Slashdot Mirror
Editing Genes In Human Embryos Doesn't Mean Designer Babies
TheAlexKnapp writes: Dr. Kathy Niakan, who is leading the scientific team that just got the go-ahead to edit genes in human embryos, explains why their work won't lead to designer babies. The genes that they're looking at, she says, are unique to the human embryo, and the work's sole purpose is to understand early development. "We can use this new method that's extremely precise and efficient to ask questions about early development that has profound importance for stem cell biology, and for our understanding of why some embryos fail to thrive." But really ... how long until it turns into designer babies?
I downloaded pack of genes in txt format, with a cancer in it. The ill shrink, but because I zipped the file. LOL ^^
"...and I only make my money to help win just wars."
Why did they bred raptors?
dolce & gabbana ?
I'm probably going to be lynched by saying this, but in order to fix ourselves and populate the galaxy, we basically have two options:
It's pretty evident that although we have won the top spot here on Earth, we're pretty feeble anywhere else. If we want to expand and spread out across the universe, we need to fix things. Maybe we'll divert into different species designed to live in different environments. Maybe we'll develop a superior brain and switch bodies as needed. Maybe we'll transition into virtual beings. Maybe we'll fuse into a collective mind. Maybe something totally different.
Who knows? One thing is certain, though. If it can be done, someone will do it, and whomever gets it working will probably gain possibilities beyond what we can imagine today, ushering in a new era of colonization and discovery. Personally I see this as natural progession - and it's beautiful!
There will probably be countries that allow tinkering to create smarter and/or more disciplined children. If the USA doesn't allow it, we may fall behind and not be competitive with such countries.
Also, there may not be enough "room at the top". If you cloned Steve Jobs 1,000 times, that doesn't mean there would be 1,000 Apple Co's. It mostly just means more competition for the "elite" jobs. There's plenty of interesting ideas floating around (I have some of my own I think are good) but the market-place can only test and tune so many at a time.
Table-ized A.I.
Now, *designed* babies, that would be interesting. Maybe they can find the gene for crying in the middle of the night.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I want one Givenchy and two Ralph Lauren, please.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Ever since we found out what genes are, and what they do, EVERY advancement in the field has contributed to exactly this, designer babies. Nobody wants to admit it but lets be honest, it is actually a major goal. We all want to improve ourselves and our offspring. It is part of the struggle for survival, it is in our competitive nature, it is instinct.
We WILL use any means we can to gain a competitive advantage and those that don't compete will lose by default. Designer babies will happen and in the long run it will likely become the norm.
Does the concept of designer babies include correcting faults or errors that lead to downs syndrome or other such debilitating diseases and conditions ? Not that I agree, but I can see some objections to purely cosmetic corrections or the introduction of 'new' features, i.e. gills or high/low pressure acclimatization, decorative skin or eye colors, etc., but correcting defects doesn't seem like it should be classed as 'designer'
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
There are major issues that can be fixed by this. It could lead to early identification of genes that cause MS, Type-1 Diabetes, certain types of Cancer, sickle cell anemia, and tons of other diseases. Yes eventually identifying these genes will cause doctors to want to correct these genes and create a "designer baby" and we won't know all of the side effects of this when we do it, but do you think the people who suffer through these diseases give a shit about that.
As human knowledge expands, it should be used to correct these things. And yes, when knowledge of this becomes wide spread and could cause folks to want to create a "perfect" human being, that will need to be handled then. But that is at least a decade away (probably a lot more than that), and in the mean time can't we fix some of the bad things and craft better laws/regulations to catch the people who will eventually abuse this.
I would like to comment on the article, but unfortunately, I can't read it because it's a Forbes article, and I'm running an ad blocker because I don't intend to be infected with malware just to read Forbes articles.
I propose that all of us, the editors included, agree to not post links to Forbes articles until they adjust their pro-malware stance and agree to provide a safe browsing environment.
Proverbs 21:19
these kind of experiments will use and further develop the same technology needed to make designer babies.
not judging, just sayin'.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Don't worry, the science deniers will just continue using this as an excuse to dehumanize.
So, what is the next group to be dehumanized?
The summary sounds even worse than designer babies. Originally, this story was portrayed as a way to cure some genetic diseases in those that would have a predisposition to develop the diseases. Now, we are told it is to manipulate the genetic code of human embryos for the purpose of figuring out how certain things work.
So, these are not necessarily embryos that would create human beings with some genetic defect, but embryos created solely for the purpose of experimentation on. Depending on where one stands on the whole "life" issue, this has the potential to be a powder keg issue!
if you ignore the slippery slope and pretend there are no gray areas, almost everyone would probably that correcting clear defects is okay.
It's that fuzzy line, the gray area, that's the whole problem. Where to draw the line, who decides where to draw the line, and who enforces the line?
Consider what's happened with plastic surgery. Plastic surgery for the repair of facial injuries dates back about 5,000 years, to ancient Egypt. For thousands of years, these techniques were mostly* (though not entirely) limited to "correcting defects", mostly due to injury. Gradually, people said that slightly uneven breasts were a "defect" that should be corrected, then a nose that's larger than average needs to be "fixed". We know what's happened with that over the last 50 years.
Most people would probably say that would be wrong to subject a child (who cannot give informed consent) to surgical risk, a painful recovery etc, because the parents prefer the kid's nose to be rounder. The same slope exists here - is it okay to subject a person to the risk of severe genetic deformity caused by messing with their genes, based on a parent thinking that the kid's curly hair needs to be "fixed", to be straight rather than curly? it would seem that's not okay, but where to draw the line? Who draws the line?
People manipulate their progeny all the time. Best schools, best athletic camps, etc. Those that have acquired wealth will always be able to afford the best of everything to give their kids an advantage. The rest of us have to work to become privileged. And many have.
Fortunately, biology itself provides bounds. Height is limited by the size of ones bones, too much height and bones can't support the weight without further increases in bone diameter. People of extreme heights have numerous joint and bone issues. Muscles taken to extremes rip ligaments and tendons from their anchor points. Even the human brain has limits.
We can fear the mythical superman of bio-engineering, but it's not as simple as tweaking a few things. And most people won't want their child to be a guinea pig, they will want proven, repeatable methods before paying for it. I can't even begin to imagine the testing that will be required before someone is permitted to perform any type of gene splicing on an embryo.
Beyond that, humans themselves have shown that those of limited means can do extraordinary things beyond those of affluence through hard work and determination.
So .. who cares. Le'ts use bio-engineering to start to eliminate genetic diseases.
I know, all Downs Syndrome babies are beautiful.
But I would prefer that no more ever be born.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...
Something tells me Steve would have eventually been at least mildly successful in something even if he never met Woz etc. He was highly driven. Pixar owes some of its success to Jobs, even though it's only remotely related to end-user computers. He sensed an emerging market there.
His (non-genetic) father was interested in cars and cabinetry and tried to get Steve interested in those also. But, he was drawn to electronic gizmos instead. (It's true, though, his father got him interested in the "look and feel" aspect of things, and that played a part in Apple's higher-end market target.)
Regardless, the chance of a Steve clone being successful is still likely greater than a random person. It's like picking stocks: no guarantees, but at least maximize your chances. Cloning successful traits increases your chances. I never claimed it a sure shot.
Table-ized A.I.
Seriously? when you get to pick the gender and colors.
Realistically? when you can say "we should give him wings and a nice prehensile tail" and not be joking.
Although giving your child bright pink hair is probably not the best idea.
I think spots would look neat.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
(To borrow a title from Lewontin et al)
The whole notion of "designer babies" is built upon the flawed presumption that who we are as individuals is solely dictated by specific genes or groups of genes, and that editing these genes can, GATTACA-style, determine with complete precision how all of the traits that make up our physiology and psychology are eventually expressed. I regard genetic determinism in a manner not unlike the role of Newtonian gravitation in physics: a useful model, but a grossly simplistic one that, from a philosophical perspective, should not be used to attempt to explain all phenomena. The notion that genetics can explain sociological phenomena is not something that I can hang my hat on, personally speaking. It simply doesn't have the mark of scientific reasoning. (Not that the opposing point of view is without its flaws, either!)
Now, can we use gene editing to treat genetic diseases? Probably. Could we use the same approach to make a child grow taller? To give them a more desirable physical appearance? To improve their intelligence? Such a notion may be eventually possible, but in the foreseeable future, it is still firmly in the realm of science fiction. The issue is not whether to draw the line at all, but rather, where to draw the line, because the reality is that gene editing is here, it will not be legislated or moralized away, and it is going to be used to treat disease and advance our understanding of all kinds of health issues. The bottom line is that people are getting hysterical over something that is not even remotely in the realm of possibility at this time, not because they understand the science, but because they have been watching too many movies; when in the present reality, there is a real potential to deliver effective treatments and improvements to the quality of life.
I would not agree that correcting clear defects is okay, because I don't think we know what exactly a defect is. These "defects" may in fact lead to a competitive advantage, in some instances, we don't really know. If we somehow eliminate all defects then we may also be reducing our ability to evolve.
Think about Steven Hawkings, maybe because he was confined to a wheel chair and locked inside his mind made him contemplate the universe more. I can't remember who, but I heard about some blind person who could think in 4D. Both of these things probably would have been considered clear defects.
A lot of evolution is trial and error.
by other groups to create designer babies in parts of the world that would have no reservations or compunctions about doing so. what an incredibly stupid thing for Niakan to say
And having Jews wear yellow stars doesn't mean gas chambers.
Considering how many times "the science" has gone from eating eggs being healthy to unhealthy and back again, do we really trust that gene editors know exactly what they're doing? Anybody remember thalidomide?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sexy catgirl waifu when?
Well, gene therapy - again, and STILL no mention of fixing the 'A-HOLE' genetic defect...
Sorry about your luck cant fix stupid.
My children look remarkably like me. Lucky them!
That's about as perfect as it gets. Who needs more?
"Editing Genes In Human Embryos Doesn't Mean Designer Babies yet "
...fixed that for you. ;-)
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
*South Park reference for those who didn't get the joke*
...The Nukes We Just Launched Are Definitely NOT Headed Towards Israel.
So, instead, ethicists and lawmakers draw the line waaaaaaaay over there, pretend that they didn't draw a line at all, and ask "who draws the line" without admitting that they are who and the line has already been drawn -- in the most useless way possible.
Eventually the governed get tired of it and junk the lot. Case in point, contraception.
Genetic counseling is already reasonably common, and has most of the ethical concerns of "designer babies" already. Parents use genetic counseling most frequently to avoid heritable genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities.
I have a hard time seeing how the trials required to even begin gene editing on human embryos that are brought to term could ever be justified, though. Modifying an embryo who is otherwise expected to become a healthy human just isn't something that I can see any ethics board allowing, as there are very likely to be significant side effects.
Paywalls are one thing, but requiring malware-filled user-specific advertising to visit the site is awful.
Take a moment to think about how much effort goes into mate selection. In terms of evolutionary biology, *everything* is about producing optimal offspring.
Welcome out Cowboy Neal Clone overlords!
Just remember what happens to designer humans: "We offered the world ORDER!"
The answer is probably a negative number - if you count the date of fertilisation, or starting the preparation of the fertilised egg.
Very likely labs in less regulated countries have already started trying to do this. whether they're working for locals, of for westerners who are desperate for $REASON$, and think that their $REASON$ is more important than the grounds for not doing it (yet) of multiple countries worth of health and genetics experts.
There will be failures - some of them literal monsters which die in utero, some of them with less obvious failings which make it to birth, or to toddlerhood, or adolescence. We can only hope that we manage to learn something from these errors.
I would propose a 50% remission in jail time for using unregulated gene-editing organisation on a human foetus, if ALL the lab records and tissues are surrendered to the authorities. "Cooperate, and you might see sunlight again."
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Hemophilia is a pretty clear defect. So is Lesch-Nyhan disease.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.