Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Despite CRISPR Baby Controversy, Harvard University Will Begin Gene-Editing Sperm (technologyreview.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

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."

109 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. I am not a doctor... by rnmartinez · · Score: 1

    ...and I don't fully get CRISPR, but if it can prevent serious diseases at birth, then I am all for it. Thanks to this guy for being a voice of reason. I know we have all this ethics crap, but if we eliminate something like Cystic Fibrosis, I don't see a downside here. If they are so concerned about humans, why are we not gene editing mice by the thousands? I'm sure I can find a few spare ones in my garage lol

    1. Re:I am not a doctor... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Growing up with someone who, is now recently deceased, who would have benefitted from this, I absolutely am adamantly opposed to 90% of the arguments i hear about "ethics". Most of them are disingenuous efforts by people who want to keep the technology under wraps, practiced only in secret back rooms available to the rich. Many more are religious fruitcakes and their ideas about their chosen gods will, he's not my god, I'm not interested in his opinion.

      However, there are reasonable concerns about first, yes I have something that will cure say, cystic fibrosis, but it also may cause cancer @40, or a few dozen other very unpleasant side-effects. And while *I* may find it acceptable, will the life that I create agree with my decision 40 years hence. That's a valid concern, but I don't know of any way of resolving it, but by doing it, seeing the fallout and either refining it or removing it as a legal technique. We don't actually know what we don't know, and we shouldn't let us stop it.

      Then there's a concern about what happens to our survivability if the entire population is running around with edits to their genes, and whether we can continue to live without it. Is it our heroin? It should be a concern. I am not sure it should stop us, but we should consider how we want to approach availability and legality of some of the more superficial edits (i.e. every man wants to be blond haired, blue eyed an wielding a 12" wang, the latter of which may actually be problematic to our long term survival, particularly if edits cause him to be infertile 75% of the time).

    2. Re:I am not a doctor... by rnmartinez · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more.

    3. Re:I am not a doctor... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:I am not a doctor... by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      If you think this will benefit anyone other then the rich, you are a fool.

      http://pnhp.org/news/rent-seek...

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    5. Re:I am not a doctor... by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      I think you have a good point. I also wonder about things like nutrition. If we start editing genes, will we fork our species into a group who's nutritional needs are far different than the current norms?

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    6. Re:I am not a doctor... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:I am not a doctor... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why we're speculating on this shit; it's not like their has been a study on a CRISPR crop of humans yet.

      Because there's no way to put the genie back into the bottle.
      If we can't stop it, we can at least learn and mitigate potential problems as much as possible.

    8. Re:I am not a doctor... by The+Snazster · · Score: 3, Funny

      If God didn't want us doing this he wouldn't have made our code open source.

    9. Re:I am not a doctor... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Not everyone desires blonde hair and blue eyes.

      Analysis of dating site data shows that Asian women get the most messages.

    10. Re:I am not a doctor... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If we start editing genes, will we fork our species into a group who's nutritional needs are far different than the current norms?

      People of northeast Asia, including Mongols and Inuit, already have genetic adaptations for a meat based diet high in protein and saturated fat.

      According to 23andMe, my daughter is 5% Mongol, and she is a vegan. So I presume that she didn't get the meat gene.

    11. Re:I am not a doctor... by hdyoung · · Score: 1

      Good post.

      Survivability probably won't be an issue.

      Natural selection will still play out in the era of gene editing. Bad edits will become glaringly obvious within a generation or two. Probably earlier. Gene edits that render people less able to have children for ANY reason will be strongly selected against the natural way. Like you said, 12-inch reproductive members on men could render them sterile, plus it might make it hard to find a partner to reproduce with. I'm not sure how many women out there actually want that... another example.... extreme intelligence could very well render a person utterly intolerable as a partner. Specific gene edits that produce unexpectedly bad results won't continue to be used by parents in the future. Nature will continue to weed out the individuals that have problems reproducing.

      The gene edits that produce more fit people will render them more likely to reproduce or will be selected by more and more future parents.

    12. Re:I am not a doctor... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that mate selection is going to be the same as baby selection, once the mechanics allow separate choices?

      Looking at the skin and makeup products that are popular with Asian women, your argument seems rather weak.

      Don't be surprised if gene edits to make children look superficially more like the father are popular with Asian women.

      It is silly to think that everybody wants blonde hair and blue eyes, because wigs and hair bleach already exist, colored contact lenses exist, and yet the streets are not filled with blonde wigs and blue contacts. Only couples where one of them already has blue eyes or blonde hair will be likely to go for it. Especially since they'll still have some features from both parents.

    13. Re:I am not a doctor... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      With experiments, experience, and computer modeling we ought to have a good understanding of affects in 40 years -- 2 generations. That little time doesn't allow for much spread by reproduction.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    14. Re:I am not a doctor... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Eventually, many favorable edits will spread through most of humanity. EVERYONE benefits.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    15. Re:I am not a doctor... by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      If your rich.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    16. Re:I am not a doctor... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      the worry is that they don't completely understand everything they're modifying.
      For example, sickle cell anemia grants increased malaria resistance to those who carry it repressively.
      The worry is that you change a gene to remove problem X, and accidentally introduce problem Y. Which may not be immediately apparent.

    17. Re:I am not a doctor... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      recessively. sigh...

    18. Re:I am not a doctor... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Most of them are disingenuous efforts by people who want to keep the technology under wraps, practiced only in secret back rooms available to the rich.

      Horseshit. That's a small fraction of them. Most of them are due to some issue with their skydaddy and a book written thousands of years ago.

  2. So his argument is by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    because we can we must?

    I mean we *could* massively deregulate and remove the export controls on nuclear reactor technology as well but I don't see a push to do that; even though it could be hugely beneficent to parts of the developing world and radically decrease the carbon foot print.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:So his argument is by AuMatar · · Score: 2

      More like "there are beneficial uses of this technology, so we should follow through on those". A better analogy is we didn't stop pursuing nuclear power because it could also be used as a weapon. There's definitely morally and ethically troubling issues, like controlling gender. There's also non-troubling things, like removing genetic disorders. The possibility for the first shouldn't preclude using it for the second.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:So his argument is by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      There's also non-troubling things, like removing genetic disorders. The possibility for the first shouldn't preclude using it for the second.

      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 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.

      There's also a whole can of worms as to what constitutes a genetic disorder. 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"?

    3. Re:So his argument is by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Unless you want to simply nuke China before they become genetically superior, yes, you must.

      There are countries less worried about US export controls with commercial nuclear reactor technology, the expert restrictions aren't the limiting factor for nuclear power.

    4. Re:So his argument is by TrekkieGod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:So his argument is by arth1 · · Score: 1

      There's also non-troubling things, like removing genetic disorders.

      Except that that is troubling. Many genetic inheritable diseases are recessive, and being a heterozygote carrier gives benefits, while the disease from inheriting the gene from both parents is highly detrimental. If eradicating the disease, you also eradicate the heterozygote benefits.

    6. Re:So his argument is by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I mean really you want just any shithole country messing with the human gene code creating heritable traits, that could spread into large populations in just a few generations.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:So his argument is by hdyoung · · Score: 2

      Only sometimes. Yes, sickle-cell anemia carriers get a benefit. I think that there are lots of others that don't. Tay-Sachs carriers don't get any advantage (that we've been able to identify).

    8. Re:So his argument is by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      There are some deaf people that don't want their own deaf children to get cochlear implants or to have other types of procedures that could restore their hearing.

      Yes, and that's child abuse. Some cultures are not worth preserving. Deaf culture is one of them. Any culture built around a debilitating disability is a coping mechanism, not some precious thing that must be maintained at all costs. (Except for the people using it to cope, badly.)

      I would vote for a law, many years hence after the human genome is well understood, that makes it a felony to bring a baby to term with any disability that could have been removed by CRISPR (or its successor techniques). Is that anti-freedom? Sure. Suck it up. No freedom is unlimited. There sure as hell should be no "freedom" to severely damage another person's life before they're born, even if they're your own child. Maybe especially if they're your own child.

      I will hope that societal norms will trend that way anyway, making a law unnecessary.

    9. Re:So his argument is by inking · · Score: 1

      There's also a whole can of worms as to what constitutes a genetic disorder. 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"?

      This is not a popular opinion, but I think the whole debate around “fixing” homosexuality would be very different if (a.) there wasn’t a very bad historical precedent and (b.) there actually was a way to do so. Even if you strip out any societal stigma of homosexuality, there really aren’t many benefits to being homosexual, while the drawbacks are significant: the sex is considerably worse and limited, and you can’t have children without surrogates or medical intervention. Particularly the latter is something I have heard multiple homosexuals I know well lament about. I cannot honestly find any advantages homosexuality would bring with aside from pregnancies becoming a strictly opt-in affair. The whole violence towards homosexuals, especially homosexual men, has kind of poisoned the well when it comes to discussing this issue.

    10. Re:So his argument is by khchung · · Score: 1

      That's an individual decision, and it's up to the parents

      Unfortunately, HAVING A CHOICE is exactly what some people do not want, and they will fight tooth and nails to remove this choice from everyone else.

      Why? Because having a choice means being responsible for making the choice, and that terrifies some people to their core. What if their children hated them for not fixing their children’s genes which left them with a crippling disability for life?

      You may think that most parents would like to have a choice when their children are involved, but there are enough choice-fearing parents around and they will climb any moral high ground to remove choices from everyone.

      --
      Oliver.
    11. Re:So his argument is by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      That only works as long as you don't have idiots or villains in control of the U.S. government. Consider the Panama Canal.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:So his argument is by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Too late. They already are genetically superior.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. Not much of a debate by theCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't know if you noticed, but the "furious debate" was more like researchers not wanting to be the first to say that it was okay to edit the genome of humans in planning. This is a done deal. It's going to happen. It will first be about saving the children, then it will be about making the children better, then it will be about making patented children under license with annual renewals. This random corporate crap is entering the species at the genetic level, we will NEVER get rid of it. If anything can be found to have gone wrong then entire populations will need to be force-sterilized. It is completely insane. It is now inevitable. Blame whoever or whatever you want for that.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:Not much of a debate by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Nah. Someone will use CRISPR to create a phage that wipes out the entire human race. First it will be weaponized to go after certain groups of people (race) based on a phenotype. Then, it will mutate and takes us all down. Highly contagious, high latency, and near 100% fatal.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Not much of a debate by Falconnan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Not much of a debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why haven't they done the Nazis one better and killed all of us deplorables by now?

      Turns out that you don't have access to CRISPR just because you sling venti macchiatos.

    4. Re:Not much of a debate by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...then it will be about making patented children under license with annual renewals...

      No, it really won't. That's before I even have to remind you that people cannot be privately owned any longer.

    5. Re:Not much of a debate by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There are much easier ways to avoid Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, or other single gene disorders. Screen the embryos. You need to do IVF and screen embryos for CRISPR anyway.

      CRISPR is only necessary if you want to add something that neither parent has.

    6. Re:Not much of a debate by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      will be about making patented children under license with annual renewals.

      Patented, hell -- DRM kids. Pay your bill or you car stops working. Pay your OTHER bill or your kids heart stops working. But it's a low, low monthly fee of only $9.50, cheaper than Photoshop. Isn't your kid worth more than that?

      And the good news? He does something bad that you don't like? We'll replace him for you with Next Gen's model for free!

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    7. Re:Not much of a debate by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      First, your assessment of CRISPR is incorrect. It can remove, replace, or add genes. It is one of the enzymes used by bacteria to remove viral DNA. This is a discovered thing, not an invented one. It can also cut and paste, which is how it can be used to remove known bad genes with good copies. This is also why it has been used in research to combat latent HIV infections.

      Next, you're talking about discarding fetuses. This leads to WAY more ethical issues. And that's before you get religion involved (which always seems to happen).

      Additionally, IVF has its own risks and is extremely expensive even today. CRISPR would use artificial insemination, which is generally far cheaper.

      Finally, it may be possible some day to use CRISPR in combination with various viral therapies to correct genetic conditions in adults, possibly correcting sperm and eggs in the body of adults. This is unlikely within the next decade, but similar therapies are being used to program white blood cells to kill cancer. Next step is genetic editing of the cancer to restore normal cellular behavior.

    8. Re:Not much of a debate by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Go back and read carefully. I said CRISPR is only *necessary* when you want to add something that neither parent has. I didn't make any statements at all about what CRISPR could do.

      I'm talking about discarding embryos, specifically blastocysts. This is done every day. It's an unavoidable part of IVF, and also an unavoidable part of a reasonable reproductive gene editing procedure. CRISPR doesn't work 100%, so you want to keep the blastocysts it worked in and discard the rest.

      You could, theoretically run CRISPR on the sperm only, but this has a bunch of problems. You would have at best a 50% chance of your editing being preserved in the resulting embryo. You might be able to make it work in the case where the father (and not the mother) carried a particular gene, say for Huntington's, that you wanted to fix, but you wouldn't be able to check to see if it took (or did something else you don't want). Or, if you figured out how to do that, you could just discard the sperm you didn't like, without the editing. Any reasonable CRISPR intervention in humans is going to be operating on an embryo, and so would be using IVF.

    9. Re:Not much of a debate by inking · · Score: 1

      I would accept genetic modifications on myself for ten bucks a month if it generated more than ten bucks a months value. It is silly not to. A vision correction surgery costs around $4000 depending on where you get it. Assuming you get it -very- early at the age of 20 and live for the next sixty years, that’s a bit more than five bucks a month you are paying on an monthly basis. (It’s actually more, because you are making a lump payment and thus cannot collect interest on the sum if you were just paying an annuity on a patent) I had it done and it’s absolutely fantastic. Aside from some kind of ideological argument, if you get more out of it than you pay, it’s a great deal.

    10. Re:Not much of a debate by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      BAD DEPLORABLE.

      No biscuit.

    11. Re:Not much of a debate by khchung · · Score: 1

      I'm worried about taking it too far.

      And this applies to every new technology. ANYTHING can be “taken too far”, trouble is, no one knows where “too far” is until we are there.

      Electricity - what if we wired the whole city and people go let electrocuted by accident? What if everyone depended on electric heating and we lost power in the middle of winter?

      Drug - what if we made a drug which, through widespread use, caused a large number of deformed babies to be born?

      The Internet - what if some company put up free services aimed at collecting personal information about everyone, the ultimate big brother!

      Cell phone - what if someone tracked everyone’s location wherever they go?

      All of these came to pass, and humanity survived and most of our lives were better for having these technologies rather than banning their use.

      --
      Oliver.
    12. Re:Not much of a debate by sad_ · · Score: 1

      i'm sure we'll see an episode about this topic in SE5 of Dark Mirror.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    13. Re:Not much of a debate by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      And we all know math can't be patented either.

      No, "we all" do not, and you're a fool if you believe so to begin with. Math itself cannot be patented. Applications of math can be patented.

      It's not like any of this is hidden, you just have to research and read:

      [T]he Court has also emphasized that an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980-81 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)). See also Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 1349, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (âoeThat a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction.â). Accordingly, the Court has said that an application of an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon may be eligible for patent protection. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 175 USPQ 673, 675 (1972)).

    14. Re:Not much of a debate by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      Well, you would want to check if it took before you used the sperm, ideally. But with most genetic diseases, you need to both cut AND paste, meaning you need CRISPR for any editing you want to do where a bad gene is replaced with a functional one. This gets complicated, but extra genes are relatively rare in genetic disorders from what I've read. It's usually genes where a bad codon is in place, so an incorrect amino acid is used to generate the protein. Usually, you still get a protein, but it's ill-suited or useless for its function.

      '

      So, basically, you need to add the correct copy for all edits. However, CRISPR isn't perfect, either. In cases where they have been researching for HIV, they've seen removal of parts of the virus's genome from living cells, and then the virus mutates. The technology needs a LOT of work before I would ever recommend using it on humans. Our genetic code seems to be fairly optimized for function and compression, with a lot of recursive compression if an article I read ten years ago was right. This last bit makes edits risky.

    15. Re:Not much of a debate by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      When I say "taken too far", I mean where we start changing what it is to be human. Or letting fashion dictate baby appearances. And this isn't a purely moral consideration. Our variability and plasticity is a lot of what allows us to specialize in different facets of life. I don't want a homogeneous society where everyone looks and acts the same. It would weaken us greatly. Now, if you wanted to eliminate various functional issues by correcting them this way, I'm all for it. Editing future generations to be immune to flu, HIV, tuberculosis... Hell, add Ebola while you're at it, I'm okay with it. There's a mutation out there for stronger bones. If it's a good fit, use it. But let's not tinker with race, eye color, etc. It's our diversity which minimizes the odds that any SINGLE thing could wipe us out. I like Humanity most of the time, and would like to see us live long enough to get things right.

  4. Help dog breeds! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Help dog breeds! by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      The reason those dogs have bad genetics is because idiots are breeding them on mass and are completely unwilling to put any effort or money into producing better dogs. Why would these same puppy mills be willing to spend any money or time genetically editing these puppies genes which will undoubtedly be more expensive than just developing a breeding plan and testing your dogs for fitness?

      The only people who will use genetic editing would be the ones already producing superior super dogs that win world tournaments and outfit the world's police and military. But this is unlikely to happen. We already have the technology, the even more profitable world of Horse Breeding have long since outlawed fake horses, and the same thing would happen in dogs if they tried it.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Help dog breeds! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      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.

      You make a good point. For example golden retrievers are very susceptible to cancer, and the fact that it is a relatively recent development points to a genetic component(from what I understand there was a huge increase beginning in the late 90s and cancer rates are much higher in American golden breeds than European breeds). Perfecting this treatment in goldens could lead to a drastic reduction in hereditary cancers in humans.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  5. Yours is the superior intellect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "...To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell's heart, I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."

    I look forward to our genius and immortal but still inherently flawed overlords.

  6. I think we need at least one ground rule by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I think we need at least one ground rule by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You may have all the genders of John Varley's Gaea trilogy, but the Asgard gender is forbidden.

  7. If you want CRISPR babies by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Funny

    the key is to par boil them first. Otherwise your babies turn out all soggy. That's how the restaurants do it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Re:Harvard by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    A certain subset of liberals are rather hesitant about others talking about improving the gene pool because of some historical events happening to groups they are (self-)identified with. Then again, Daley is not part of that subset.

  9. Re:When do we get our atomic super men? by arth1 · · Score: 1

    It may not be in the best interest. Evolution has had a long time to make us stronger, faster and smarter, but any improvement in one area come with costs, like much higher energy usage or longer recovery times.
    Our brain size has gone down over the last few thousand years, for example, and so has muscle strength. More is not always optimal.

  10. Re:Harvard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Compared to those conservative universities, who are still trying to disprove man made global warming, evolution, and the negative effects of tobacco.

    Is that how they write sentences at Harvard?

  11. The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by shanen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've been rather surprised by the shallowness of all of the discussions I've seen on this topic, even in association with relatively deep articles like this one from Ars Technica. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    My comment on that article:

    How is it possible that the word "eugenics" does not appear in this story or in any of the comments? Or maybe I'm just more mindboggled than usual? Or people are just too afraid to use the word, even though it is obviously the key issue here? Too much study of philosophy?

    If you approach it from the perspective of eugenics, then I think the key distinction is between active and passive eugenics. Starting with the passive side, I think it is relatively benign to say that people should be allowed to have healthier children, including their genetic health. We are beginning to know a few things about what that actually means. For example, I think it makes sense and is even ethically appropriate to allow parents to consider whether or not they want to have children with fatal TSD, debilitating sickle cell anemia, or even hemophilia.

    People don't have to undertake those considerations, though the "natural" equilibrium solution is for parents to have four children on average so that two of them can die. Nature has a very coldblooded perspective. If the genes are mixed at random, half of the combinations are below average and half are above. Cruel Mother Nature "fixes" that problem by killing off the unlucky half before it can reproduce. Too bad that most parents would prefer not to see half of their children die, eh?

    What we have in this research is NOT passive eugenics, but active eugenics. Even worse, it is in the form of gambling of the most dangerous sort. We don't know the real price of the lottery ticket and we don't even know how close the result is to the ostensible prize. If you were figuring the probabilities, then the positive side has a low probability and a low value, while the negative side has much larger probabilities and many large costs.

    But there are human lives at stake here. Regardless of what degree of consent the parents may have been able to give, the resulting children had absolutely NO say in the matter, but they now have to live with the consequences. If there is any defense for this research, I haven't detected it yet. I could say much more against positive eugenics, but I've already spent more time than I can spare on this comment...

    Even less time for Slashdot these days. That's why I didn't bother to tailor it for this discussion. The issues are basically the same.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The defence is obvious. What this research does is act in the exact same manner evolution does, but in a more controlled fashion, as a result reducing suffering caused by nature and its processes.

      We still get children born with horrific birth defects for example that cause tremendous amount of suffering to those children and their families. Would removing those be moral or immoral? According to your argument, it would be utterly immoral and indefensible to do it.

      According to a rational mind, it would be utterly immoral and indefensible not to do it.

      Overall, the problem is that some people clearly haven't studied human history beyond "Hitler bad", and fail to even understand why it is that eugenics as practised in Third Reich were bad. Instead, they default to "eugenics bad" without any kind of deeper understanding of the reasons. And as a result, utterly miss the fact that their gross oversimplification renders their logic and results they derive from applying it to real world scenarios utterly immoral.

    2. Re:The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      How is it possible that the word "eugenics" does not appear in this story or in any of the comments?

      1. The Nazis gave "eugenics" a bad rap, so nobody uses that word anymore. You have to call it something else.

      2. This isn't really eugenics. Nobody is selected out. We just cut and paste the bad genes.

    3. Re:The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what degree of consent the parents may have been able to give, the resulting children had absolutely NO say in the matter, but they now have to live with the consequences.

      When did the children EVER have a consent in being born?

      Eugenics carries with it the stigma of killing off the "undesirables", or having the state choose who may breed. This, while ominous, is more along the lines of choosing from among the many dozens possible combinations you might be able to produce.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    4. Re:The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The only difference between his statement and yours is that your is even more into the extreme of utterly stupid angle of "it may have bad consequences, therefore don't try it".

      Whereas his at least has some limited merit, your statement has no merit whatsoever, because under it, any attempts to better humanity would be deemed immoral.

    5. Re: The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. One overlooked fact is the war of ideas between eugenicists and US geneticists, the latter is the idea discussed here. Itâ(TM)s not âoelook at birth defects, gypsies badâ itâ(TM)s look at birth defects, letâ(TM)s fix the specific cause regardless of ethnic identity. It is blowing my mind that people are freaking out over AIDS resistance being given to a kid. You understand that the entire human population would have to get decimated by AIDS as children for evolution to select the same gene, or hundreds of generations of people suffering from AIDs would have to occur? Evolution is powerful and comprehensive, but so slow. Thereâ(TM)s no reason not to improve the quality of life, yes that includes cosmetically and mentally, right now.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    6. Re: The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      There is one reason actually. Artificially evolving resistance to diseases launches an international arms race on biological weaponry. Currently, they're effectively MAD grade weapons. If you could immunize your population to an artificially engineered highly virulent and lethal airborne illness, you effectively turn a MAD scenario into a victory scenario.

      There are inherent dangers to these kinds of improvements. But we should proceed ahead while being aware of these dangers, and acting to mitigate against them. Not just stonewall the progress because it might cause harm that can be mitigated against.

    7. Re: The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by shanen · · Score: 1

      None of the short comments on this thread seem to be showing much understanding of the problem. This last comment (your [Luckyo's] second) might be related to some aspect of the real problem. I was actually looking for some more data for this topic for my students today. In addition to a section early in Homo Deus and this TED video: https://www.ted.com/talks/jenn..., though both of them seem to be too dismissive of the threats.

      I actually think the most likely doomsday scenario is a bioweapon. Genetic manipulation makes it more more likely that some fools will do it inadvertently in the belief they have targeted the weapon accurately enough to only kill their genetically marked enemies.

      On one point of apparent confusion in my position (but shallow thinkers are just so eager to construct straw men (because they can sometimes defeat them)) I would actually say that we should not apply passive eugenics against random mutations. We should start from the basis of allowing parents to select in favor of their best genes, but when mutations occur, we should not eliminate them. However, we should essentially have a form of social insurance to cover the costs, because most of the mutations are going to be negative. Time's up, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    8. Re:The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by shanen · · Score: 1

      No, that is NOT what I wrote. Drop me a line when you learn to read better.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    9. Re: The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. One overlooked fact is the war of ideas between eugenicists and US geneticists, the latter is the idea discussed here. Itâ(TM)s not âoelook at birth defects, gypsies badâ itâ(TM)s look at birth defects, letâ(TM)s fix the specific cause regardless of ethnic identity. It is blowing my mind that people are freaking out over AIDS resistance being given to a kid. You understand that the entire human population would have to get decimated by AIDS as children for evolution to select the same gene, or hundreds of generations of people suffering from AIDs would have to occur? Evolution is powerful and comprehensive, but so slow. Thereâ(TM)s no reason not to improve the quality of life, yes that includes cosmetically and mentally, right now.

      You seem to oversimplify things as the parent said.

      First, they found genes associated with AIDS, but they don't know other effects of the genes. Taking out certain genes would have consequences. If the same genes are also associated with other significant functionalities, then no one knows until the time comes because there is no way to accelerate the time in human. Then what's next? You can't simply add genes back to already mitosis organisms. As a result, you have created an unfixable problem. Please don't tell me that they could add the genes back to their children while they are still a cell. Similar chain of actions doesn't make it right. However, even though it is an amoral act, I understand why they want to do it. So I can't say I agree and disagree with the action.

      Second, with current medicine, we have found a way to keep the HIV under control. HIV is NOT AIDS. HIV is a virus which destroys your immune system. As a result, you eventually has AIDS. It is obvious that you don't understand that, or you wouldn't make a claim about human population gets decimated by AIDS. This is an ignoring part of yours.

      Last, yes evolution is slow, but it doesn't mean we, humans, should take a short cut and expect only positive consequences. We should consider what negative consequences would be as well. If the weight of negative consequences is more than the positive ones, then we should not do it. I agree that there is no reason not to improve the quality of life, but one must also weight with consequences we are going to face. Simply look at a short-term gain as quality of life is not a real quality of life.

    10. Re: The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      I actually think the most likely doomsday scenario is a bioweapon. Genetic manipulation makes it more more likely that some fools will do it inadvertently in the belief they have targeted the weapon accurately enough to only kill their genetically marked enemies.

      In his novel Sewer, Gas and Electric set in 2020(!) Ruff posits that the entire black population of the US was wiped out by such a bioweapon (one of the protagonists who is black survived because he built his own submarine).

      There is also a shrine to the (recently deceased) Donald Trump in a Jersey train station...

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    11. Re: The word you are looking for is "eugenics". by shanen · · Score: 1

      At first I thought I had missed some good news, or that it was a shrine to some relative. Then I realized you meant within the context of a novel, which turned out to have been published in 2004. The blurb says the novel is actually set in 2023.

      I had never paid much attention to Trump before he metastasized into #PresidentTweety, but now I'm frequently surprised by how many pre-campaign books mention him (often as some sort of benchmark or sometimes indirectly, as in characters meeting in one of his buildings). He really had invaded the public consciousness even before he set out to destroy it.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  12. Not elimination, enhancement and alteration by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Not elimination, enhancement and alteration by arth1 · · Score: 2

      What is wrong with parents being able to decide physical attributes of children?

      The lack of predation that would terminate the bad choices. Parents can make bad choices and then rely on society to provide a lifeline so the offspring can grow up and propagate. The gene pool gets worse, and the costs are largely borne by everybody else.

    2. Re:Not elimination, enhancement and alteration by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Not performing genetic alteration by necessity means fewer mutations than deliberately using CRISPR to cause a mutation. N N+1

    3. Re:Not elimination, enhancement and alteration by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The taller a person is, the more brain damage he incurs if he falls and hits his head. I'm 6'1" and once knocked myself unconscious slipping on ice and falling.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Not elimination, enhancement and alteration by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Well, if we don't limit it to a small agreed-upon list of crippling diseases, then some parents may choose some whimsical or downright harmful changes. Maybe the parents would prefer a dumb child, or an intersex child, or one with no hair. Just look at what happened to dogs. We have dogs that can't breathe properly because someone thought it was cute to have a smashed in nose.

    5. Re:Not elimination, enhancement and alteration by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      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?

      Of course it won't be free. So let's change your statement to one like this.

      What is wrong with rich people being able to decide the physical attributes of their children? If that meant only poor people will be under 6' tall - what is the problem?

      And if hiring looks for over 6' tall people because they can do the job better. Or the more appropriate example where it is brain enhancement. Then poor people can have children that will never get a job. And all the poor people die out then, or do we have wars and famine and all the wonderful things we love about our civilization!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  13. Frankenstein risk by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    If "designer humans" (DH) become an economic advantage for one country such that others feel at risk, then pressure will be to join the DH club even over ethics fears. Fear of being militarily overwhelmed will override ethics fears. The nasty radiation experiments and risks taken by both sides of the cold-war should serve as a warning.

    I would hope the major power countries agree to ban or limit such rather than create a DH arms race that would create pressure to rush things, risking Frankenstein-eque fopas.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Frankenstein risk by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Correction: "Frankenstein-eque" should be "Frankenstein-esque". That is, Frankenstein-monster-like.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  14. Re:Designer Babies = $$$ by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Nationalism seems to be better than capitalism then. You want your soldiers to be as healthy as possible, except for the crippling addiction to the drug you use to keep them obedient of course.

  15. Opposite occurs by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The lack of predation that would terminate the bad choices

    That is the point of ALLOWING gene alterations on children, because it is exactly like an accelerated form of predation that removes defects and improves physical attributes of offspring.

    What "bad choices" are you imagining it would be possible for parents to make to weaken the gene pool, that would be worse than allowing unchecked mental defects and physical abnormality as we do today? Society is already taking care of everyone born in a general sense so nothing changes there, all gene editing does is to remove the number of edge cases that society has to care for.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Opposite occurs by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What "bad choices" are you imagining it would be possible for parents to make to weaken the gene pool, that would be worse than allowing unchecked mental defects and physical abnormality as we do today?

      Many if not most genes code for more than one effect. The same gene that can influence the height of an individual might also increase the risk of connective tissue disorders (or 2nd generation offspring getting connective tissue disorders) and a gene that reduces the risk of Alzheimer's might might also increase the risk of schizophrenia. We haven't charted even a fraction of the effects that individual genetic changes cause.

    2. Re:Opposite occurs by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      We just had a parent in the news for naming her child ABCDE. I could never had predicted that particular "bad choice", but I can very easily see people having children modified for their own selfish attention seeking.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Plastic surgery by mrops · · Score: 1

    This is going to be no different than plastic surgery, it too started to help say burn victims, soon the rich could use it to prolong youthful look. This time around, its actually may preserve youth much longer. Sure you will have problems, they will be solved, breast implants use to burst, now they don't. Already in US of A, the rich can afford medicine poor cannot. Now imagine you struggling to live past 60 and CEO of LiveLong corp looks 20 in at 100+. That is going to be the near future. Eventually it might trickle down, however I doubt it, expensive medicine is still not available to countless, this is going to be no different.

    1. Re:Plastic surgery by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The 2 main causes of death in civilized countries, cardiovascular disease and cancer, can to a large extent be eliminated, delayed, or at least reduced as a risk by exercise, diet, and supplements that are widely available. Add to that feedback from occasional blood tests, and the costs are a nuisance but not an impossibility for the middle class. Figure $3000 / year for supplements and tests at age 60, less if you're younger because your body isn't failing to properly process nutrients yet.

      Appearance tends to echo general health, and the same nutrients that prevent heart disease and cancer promote general health and the appearance of youth. Looking 20 at 100 isn't the situation yet, but it's not far off from what is possible at a reasonable price.

      Of course, there are many things we don't have a handle on yet, like male pattern baldness. But dramatically extended life for many people who are willing to put in the effort is here today.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  18. Re:Harvard by DigressivePoser · · Score: 2

    You imply left-leaning people are more likely to support eugenics/modification than right-leaning people. Do you have any statistically-valid evidence for such a preference, or is that just a personal guess?

    No statistics, but from a historical perspective, eugenics was all the rage with Progressives in the early 20th century. The Progressives of that time wanted to replace random natural selection with purposeful social selection. For example, sterilizing black women without their consent would reduce the number of "imbeciles" being born. I don't think the Progressives of today think like that now, but the way they treat others that don't have the same opinions makes me wonder sometimes, and I'm sure there are plenty who wish DJT's mom was sterilized before he was born.

  19. Every sperm is sacred... by ffkom · · Score: 3, Informative

    don't they know? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  20. Gattaca anyone? by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    Personally, I never saw Gattaca as a bad thing (except for the way they treat people that were not selectively conceived, which is what the movie is really about). The "controversial" method used in that movie didn't involve any genetic modification at all, Mildly surprised we aren't mining methods of implementing that first.

    Be that as it may. GM people will happen. Outlawing it won't stop it from happening. It won't even stop medical tourism in potentially shadier places that do allow it. Might as well do it here and do it responsibly. It seems like a big step but it's got to be better than letting it happen randomly (i.e. nature's way). If there is such a thing as "nature's way" then life evolving to the point it can more intelligently guide its own design is the natural next step. If we'd seen a few other planets where life had gotten to our stage it might even be rather obvious, but we really can't wait a few billion years while we search nearby galactic clusters.

    There's just too much demand for the good this can do, for individuals, for society, and for the entire race, to keep it wholly in the labs once the time is right.

  21. Re:Harvard by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    History has a lot of jerks on both sides of the left/right spectrum. That doesn't settle the quantity/proportion issue. I hope this doesn't degenerate into "my historical anecdotes can beat up your historical anecdotes".

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  22. Re:Harvard by lgw · · Score: 1, Troll

    The fight you started with "my general impression is that the right is more likely to support modification via breeding over modification via DNA engineering, typically by killing off, sterilizing, or banning entry of "races" they deem to be inferior"?

    Democrats: the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow, the party of lynchings, the party of the KKK, the party of Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood as a eugenics program, the party of anti-Antisemitism dressed up as "BDS", the party of Identity Politics.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  23. Smelling a whole lot of *if* from your worry by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Many if not most genes code for more than one effect. The same gene that can influence the height of an individual might also increase the risk of connective tissue disorders

    That's a whole lot of guess work just to worry about something that amounts to nothing. I am talking long-term, as any discussion relating to eventual fitness of species should be. Do you seriously think over the next few hundred years they will not be able to discern how to edit for height without making people have slightly more oily skin or whatever? a handful of generations with a few negative effects is nothing compared to long term benefit once the process is optimized. And unlike normal evolution we can just edit out any mistakes from future generations without delay, Or probably even the current one...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Smelling a whole lot of *if* from your worry by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Many if not most genes code for more than one effect. The same gene that can influence the height of an individual might also increase the risk of connective tissue disorders

      That's a whole lot of guess work just to worry about something that amounts to nothing. I am talking long-term, as any discussion relating to eventual fitness of species should be. Do you seriously think over the next few hundred years they will not be able to discern how to edit for height without making people have slightly more oily skin or whatever?

      "Or whatever" is the worry. Connective tissue disorders include things like aortic dissection, asthma and detached retina, and do indeed involve many of the same genetic variation that code for increased height.

      And long term, we do not know even a fraction of the full effect any given gene has, and even less so what the long term effects are. What's prudent is to try to find out as much as possible before making the genetic modifications, precisely for long term reasons.

    2. Re:Smelling a whole lot of *if* from your worry by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      And long term, we do not know even a fraction of the full effect>

      Again, the WHOLE POINT is long term does not matter, because we will be able to edit out any negative aspects that occur - eventually even in the current generation, but certainly for the next generation. The end game, over the course of a hundred years, is almost all of the negative crap we deal with in children now all wiped out and all that is left is fine tuning.

      I'll let you have the last response as you are just arguing in circles and don't seem to understand the full impact of what we are talking about here.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. the answer is by gDLL · · Score: 1

    "by the 24th century, nobody will care." -- bwhaha how naive can you be to consider such a thing.

    1. Re:the answer is by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      "by the 24th century, nobody will care." -- bwhaha how naive can you be to consider such a thing.

      It's a fictional show set in an utopian future (at least during the Roddenberry era, before DS9). Naive optimism was the point.

      Nobody thinks prejudice will be completely eradicated from human society, but those of us who wish for that future work toward it. Roddenberry did it by showing his vision of what such a society could be like. To be fair, I'd say we have been getting better, and one would hope the trend will continue. The world is certainly better for ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and even bald men today than it was in the 1950s, for instance.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  25. Wrong by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Not performing genetic alteration by necessity means fewer mutations

    Wrong. Not using generic alteration means the same number of mutations, but UNDIRECTED. Mutations are happening all of the time with every birth.

    We are not talking about coding up a whole new being here. We are talking about looking at whatever motions occur, removing some, adding a few others. On balance you simply have more positive results than chance lends you.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Wrong by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      To add another ingredient to this conversation:

      We just had a woman in the news upset that people found the ridiculous name she gave her daughter, ABCDE, ridiculous.

      I think there would need to be some ethical fences around the technology. Otherwise, how long will it be before some celebrity is sporting a baby with webbed hands?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:Wrong by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Some degree of webbing does happen occasionally. It's generally considered a birth defect and treated surgically.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  26. Not even sure what to say... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    I could enumerate about 100 reasons, trying to control something you are unable to comprehend is probably a bad idea , but I'd just be told I was being pessimistic and unscientific.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  27. Re: When do we get our atomic super men? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    You mean like just about EVERY other major technical advance that humans have ever experienced? What are the odds that the human race still lives through it? Any guesses?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  28. Re:The Night Befoe Crizzmus by UperPoti · · Score: 1

    I still remember how it began They produced a carbon copy man Born in a science lab late one night Without a mother or a father, just a test tube and a womb with a view...

  29. Re: Harvard by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1
    Funny you bring up Nazis because they looked at the Progressives in the US and thought "isn't their brand of eugenics interesting". For a more thorough reading go here: Nazi eugenics

    An excerpt:

    In organizing their eugenics program the Nazis were inspired by the United States' programs of forced sterilization, especially on the eugenics laws that had been enacted in California.

    Nazis were inspired by a key Progressive policy. Ouch.

  30. Re:Harvard by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The fight you started with "my general impression is...

    I labelled it as a personal impression. What's so "fighty" about that?

    Democrats: the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow, the party of lynchings, the party of the KKK...

    Democrats grew up. GOP de-volved so much that they just put a xenophobic toddler in office. One cannot change the past, but they can fix the here and now.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  31. Re: Harvard by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

    Nazis were inspired by a key Progressive policy. Ouch.

    Nazis were inspired by a key Progressive policy that led to the deaths of millions. Ouch. FTFM

  32. Re:Harvard by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Democrats grew up.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Maxine Waters. Bill de Blasio. Ha.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  33. Re:Harvard by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    GOP: "How dare Maxine talk like Trump!"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  34. EUA vs China... by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    ... a love story!

  35. Re:Harvard by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Please buddy.
    You stated you thought the right would support eugenics more. you were told the left did. You asked for proof. You were given proof. you responded with "but we grew up!".
    Be a man, admit you were wrong, and sit down. It won't kill you.

  36. Re:Harvard by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    You are confusing slavery and eugenics. Fix your neurons so that you stop confusing them. And you gave nothing that clearly establishes proportions/ratios/counts anywhere. You got categories wrong and numbers wrong = double fail.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.