Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Scientists Claim To Have Genetically Modified Human Embryos
Annanag writes: There were rumours — but now it's been confirmed. Chinese scientists have attempted the ethically questionable feat of genetically modifying human embryos. The scientists try to head off ethical concerns by using 'non-viable' embryos, which cannot result in a live birth, obtained from local fertility clinics. The study is a landmark — but also a cautionary tale.
This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why. Because copyright (or patents) (or even (worst of all) trade secrets) on human DNA is the worst thing that can happen to our human society. We don't want only the well born to have better genes. But of course this won't happen. There will be a strong gene copyright lobby, and it will demand DNA to be copyrightable, to make research pay off.
Also, we should think of the possible pressure future parents may be in, in giving their children the best genes. Perhaps one day (rather sooner than later) we can change genes of living humans, too, e.g. with viruses, and then at least you can revide your parent's choices about your body.
A brave new world indeed.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Why is this a cautionary tale? What horrific outcome did they have that we are supposed to learn from?
They were "horribly" able to cure B-thalassemia in 51.8% of the embryos.
We should "learn not to do this type of thing" from the post-testing not having a 100% success rate.
You know, instead of just not implanting the other 48.2% of embryos that were not successfully modified to not have the disease.
Not that they planned on implanting them anyway.
PS: I know in vitro clinic which would be screaming the "Happy, happy, Joy, joy!" song at the top of their lungs for a 51.8% pre-screening success rate on just not implanting embryos that carried the gene for Huntington's or Downs Syndrome, let alone *fixing* the damn thing.
2. Not only did the splicing technique not work very often (28 / 86 embryos), but it also created lots of off-target mutations in other parts of the DNA. Both of these results were not expected.
Wrong. They only tested 54 of the embryo's afterward. 28/54 is a 51.8% success rate.
The off-target mutations in the remaining 26 embryos was not only expected, it was predicted about 16 years ago, when we first started experimenting with retroviral splicing vectors.
Stupid people tend to have a lot more kids than smart people. Citation: Idiocracy
If the smart people let the stupid people out-breed them into extinction, are they actually the smart ones?
While I'm sure you can find some zealots who believe this way, the majority of people have a different perspective. There is a reason we wish to have the ethical discussions and rules laid out (which technically exist, but China ignored them). Here is a short (not complete) list of ethical concerns. The numbers don't indicate a priority, just separating them clearly.
1. If you can manipulate genes to make someone unhealthy "healthy", you also have the ability to go the opposite direction. How can we ensure that does not happen?
2. How do you prevent cookie cutter humans and have individuals vs. a template human worker bee who people in power want?
3. How do we prevent manipulations which would generate hybrids?
4. How do you price these procedures so that all levels of society have the same options? If it's only in the hands of the rich and powerful it will not benefit society, it will only benefit those people who are rich and powerful.
5. How do you audit what other people are doing with genetic manipulation?
6. How do you punish those that break the ethical Law? Who has jurisdiction? What are the penalties?
The strong insinuation that the only people questioning ethics are Luddites is extremely offensive and disingenuous. There are a good number of people who study history and remember the last time some guy wanted perfect humans. They want some regulation to ensure that a situation similar, or worse, situation does not occur again. Or at least have the framework attempting to prevent it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The takeaway is that sooner or later, there is going to be widespread genetic modification. Many of us have known this for a very long time, some suspected, some hoped it will not happen. It will, just like we will have autonomous robots doing all manner of things, one day (all vehicles, maybe in my lifetime).
> This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why
The impetus is not to hope a pharma company will disclose information, but to start baking in the expectation in all strata of society as a normal process. Politics, capitalist endeavors, technology, and copyright is BAD for our future society. To put it simply, a struggle against the secret vs the open is BAD for society. Tuskeegee, concentration camps, and other horrifics were only possible because it's still accepted that 'state secrets' or even "personal liberty" is tied to exposed information, as if there is an invisible-acceptable moral line. You have to get people willing to listen and accept the opposite of what the US (and to an extent) European citizens' expectation of privacy allow. Would I like my home address available for anyone? Of course not. Mostly because there aren't enough protections/retributions and society EXPECTS you to be punished for having that information exposed. What we want has to change. That level of openness is something humanity needs to build toward, if we want to secure against potential abuses. Props to eu for making strides. The method of sticking our head in the sand, only to look up when there's a rumbling, will never be effective and will continue to be abused by those who understand it (we'll just spin the story).
I don't know how to get there, but we will or we will die from someone making a big enough mistake with genetics. I'll probably be long dead, but it bothers me to have such certainty about these issues and so frustrated when there's a suggestion that more forced oversight will satisfy.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.