Slashdot Mirror
Despite CRISPR Baby Controversy, Harvard University Will Begin Gene-Editing Sperm (technologyreview.com)
Even as a furious debate broke out in China over gene-edited babies, some scientists in the US are also hoping to improve tomorrow's children. From a report: [...] Amid the condemnation, though, it was easy to lose track of what the key experts were saying. Technology to alter heredity is for real. It is improving very quickly, it has features that will make it safe, and much wider exploratory use to create children could be justified soon. That was the message delivered at a gene-editing summit in Hong Kong on Wednesday, by Harvard Medical School dean George Daley, just ahead of He's own dramatic appearance on the stage (see video starting at 1:15:30).
Astounding some listeners, the Harvard doctor and stem-cell researcher didn't condemn He but instead characterized the Chinese actions as a wrong turn on the right path (see video). "The fact that it is possible that the first instance of human germ-line editing came forward as a misstep should in no way lead us to stick our heads in the sand," Daley said. "It's time to ... start outlining what an actual pathway for clinical translation would be."
Astounding some listeners, the Harvard doctor and stem-cell researcher didn't condemn He but instead characterized the Chinese actions as a wrong turn on the right path (see video). "The fact that it is possible that the first instance of human germ-line editing came forward as a misstep should in no way lead us to stick our heads in the sand," Daley said. "It's time to ... start outlining what an actual pathway for clinical translation would be."
Practice makes perfect so if you are going to start making improvements over a baseline then I think it would be logical to practice gene editing on something that isn't human and could really be improved. What fits the bill here is dog breeds. For the unaware, pure breed dogs have significant genetic defects because they are inbred which results in the expression of recessive traits. The current trend of buying cute dogs that are a genetic disaster doesn't seem to be receding so they seem like a prime target for genetic editing. When we've learned some important lessons (or succeeded beyond all expectations) then we should use what we learned on humans.
If you think it's a waste then you haven't considered the annual cost of animal surgeries that are a consequence of a small gene pool.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Anyone who edits the human genome with the intent of degrading the child in any fashion is liable to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. If children are going to live with the consequences, then so should doctors and parents. Why do I bring this up? Because there are parents that actually do this now, like some deaf parents that want children who are deaf as well. Editing a child so they cannot hear should at least carry life imprisonment, if not the death penalty for every party involved because that is truly insidious and depraved abuse.
The part about fixing things like Huntington's and such isn't a moral debate. If we can, we should. Eliminating genetic disorders is to our general benefit. I'm worried about taking it too far. For example, I'm ADD (quite seriously so). Medications are not helpful to me because of side effects. However, in some ways it's a superpower. I have a knack for spotting the holes in plans at work because I draw on all of the odd things I picked up because of random curiosities. I can get multiple specialists involved because I draw on their various backgrounds, which means I get teams to talk to each other. Is it really a disorder?
Sort of, because it sometimes gets in my way. But if we edit to the point our minds form with less variation to avoid "disorders" we may be damaging our potential. My inability to mentally stand still has made me an odd success, but it took a long time to find a good niche for myself. Our society is bad at managing differences well, which is a shame. In tribal days, those differences allowed specialization which allowed the tribe to grow. Our society still needs these differences to thrive.
I don't think editing eye color is really a moral issue. Skin color might be because of society's racial issues, however. We're going to be running up against some tough questions very soon.
Not even that is going to be simple. There are some deaf people that don't want their own deaf children to get cochlear implants [theatlantic.com] or to have other types of procedures that could restore their hearing. If they don't want that, odds are they won't accept a genetic fix to prevent the problem from developing in the first place.
That's an individual decision, and it's up to the parents. If they don't want to consider a genetic fix because they don't consider it a problem, that's fine, but it shouldn't stop the research from helping others who do want to correct the issue in their children.
I personally see the decision to not add a genetic fix as more ethically ambiguous than the research for a fix. You could remove one stumbling block from your child's life and chose not to. That said, if you're confident you can look your adult child in the eye and explain your reasoning with conviction if they ever come asking you chose not to, then, again, it's your choice. All you can do as a parent is make the choices you think are right.
Suppose for sake of argument that sexual preference has a genetic control (I don't believe that this is the case, but this is for the sake of argument) and some parent doesn't want (or does, as some people today may well do) their child to be a homosexual. Is that something that's permissible to "fix"?
I give the same answer here as the rumored answer to why Jean-Luc Picard is bald in the 24th century: surely they have come up with a cure by then. The answer is, "by the 24th century, nobody will care."
Ideally that's just not something parents will care to change. If they do care, it's probably better for the child to go ahead and make the change, instead of setting them up to grow up homosexual in a family that is non-accepting, and all the psychological issues that would come with that.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Yes, eugenics.
Yes, but not in the horrific way it has been practiced in the past, by killing babies (or adults).
What is wrong with parents being able to decide physical attributes of children? If that meant no more people under 6' tall - what is the problem? No-one is lost, just altered before they even know what is going on. What is lost by saying - well that baby was going to have a crippling low IQ, but we fixed it. What is the problem with that?
It's not like the world is not already practicing a far more primitive form of eugenics anyway, if through no other means than abortion where attributes of the parents lead to some 50 million abortions worldwide.
So why not allow more control over evolution by shaping those who are born rather than by carving away those we choose not to let be born?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know we have all this ethics crap, but if we eliminate something like Cystic Fibrosis, I don't see a downside here.
Many of the inheritable diseases we see are there because the genes don't just control one thing, but several. Often, a genetic variation does not only cause a negative, but is accompanied by something beneficial. Evolution has had a long time to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. If it were only disadvantages, they would generally have been eradicated from the gene pool.
The most famous example is sickle cell anemia, which protects against malaria for those who only have the gene from one parent.
And some HLA antigens give strong resistance to influenza A, at the cost of an increased risk of rheumatic diseases. What would you pick?
In the case of Cystic Fibrosis, it's an an autosomal recessive disease, meaning that 25% of children of two healthy carriers get CF. That it is present in the gene pool indicates that there may be an heterozygote advantage to being a carrier with the mutation on only one gene. Eradicating the genetic variation that causes CF would eradicate that benefit too, whatever it may be.
As for the benefit to individual couples, CRISPR doesn't add any benefit that isn't already there today. Prospective parents who both are carriers can test the embryo and terminate pregnancies where both genes are added.
It's not quite that simple.
To use CRISPR on the gene line you really want to be doing your modification as early as possible. So right away, you're talking about in vitro fertilization. The question is, if you're interested in preventing something like cystic fibrosis, wouldn't it be easier and simpler to just screen those cells before implanting them?
Now, most genetic diseases, and other traits, are way more complicated than CF. They're not just a binary one gene you've got it or you don't. Usually it's not even a few genes, it's a lot of them. So if you want to influence those, maybe you want something a bit stronger than just screening. But then you have all the practical problems with unintended consequences, because you don't actually know exactly what you're doing, you're just tweaking some things to nudge the baby in a particular direction.
The Chinese case is kind of an interesting in between. It's a single gene edit to confer HIV resistance, but it's presumably not an allele that either parent had already so there's no way you could achieve it through screening embryos. However, even CCR5-d32 isn't all gain like fixing the CF gene would be. Having the allele does confer resistance to some strains of HIV, but it also knocks out a bit of the immune system. There's some evidence that it decreases resistance to influenza, for example.