've done with plants and monoculture planting. We're not prepared for this. If you think I'm wrong, look at naming trends for babies. In my day everyone had a kid named Ashley. Now everyone will want a kid with blonde hair and blue eyes. I fear that eugenics might raise its ugly head.

Re:Cowards!

[Catbeller]

We already subsidize the genetically modified offspring of people who are experimenting with reproduction by randomly mixing genes together. Those people are called "parents", and the results are pretty horrible. And we don't penalize people who have known genetic problems who insist on reproducting anyway. So. And idiots are making a lot of babies; in fact, they seem to make most of them, as idiots don't believe in limiting their numbers.

Leaving bad New Wave science fiction of the 50's-70's aside, we can go for this: limit the mods to removing dieases and disorders. Blue eyes isn't a disorder, but muscular distrophy is.

Re:Cowards!

[the gnat]

These people want to put a stop to progress because they think humans are some kind of holy ground that must not be tred upon.

Actually, those people are involved in (at current count) at least two companies that have targeted therapeutic modification of humans as their primary business goal.

Needs animal testing/experimentation, not a ban.

[Rande]

My ethical problem would be that in the short-medium term, we don't understand what we're doing and will hurt more than we heal.
So need a few more decades with animal testing.

After that? Open the floodgates. Not everyone will want the 6'2" white blonde blueeyed children. I can see a market for catpeople, dogpeople, merpeople (colonise the oceans!); I'm sure there'll be one or two who want to incarnate Cthulu; wings capable of unaided flight might be difficult.
Never worry about being the wrong skin colour as everyone will be any colour of the rainbow - or even rainbow coloured!
Nightvision - eyeshine a reality!
Solar powered - get a lot of your daily calories just by standing naked in the sun.
Turn hair-growth on and off. Never have to shave again.

People who worry about eugenics are just lacking in imagination.

There is no debate.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

This technology will be developed to the point where traits like intelligence, disease resistance, emotional stability, beauty, et. al. will be almost guaranteed. If it's outlawed in one nation state, wealthy people will just have it done in another. Their children will benefit. The poor will be at a financial AND genetic disadvantage.

The hand wringing ethical concerns of "scientists" will have no effect on this whatsoever.

Re:There is no debate.

[Qbertino]

This technology will be developed to the point where traits like intelligence, disease resistance, emotional stability, beauty, et. al. will be almost guaranteed. If it's outlawed in one nation state, wealthy people will just have it done in another. Their children will benefit. The poor will be at a financial AND genetic disadvantage. The hand wringing ethical concerns of "scientists" will have no effect on this whatsoever.

The question is not wether this will happen. It will, if it can. The question is, will those super-intelligent, super-beautyful kids pay the handicapped pension for those who were genetically engineered but turned out with serious mental and/or physical handicaps. If somebody has his offspring genemodded and it turns out a parapleptic retard, do they expect public healthcare to take care of things? ... Ok, so some live in the U.S. and don't expect anything from healthcare, but what about every other indstrialised nation?

Who is going to carry the risks and the costs of genemodding and carry the consequences of trial and error?

I tell you who will: In first world countries it will the society, the taxpayers. So they get to vote on if this is done or not. End of story.

Re:There is no debate.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

No, they don't. I maintain however, that "moral validity" rarely has significant real world consequences, or is used to justify a change in economic conditions that inevitably benefit the wealthy.

Re:There is no debate.

[0xdeadbeef]

The poor will be at a financial AND genetic disadvantage.

Which is precisely why they'll try to outlaw it. It's the only way it will remain expensive.

Re:There is no debate.

[Catbeller]

If everyone is pretty, then no one is. Which would be kind of refreshing.

Re:There is no debate.

[Catbeller]

Moral being religious, as that is the only argument against being paid for sex. And if you think all sex for pay is exploitation, there are a few thousand sex workers on Twitter who'd like a chat with you. And we can only say: any of Donald Trump's wives would fall under that definition.

If women could be legally paid for sex, young pretty women would be rich, even if they started out poor. Always would have been rich, if it were legal. Being illegal, then men can hide them off the radar of the police and explot them.

Keeping the practice underground CREATES a subservient secret prostitution class owned by criminal men. Also prevents women from having the power to monetize their bodies, if that were their wish, which has been utterly forbidden by men for thousands of years. Not for moral purposes - the trade exists anyway - but to KEEP THE WOMEN FROM BECOMING WEALTHY and instead diverting the profits to thuggish men who keep the women prisoner, away from the police. Women are not meant to be independently wealthy, esp if that money naturally belongs to men, as it should, and women should be subservient to men.

And ya get the bonus of treating the women like rapeable scum when you arrest them and put them in prison. Win-win for men.

If it were legal, women would become wealthy quite young and retire early or fund any life they'd like. Gadz, can't have that.

Re:There is no debate.

[Ambassador Kosh]

1 People already make kids like that and the taxpayers deal with it. It is the burden of a society.

2 If someone turns out badly then FIX IT. If the genetic engineering screwed something up then REPAIR IT. That has got to be cheaper than just taking care of the person. Even if expensive once you fix the problem they become a useful and TAX paying member of society.

Re:There is no debate.

[angel'o'sphere]

There are plenty of countries where prostitution is legal.
Nevertheless the wemon don't become rich.

However most of the surrounding criminal szene is dried out.

Re:There is no debate.

[ChrisMaple]

Moral being religious, as that is the only argument against being paid for sex.

Commercial sex is bad from a public health standpoint, and the more widespread it is, the greater a problem it is.

There's a reason beyond religion that it's an insult to call a person a whore.

There's a reason beyond religion that it's an insult to say "Johnny has to pay for it."

High selectivity is a mark of a person worthy of respect, and a prostitute accepts all comers. It's not indicative of a healthy mind.

Re:There is no debate.

[ChrisMaple]

To some extent, beauty is an absolute, not relative. Beauty is indicative of health, and health is always pleasing to the eye. Considering the opposite, if everybody were scarred and oozing pus, nobody would be beautiful.

13 years ago, I moved from Los Angeles to New Hampshire. Middle aged LA women are more attractive than NH by a small margin, but NH girls are much prettier than LA girls, on average. This distinction remains after 13 years, so it's not just what I've gotten used to, it's an absolute based on such considerations as proportion and symmetry.

Re:Prohibition does not work

[arth1]

Sooner or later gene modifications will happen. If not legally - then underground. And especially so, when companies start testing DNA for business purposes. (Health insurance, job insurance and etc..). So why push it underground instead of facing it and perhaps reasonably regulating it?

The problem with us saying "this far, and no farther" reads to many as an invitation to go this far immediately, because the competitors will, even if original plans were less ambitious.

The only way I think we can buy a lease on responsible genetics is by having an oversight board that is controlled by neither big industry nor the local government.
Perhaps something like a UN ethics committee that does not accept appointments by governments, but selects its own members from scientific communities, with the UN councils only holding veto rights.

Re:Sure, it doesn't affect me, but ZOMG "morals"!1

[sinij]

Yep.

Not only that, but "ethical" is all too often is synonymous with "what won't ever lead us to getting sued" and has nothing to do with greater good or even doing the right things for a group of individuals.

Hollywood did it! (South Park reference)

[ArcadeMan]

"Sixth Day" laws.

Re:Hollywood did it! (South Park reference)

[ArcadeMan]

And Gattaca, of course.

Reproduction is ethically very tricky

[PeterM from Berkeley]

See, a real person is created and has to LIVE WITH and SUFFER FROM the changes you've inflicted upon them.

Think about it. Standard reproduction, you have no control over the result except what you can do with nutrition and environment. So your liability is also limited. However, if as a result of your DIRECTED genetic change, someone lives a life of suffering, well, your liability is enormous. You controlled it and caused it, therefore, you are responsible.

And it's a mind-blowing responsibility. If in my hands, I'd restrict myself to JUST trying to help with the very worst of genetic defects until I was VERY sure things would work out well for the modified people.

--PM

Re:Reproduction is ethically very tricky

[Catbeller]

You already had that responsiblity. The details are lawyerly nonsense.

Re:Reproduction is ethically very tricky

[nehumanuscrede]

Exactly.

A real person created without genetic manipulation still has to LIVE WITH and SUFFER FROM any potential changes you COULD have made, but didn't due to some silliness about what is or is not ethical. I would be even more pissed off knowing I had a disease that could have been eradicated before I was even born but wasn't because of scientific ethical bickering.

Ask anyone who has some sort of hereditary disease or issue and I'm pretty sure I know which side of the argument they will fall into.

pfffttt

[slashmydots]

I can see that they're just scared about superior humans even without low light infrared vision, which I want.

Thank you, Sir.

[NReitzel]

I was thinking about a comment along these lines.

You've summed it up in the most succinct manner I can imagine.

Again, thank you.

Morality Wizards

[JimSadler]

It seems that we have a group of people who just insist upon applying theories of morality to every little situation. We still have people protesting abortions for example. Yet none of the abortion protesters take into account what our population level would be like if we had not allowed abortions. Obviously the offspring would be a huge number and might have been such a great burden that our nation could not survive. The same thing can be said about subjects like the Civil War. Without that war we surely would have now had several hundred million extra Americans. War is not completely negative. Pregnancy is not completely positive. Weak minds latching onto an absolute position simply demonstrate the absurdity of modern life. Yet we have numerous pumpkin headed citizens that fixate on really stupid issues and just make their entire life all about pushing some supposedly moral platform. As far as the human genome goes we can store it and revert back to unedited DNA any time we like. It is simply a matter of not allowing people to reproduce who have had unwanted consequences from edited genes.

Re:Morality Wizards

[JustNiz]

>> As far as the human genome goes we can store it and revert back to unedited DNA any time we like

Lets assume that some therapy that tweaks DNA in a way that gets passed on is later found to be detrimental. By the time we identify and agree the need to revert, the genie would be well and truly out the bottle.

>> It is simply a matter of not allowing people to reproduce who have had unwanted consequences from edited genes.

Nice one Adolf. This is incredibly naive, You really think the victims themselves will go along with that? You really think there won't be a whole bunch of liberal hollywood movie stars having fund raisers for mutants rights to have babies?

Re:Morality Wizards

[BoRegardless]

"if we had not allowed abortions." was solved with allowing anyone to jump the borders. Almost all new jobs since year 2000 were reported to have been taken by recent immigrants of all types. Guess what that did to downtrodden minorities in the US with minimal education and skills?

Re:Morality Wizards

[Kjella]

Yet none of the abortion protesters take into account what our population level would be like if we had not allowed abortions. Obviously the offspring would be a huge number and might have been such a great burden that our nation could not survive.

Almost totally false. Studies show that women who have unwanted pregnancies but give birth don't usually end up with more kids total, those who do take an abortion generally want to start a family just not there and then. Heck, this would be totally obvious if you had any contact with the opposite sex, most women want a few kids and once they've had two or three few want four-five-six and beyond though they're certainly biologically capable of 10+. Now if you'd said contraception that's certainly helped keep the population down, but assuming they exist abortions don't make any significant difference.

Re:Morality Wizards

[Ambassador Kosh]

If a DNA sequence is bad then find the people that have it and correct it. You know you can correct these sequences in adults right?

The treatment would be fairly easy to replace the bad gene sequence with the good one. Look at all the children that occurred along the bad line, patch them, move on with your life.

Re:Morality Wizards

[JustNiz]

What happens to freedom over the common good?
What if they didn't want to be "corrected" but still wanted to breed?
Also if they got (say) born with a physical deformity, such as without limbs or something, no amount of DNA sequencing on them could put that right (in their lifetime).

Re:Morality Wizards

[ChrisMaple]

If a DNA sequence is bad then find the people that have it and correct it.

You going to do that at gunpoint?

Re:Morality Wizards

[ChrisMaple]

I'd think that it shouldn't be long before biocompatible limbs can be grown from a small tissue sample; there have already been significant steps in that direction. Not all problems are looking for a GMO solution.

Re:Screw Ethics

[Catbeller]

Why not? When I'm 80, no one will want me for anything else. Hack away, I'll be dead soon anyway.

Re:Good luck

[jedidiah]

...except no genetic tinkering is required for that option. It's already readily acheivable now. It's already been implemented by industrial food makers with help from the US government (food pyramid).

Little Quick

[robiso22]

I'd like them to figure out how proteins fold before messing with the code that makes the proteins that they don't understand. Just sayin'.

What will be deemed "Non-Human"

[BoRegardless]

If you edit a human egg and wind up producing a new &/or murderous in-nonhuman species, do you have a right to kill it?

Re:What will be deemed "Non-Human"

[JaredOfEuropa]

Simple: you create a second abomination to hunt down and kill the first one. So there's really nothing to worry about

Bad track record

[JustNiz]

Show me just one example where humans have messed with nature and got it completely right.

Re:Bad track record

[nehumanuscrede]

Historically speaking:

I can't show you where doing things the natural way got it completely right either.

Even letting nature do its thing doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome. We're simply trying to give nature a little bit
of help where we can.

( Personally, I would have loved to see the gene responsible for my need to wear glasses by age 10 removed )

Re:Bad track record

[JustNiz]

>> Even letting nature do its thing doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome.

Well It got us from pretty much nothingness to where the whole universe including the earth and us is now.

I agree that its not perfect but it still pretty amazing and definitely seems a lot better than we humans could manage if we were in charge.

Re:Prohibition does not work

[blue9steel]

The only way I think we can buy a lease on responsible genetics is by having an oversight board that is controlled by neither big industry nor the local government. Perhaps something like a UN ethics committee that does not accept appointments by governments, but selects its own members from scientific communities, with the UN councils only holding veto rights.

Right, because no one would ever figure out how to game a system like that. *rolls eyes*

Edit the "stupid" gene

[RogueWarrior65]

Hey, if we could edit out the "stupid" gene, I'd be all for that. Hint: people who think they are oh-so-smart have this gene.

Re:Edit the "stupid" gene

[prefec2]

The problem you described is a software problem and not a hardware problem. Changing the hardware will not enable people start reflecting their thinking and doing.

Re:Edit the "stupid" gene

[RogueWarrior65]

One can argue that DNA is software or rather the FPGA, hence it can be reprogrammed.
Some "stupid" is programmed into the SSD but other "stupid" is hereditary.

Solution Proposal

[prefec2]

a) Direct and indirect genetic modification of human genes with the goal to change a person or embryo is forbidden if not allowed explicitly in the following sections.
b) All allowed procedures must be available to all humans regardless their income. No extras for rich people.
c) Modification which cure a specific illness or degeneration listed below are allowed.

List of allowed treatments:
- Detection and correction of chromosome errors, like trisomy 21.
- Mucoviscidosis
- Dysfunctional organs

On a side node: Small boobs, hair and eye color, knobbly noses, cognitive functions, etc. are no sickness at all. It would be stupid to reduce through genetic engineering the general genetic diversity.

Re:Solution Proposal

[ChrisMaple]

You are claiming that the extreme sun sensitivity to which many redheads are prone is not a serious problem.

You are also claiming a person whose huge contributions to humanity have made him rich does not deserve special consideration, even if he is the individual who invented the correction from which he would benefit. Your motive here is nothing but jealousy of those better than yourself.

Re:ethics is outside the jurisdiction of science

[prefec2]

Therefore, ethic standards are defined externally and applied to all research. In any research proposal template you will find special sections for animal, environment and human treatment. However, scientists can also discuss ethic issues.

Re:Needs animal testing/experimentation, not a ban

[Catbeller]

We can't design wings that work, and physically we couldn't lift off anyway. Birds are shaped as birds because that shape works. Ditto nightvision, all the other stuff. Can't do it.

We could get rid of acne, arthritis, bad teeth alignment, breast cancer tendencies, baldness (that's not hard), all the diseases that are transmitted by parents who dearly wish they didn't and pretend hard they don't.

Cosmetically, tall beautiful men with sharp jaws do have better lives on the whole than those who don't. Women who are smart, athletic, shapely, and have faces which sculptors long to carve do better in life as well. It would be a sad thing indeed if people used GM to edit out the stuff that doesn't help you socially and include things which do. But...

We do that anyway. Successful men, of whatever appearance, tend to have children with beautiful intelligent successful women. Beautiful intelligent successful women overwhelmingly mate and produce offspring with beautiful men who match their capabilities; let's not bother arguing it doesn't happen that way all the time. It does, and it shows in the makeup of wealthy corporations, wealthy suburbs, and top-flight universities and political life as well. Beautiful people marry beautiful people, make beautiful babies, and those babies go on to mate with people mostly like themselves. Those people are segregating into their own communities, both physically and virtually. It IS genetic engineering - we're not selecting for the best hunter or the best baby-maker, but for social success and physical appearance. CEOs don't marry homely janitors, etc. It's so intrinsic we've developed adaptive language to cover up what we're doing- dorks and poor losers versus cool, pretty and almost inevitably successful. Eh maybe letting people choose their kid's appearance is yet another selection process - the intelligent not-purty people will use the opportunity to prettify their kids vs just letting nature take its course, and so their kids will become more wealthy and powerful, and the cycle goes on, as it always has.

No choice.

[AnotherBlackHat]

I couldn't agree more, giving people a choice always ends badly.
In particular, people should be prevented from saying no just because they find their partner "undesirable".
Perhaps we can institute a lottery to force people to have sex with "ugly" people.

Re:No choice.

[nehumanuscrede]

LOL

No need for a lottery. This is why BEER was invented :D

Re:Screw Ethics

[Ambassador Kosh]

With the way our technology is progressing we could hack away on you when your are 80 and if all goes well you would physically end up at around 25 again and life until something catastrophic got you. Editing an adult organism works fine and we are getting better at it very quickly.

Not only wealthy people...

[duck_rifted]

If it's banned in official channels, it will be available in alleys and basements.

Re:Needs animal testing/experimentation, not a ban

[powerlinekid]

I would like a son whose life expectancy isn't 40 years (which is 40 years longer than it was in the 1950s).

We can already mitigate genetic issues chemically, why not genetically? What is the difference?

high school science fair project yet?

[peter303]

My threshhold for a open entry technology is when I see it in a science fair project. A high school student interning in a relatives college or industrial lab could very well do such a project.

Re:FRIST

[ganjadude]

still havent worked out all the kinks, hence all the "1"s

Re:Sure, it doesn't affect me, but ZOMG "morals"!1

[Cealestis]

So if a couple down the road is genetically engineering their children without eyes or asking for changes just to see what happens we should be okay with this and enable them? There is a strong case to correct genetic based disorders. However I think a moment to talk about the ramifications of the wrong, intentional or otherwise, that can be done with this technology would be worthwhile.

Re:Needs animal testing/experimentation, not a ban

[ChrisMaple]

Eye sensitivity can be boosted by about 10x - reflective layer and wider pupil - at the cost of acuity. Cyborg eyes will someday allow the replacement of rods & cones with silicon, good for maybe a 6x improvement. Neither sounds like a particularly good choice, although a silicon replacement for a blind eye could be very good.

Re:Needs animal testing/experimentation, not a ban

[ChrisMaple]

We can't design wings that work - on Earth. In a closed dome on the moon at 1 atm, why not?

Re:Fear not... Re:There is no debate.

[ChrisMaple]

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? No amount of genetic manipulation will eliminate laziness. The lazy person earns less, and from among the lazy who earn less some will be jealous of and pissed off at those who earn more. Some will turn to violence or crime.

People don't even need real differences to cause malicious harm. Just look at riots after soccer games.

In all likelihood, people will be better. Just don't think that everything will be fixed.

Re:ethics is outside the jurisdiction of science

[ChrisMaple]

You are attempting to conflate science with scientists, and you're not going to get away with it. Once people, a body of knowledge, and the scientific method, are all properly identified, your post becomes gibberish.