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?

Comments

This is were we should be going

[heldal]

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:

1. 1. Augment ourselves, using gene technology, computers etc
2. 2. Ditch ourselves and build a totally new, superior species

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!

Re:This is were we should be going

[dgatwood]

And what if we can slumber for millions of years, lying deactivated until we reach something of interest? Even if there turns out there is no way to reach places faster than light, if we have the possibility to adapt ourselves accordingly, why wouldn't we? Although instant communication across thousands of lightyears would be nice, it's by no means a requirement for further colonization.

This is an interesting possibility, but I think that "slumber" might be overkill. You don't need to send actual humans there, just the building blocks needed to create humans.

So you might start by building a copy of the human genome, wrapped up as "junk genes" in mold. The mold goes into spore form, and gets frozen by the cold of space, remaining dormant until it arrives. You then modify the genetic trigger that fires when there are favorable conditions for life. Instead of causing the mold to go from spore form into actual mold, the trigger would instead change the stop codons to construct appropriate organelles (e.g. human mitochondria) by using some previously "junk" DNA to construct the human mitochondrial DNA, and then would subsequently change the stop codons again to make the human DNA be the primary DNA, leaving the mold and mitochondrial DNA disabled. After a few cell divisions, you'd basically have human cells, and I think that would be close enough.

Of course, I shudder to think what sort of conditions would be necessary for a human embryo to grow without a human womb. In practice, such a design would probably have to use a multi-stage process with multiple generations of self-replication, each of which builds progressively more complex structures, until you eventually get to something that can process oxygen and pump blood well enough for a human fetus to grow inside it, at which point it would produce one or more actual, pre-fertilized human eggs.

I'm not sure how practical such a concept would be, and I'm not sure if the cell membrane of a mold cell would be serviceable as a temporary housing for the contents of a human cell, but it would be pretty cool if somebody managed to pull it off. Combine that with androids to teach them human culture, and you have yourself a lifeboat.