Slashdot Mirror
In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos (npr.org)
Scientists for the first time have successfully edited genes in human embryos to repair a common and serious disease-causing mutation, producing apparently healthy embryos, according to a study published on Wednesday. From a report: Now, an international team of scientists reports they have, for the first time, figured out a way to successfully edit the DNA in human embryos -- without introducing the harmful mutations that were a problem in previous attempts elsewhere. "It's a pretty exciting piece of science," says George Daley, dean of the Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the research. "It's a technical tour-de-force. It's really remarkable." The research is ultimately aimed at helping families plagued by genetic diseases. The new experiment used a powerful new gene-editing technique to correct a genetic defect behind a heart disorder that can cause seemingly healthy young people to suddenly die from heart failure. The experiment corrected the defect in nearly two-thirds of several dozen embryos, without causing potentially dangerous mutations elsewhere in the DNA. None of the embryos were used to try to create a baby. But if future experiments confirm the techniques are safe and effective, the scientists say the same approach could be used to prevent a long list of inheritable diseases.
Just gonna leave this here -
http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0036/ERBAEN0036___1.htm
True, but it's let's do it right -- reasonable precautions and meticulous peer and external review.
Except you forgot the part:
Just because we _can_ doesn't mean we _should._
There are HUGE implications.
I'm sorry Dave, I can't hire you. Your DNA shows that you a heart defect that predicts you will die by 30.
For every problem technology "solves", it creates 10 new ones.
Is there anything it can't do?
Have gnu, will travel.
I have a super cool teenager with Down's Syndrome, there was never a question of carrying to term, and no regrets. But I wonder if there will ever be a way to early DNA hack enough cells to flip a kid to being a mostly unmutated chimera with a shot at no physical weakness or IQ hit. I dont feel sorry for her, but what would I give for another 50 IQ points and a similar bump in social skill.
Yeah? If you really believe that, why are you typing on Slashdot? Why aren't you squatting in a cave somewhere in a pile of your own crap?
It's going to be a fun fight, but I suspect the initial discrimination will be against the modified, not the unmodified.
But if I can open up a catalog and choose the best designer genes to have edited into my future child so they're healthy and strong (and smart, if we figure out the rats' nest of interconnected genes influencing intelligence), damn right I'd buy every 'upgrade' I could.
For every problem technology "solves", it creates 10 new ones.
If this statement was supposed to mean "technology makes things 10 times worse," then you're right to call BS. However, it's true that while new technology solves problems, it also creates new ones.
For example, the smart phone has changes the way we live, solving many problems. It's easy to get ahold of people. It's easier to do business on the go. With GPS and maps, it's almost impossible to get lost unless you can't get a signal. We have immediate access to all kinds of media, almost anywhere in the world.
However, there are also loads of associated problems. Everything from the need to keep your battery charged to the adverse effects of social change from ever-present social networking apps, they're "problems". It doesn't mean the new problems outweigh the old ones that technology solves, but at the same time, you'd have to be blind to think that new technology is simply an absolute good thing.
And once you recognize that there can be drawbacks to technological advancement, you have to acknowledge the possibility of a technology where the problems it creates outweigh the benefits. A lot of people might argue, for example, that the world would be a better place if we hadn't invented nuclear weapons.
Still, even if we concede that we'd be better if some technology weren't invented, we aren't able to un-invent it. We have to figure out if there's a way to regulate it to prevent the negative uses and unintended consequences don't get out of control.
If we had this in mass use today, I believe we'd end up removing many positive attributes from the human germ line. We are very quick to limit what we consider "normal" without a full understanding of the effects beyond the individual and caregivers that a trait has.
For example, it has been shown that ADD is a success trait in more nomadic societies. Those with ADD get "treated" today because they don't fit into our education system. Most ADD disappears as a problem in adults not because it actually goes away but because they are finally free to fill the type of slot that nature chose for them. They find a career and life that benefits from dropping stability and going.
Another example is autism. Many of our geniuses have been a little off in the autism spectrum. Eliminating that variance in the germ line could dampen innovation forever.
There are many other examples of traits that fill positive roles in our society that we would probably seek to edit out because the people with them don't fit into the "norm". Until we gain the capacity to understand that the norm must be judged in relation to making sure that the larger animal is "normal" and has all of its individual "organs" intact, we aren't ready for this.
1: It's not quite a dupe, but this seems to be confirmation of the previously unconfirmed story posted on Slashdot last week: https://science.slashdot.org/s...
2: As reported in both TFA and the previous Slashdot story, the "powerful new gene-editing technique" is CRISPR. (As i'm sure many here could have guessed.)
3: As reported in the previous Slashdot story this is not exactly a "breakthrough". It's the first time it's been done in the US (officially) but teams in other parts of the world have been done it officially (and probably unofficially) as well. This study from China earlier this year claims to be the first attempt to edit "normal" embryos, but earlier attempts had been made with "abnormal" embryos.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I understand the sentiment but when you apply your statement to the current context: "Just because we can eliminate genetic diseases don't mean we should." That is a horrible thing to say. If we can eliminate genetic disease we should. Those people that are plagued by those diseases will be better off. The human condition will be that much better and tolerable as it is the entire purpose of technology.
There are always going to be huge implications and no one will know how to deal with them until they show up. The best example I can think of are nuclear weapons. They changed the face of the planet in every conceivable manner. They were designed to kill indiscriminately as many humans as possible with little effort. Yet, the implication was that MADD created a relative lasting peace the world has never known before with humans. We are still trying to understand all the implications of nuclear weapons. Our struggle and problems are different. We have to perpetually maintain the peace MADD demands for every future generation that lives with nuclear weapons instead of living in wars that won't threaten our extinction.
We have the luxury to question 'should a technology be developed' because others recognized that it should even when they didn't understand all the huge implications. Our lives are better because of it.
Or moreso, when this person is born and grows up, know that I failed to treat a damaging mutation because I wanted to be 'natural' , without their consent. Which child/adult would be angrier, the one with a painful disabling disease or the one without?
love is just extroverted narcissism
I hope that you are joking, for it would be difficult to reveal more ignorance and prejudice in just two lines.
No, it cannot consent. It isn't legally a person, and even if it was, it would not be of the age of majority, and therefor its parents would have the right to authorize the treatment. I will repeat, doctors do not require the consent of four year olds to begin treatment, they require the consent of the legal guardian(s), so why is it you assert a right for an embryo that doesn't even exist for an actual fully-formed human being?
Your point is nonsense. If you want to talk about the ethics of designer babies, fair enough, but what your asserting is irrational.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It makes sense to have a little forethought and anticipate which kinds of problems you might run into
What problems do you anticipate from preventing young adults from dying? The worst that could reasonably happen is that we make a mistake and kill someone that was going to die anyway. So what's the big deal?
There is a big difference between reasonable caution and knee jerk Ludditism.