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

[110010001000]

We cannot populate the galaxy...because distance. The nearest star outside of our system is way too far away. We could never reach there. And no, we cannot build a spaceship that can go any appreciable fraction of the speed of light and there is no such thing as wormholes we can travel through.

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.

yes it does

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

More of a meta comment: No Forbes Articles

[wcrowe]

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.

Re:Racing races

[Immerman]

And it's important to keep in mind that just because you have a hundred people with the drive and creativity of Jobs, that doesn't mean that *any* of them will be anywhere near as dramatically successful. A great deal in the world depends on chance - on being in the right place at the right time to make your first fortune so that you have the resources to play in the major leagues.

Re:Who needs "designer babies"?

[butchersong]

If this project wont lead to a generation of creepy bioluminescent children then I'm at a loss as to why it should be funded.

Not In Our Genes

[wickerprints]

(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.