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."
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.
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
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!)....
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.
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.
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.