Slashdot Mirror
Ethicists Advise Caution In Applying CRISPR Gene Editing To Humans (washingtonpost.com)
New submitter Baron_Yam quotes a report from Washington Post (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source): Ethicists have been working overtime to figure out how to handle CRISPR, the revolutionary gene-editing technique that could potentially prevent congenital diseases but could also be used for cosmetic enhancements and lead to permanent, heritable changes in the human species. The latest iteration of this ongoing CRISPR debate is a report published Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine. The report, a series of guidelines written by 22 experts from multiple countries and a variety of academic specialties, presents a kind of flashing red light for CRISPR. The report did not recommend an absolute prohibition of gene editing on the human "germline" if such interventions can be proved safe. This would involve genetic changes to eggs, sperm or embryos that would persist in an adult and could be inherited by future generations. For some ethicists, that represents a slippery slope. At the conclusion of a gene-editing summit in Washington at the National Academy of Sciences in December 2015, scientists said that although some basic research could proceed, it would be irresponsible to use genetically modified germline cells for the purpose of establishing a pregnancy. But the new report takes a slightly more permissive, forward-thinking position, saying that, if and when such interventions are proved safe -- which could be in the near future -- and if numerous criteria are met to ensure that such gene editing is regulated and limited, it could potentially be used to treat rare, serious diseases. "We say proceed with all due caution, but we don't prohibit germline, after considerable discussion and debate," said Richard Hynes, an MIT biologist and one of the leaders of the new study. "We're talking only about fixing diseases."
What's the ETA for catgirls? ^_^
#DeleteFacebook
I'm not sure how the right of a transgender person to use a particular bathroom stands in the way of genetic engineering exactly....
TFA is just saying be careful. Umm... duh?
Go read about the horse named impressive. A prime example of not being careful.
If you're a bioethicist, you basically just have to learn one word: "Don't."
That's all they ever say when you invite one to some panel or something. If you also know how to "urge caution," you're basically guaranteed tenure.
Initially this is going to be very expensive so only rich people will be able to use it for their children. Most rich people don't have genetic mutations they will pass on, they (and everyone else), will want taller, whiter, more athletic children, lighter coloured eyes, blonde hair, etc. Next we will figure out the genes for intelligence. In 15 years the very rich will be able to give these gifts to their children. In 40 years every Olympic medal will be won by one of these children. If you thought the rich had an advantage by sending their kids to better schools just imagine what this will do to inequality. (Although maybe we can hope that in 50 years this will lead to more intelligent and more compassionate politicians)
Nature wrote a solid article on the dangers. IMO it's going to lead to some seriously damaged humans before it's closer to perfected. But IMO it will be improved until it's in common use, unless a different technique comes along. In the mean time there's little point to banning it.
Governments that fight markets never win. If Europe and the US ban this technology that just means progress will continue in other places. And there are other reasons than eliminating disease. I could argue the ethics, but that's not the point. Like it or not people are going to do it. We live in the last fully nature-made generation.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
What was that one books solution? The time machine one? Oh right, the vast horde eats the rich.
Only until we edit out their impulse control genes!
Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta.
You people do realize that the CRISPR genes of the type to do gene editing are present in strep pyogenes and also staph aureus? These bacteria, especially staph aureus, are found everywhere. That means that anyone can extract these genes and put them into a plasmid quite easily using technology such as PCR (which can be done with a thermometer, stove, and a cup of ice). The only difficult part is making oligonucleotide sequences -- which are dirt cheap to buy though not trivial for someone to make at home but if I really thought about it I am sure there is a way to do it with just household chemicals and a small lab.
What I am saying is, if you ban this thing it will do nothing other than prevent its good use. The bad use will still be possible -- although there are tons of much easier and more effective ways to cause harm than genetic engineering -- it's rather sad to watch people get so paranoid about something like this. I mean people it's easier to cure late stage IV cancer and diabetes than it is to do something bad with genetic engineering -- yet there are tons of much easier ways to hurt people.
Good luck with that. There are a lot of people for whom ethical considerations only apply to other people.
The definition of "disease" has always been somewhat subjective, and I suspect it will become rather more so as technological advances continue. -PCP
but could also be used for cosmetic enhancements and lead to permanent, heritable changes in the human species.
Excuse me if I'm failing to see this as a downside. Instead of repairing heritable diseases for one person, those fixes persist to their descendants as well? Sure in the short term, untested changes could lead to unknown side-effects, but that's obvious and wouldn't justify a broad ban on germline changes. Eventually/soon, germline gene editing will be cheaper than treating these diseases for even one individual, much less them and all their descendants; with socialized medicine, some countries will DEMAND gene editing, once it's cheaper. The moral panic reminds me of that surrounding in-vitro fertilization when it was novel. Remember, right now the standard practice is to do genetic testing on fetuses in the womb, and if any developmental problems are found, it's recommended the pregnancy be aborted; it's not like abortion is controversial or anything, right? To ensure I get modded to oblivion, I present this thought experiment: once inbreeding depression has been genetically eliminated, would people still consider inbreeding morally unacceptable?
Who really cares about 'cosmetic changes'? What's considered an 'enhancement' varies from culture to culture. If e.g. Japanese want to edit their genes to have wider eyelids rather than getting them surgically widened, sure why not. Is "you are tall because your parents were tall" more comforting than "you are tall because your parents wanted you to be tall"? Do we really want to revive the spectre of 'genetic purity'?
As for the rich being the only ones with access to this technology, leading to them becoming a master race that the unwashed masses can't compete with, that's nonsense. Consider how quickly the cost of genome sequencing has plummeted in the past 20 years; the same thing will happen with gene editing. Furthermore, consider how many parents in e.g. China are willing to do ANYTHING, including sacrifice their life (e.g. Foxconn suicides), for the sake of their children; many, many parents would be willing to save money for decades, so that before they died, they could afford gene editing for their children, assuring their offspring a better life. A MUCH more likely scenario is that gene editing is outright made illegal in a given country, so only the rich can leave the country to have it done elsewhere; this goes doubly for oppressive countries with restrictions on travel.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Once upon a time dissecting people was thought unholy, but renaissance physicians like Vessalius did it anyway, risking anything from excommunication to death. Medical progress has always been hampered from time to time by unfounded pseudoreligeous fears.
CRISPR is awesome progress. Germline enhancement is clearly the next step. Certainly a generation of smarter stronger humans can do better with things than we have. China will have no compunctions going towards enhancement. We should not allow squeamishness to prevent us from literally making better people. It won't be hard. The bar is not very high.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
It's all part of Evolution, right?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The most basic problem is, too many folks don't know that an ancient hypothesis called "vitalism" has been thoroughly disproved. The result of that disproof is simple: Every living thing, from a microbe to a whale, is basically just as much a machine as a fuel-powered car. Including the human body. Which means that we, as owners and drivers of human bodies, while we definitely want to fix "lemon" bodies, we also should be free to decide what we want in the way of improvements. Logically, we need to think about what opinions future generations will have, regarding any improvements we choose --but they will have the same dilemma with respect to the generations that follow their choices of improvements.
I know of some improvements that very few might disagree with: For example, the human species is descended from other species that are to manufacture their own Vitamin C, but humans lost that ability because of ancestors that lived in trees for many generations, where sources of Vitamin C made it unnecessary for bodies to make it. But then human ancestors descended from the trees, and Vitamin C was not so available as before.... By extension, it could be worth fixing up the human species to be able to internally manufacture all essential vitamins (and amino acids, too!)....
Which is all total nonsense anyway.
Human evolution is favoring things now which could never hold within nature. People are born with inherited diseases and survive beyond their generation and produce offspring. You could say we've been favoring the wrong genetics for a long time now, so why not let science take a crack at this problem? We're provably doing far worse than even Darwin could have comprehended.
The only reason we have to fear creating something that can outperform us is our own feeling of inadequacy. It's not that we don't want to produce something better, it's that we don't want to produce something that's better than we are. That makes us feel uncomfortable. Get over it.
Had one woman on the radio a few month ago worried about a new 99% reliable and non-invasive test for Downs Syndrome because it meant that in future Downs Children and parents would be looked down on as it meant that the child was _chosen_ to live that way.
So yeah, there are people who would argue that we shouldn't prevent retardation.
Of course, a lot of this is due to people worried that we'll somehow create a neo-nazi pure white aryan standard for babies, rather than the opposite.
I hope that gengineering will lead to _more_ diversity. People of every color of the rainbow. The world needs more green and blue people. Colonize the seas with merpeople. Cute little things like cat and dog ears. Tails! Centaurs! Functional hermaphrodites (use whatever damn toilet you want)!
That's not to say that's the only way to go. I also want cyborgs and uploaded consciousness.
The elimination of disease, enhancement of intelligence, etc. are good and desirable things for the vast majority of people. There will be clever arguments, not all of which are entirely wrong, that this is bad or at least highly dangerous for humanity, but outright banning it is much more dangerous. Do you think that all ~200 countries in the world will not only follow suit, but will proactively enforce the law?
The Brave New World comparison is quite weak. Huxley's world didn't use genetic modification as I recall; they used embryological stimulation in an artificial womb. That was the key to their entire society--no more pregnancies, the government controlled all births. Now tell me, what do rich designer babies (with all of the usual attendant horrors of there being more blond people in the world, oh noes!) have to do with total and complete governmental control of reproduction and child rearing?
These things are not only unalike; they are opposite. People having control over their bodies and genes and children is directly opposed to the government having control (and/or denying them such control through bans.) There are plenty of real concerns here, but I fear they will be completely drowned out by nonsensical BNW and GATTACA quotes.
I fear and suspect the western world will end up intentionally abandoning this technological revolution, leaving it up to another power (perhaps the Russians or Chinese) to lead the way, very possibly in a clandestine way known only to the rich ruling elite. I must say, though, it'll be pretty amusing if the Chinese get there first and show us all just how ridiculous those "oh no, too many Nordic-looking people!" arguments are.
Actually you can buy pre-made kits on line that let you do CRISPR editing for $1200 in your own garage. Obviously you're selecting from a set of existing tools and it's not for editing human cells, but one of the reasons CRISPR is such a breakthrough is because of how cheap and simple it is - and it's very powerful.
+++ This is the very point. G*ogle "CRISPR kit" and... blamo within 5 top match : http://www.origene.com/CRISPR-.... Page "CRISPR-Cas9 Vectors" : nothing over 500$. All possible in your kitchen. What some of us don't get IMO is we are not talking about a revolution here but instead a full scale disruption. I know ([fr] https://www.franceinter.fr/emi...) some national defence office are well on the case. Already. We all know whether legal or not is irrelevant. It will be done. Don't we know ?
Sounds like you need some editing yourself, if this is what you consider a thoughtful, appropriate reply.
While I don't entirely disagree with you, this is an extremely slippery slope to go down.... I would actually oppose you until we 100% (well as close as we can get) understand genetics. For as advanced as we are right now, we're just leaving the horse and buggy era, and its just too soon to be messing, wholesale, with human genetics.
CRISPR is already super cheap (in relative terms), it's extremely simple and doesn't require enormous expenditure to set up and run. economies of scale would materialise almost instantly and a minimum wage worker could afford, in a year or two, to give his kids the same advantages rich dickheads do.
It may actually become an equaliser. The lie that we're all born with the same opportunities could be whittled down some and made real by this.
C17H21NO4
Genomics and genetic manipulation will not result in any sort of equality.
Initially the rich will have access, and control, and well, become richer and richer if they have their way. Inequality persists.
Then the technology will become 'democratized', IE cheaper, and the less rich will take advantage of it.
Finally, the much less rich will find this technology is 'given' to them to 'solve problems', mostly to do with productivity, healthcare costs, and anything annoying the regulators believe ought to be fixed.
Along the way, much black-market stuff will happen. Gender selection will be popular. Cosmetics of course.
Equality? No, that will never be a goal nor result of this genetic manipulation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Perhaps this will lead to a fix for stupid.
Worse. The objections are justified by ethics. As if it were unethical to want your children to be smarter, stronger, and better-looking.
Maybe, the changes are "dangerous" from the point of view of Biology and population health. But dragging Ethics into it is utter nonsense.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The wealth distribution gap between the rich and the poor is continuously widening. What makes you think that these scientific advancements will be equally available to all members of society?
This will lead to the inequality between the classes to become entrenched on the genetic level.
The problem here -- and why these "ethicists" are pretty much irrelevant other than listening to themselves pontificate -- is that just like AI and a host of other things of similar nature, you can make all the rules and laws you want, but as the tech or product or service becomes readily available, people will do what they want with it, not what you want (or insist upon.)
Can't buy pot at the corner store? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Can't buy sex at the hotel? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Can't get an AI that is designed to do [whatever]? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Can't get a gene edit to to [whatever] at a doctor's office or a commercial lab? Fine. Get it on the black market.
Where there's demand, there's provision. No way around it. Good or bad, easy or hard -- it's going to happen.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.