
Summit rules out ban on gene editing embryos destined to become people - walterbell
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/03/gene-editing-summit-rules-out-ban-on-embryos-destined-to-become-people-dna-human
======
walterbell
Paul Knoepfler has written on the topic of "GMO Sapiens" and he attended the
summit, [http://www.ipscell.com/2015/12/perspectives-no-moratorium-
fr...](http://www.ipscell.com/2015/12/perspectives-no-moratorium-from-
organizers-of-geneeditsummit/)

 _" Heritable human genetic modification could prevent some rare genetic
diseases so there is real potential there, but it also could open the door to
serious problems such as unforeseen health consequences across generations,
social justice issues, and eugenics … Keep in mind that most but not all
genetic diseases already are preventable via existing technology that allows
for genetic screening of unmodified human embryos … Time is short. The
technology in this arena is advancing at warp speed, it is so ubiquitous, and
there is such strong enthusiasm that we do not have the luxury of years to
have more meetings and discussions, as much as they may be very important,
without taking a clear stance."_

------
jack9
This is why I found the whole "missing women of China" story so pointlessly
ignorant. Practices of gender selection, cultured bananas (currently being
wiped out by a fungus), GMO foods, etc are not a scourge. There's nothing
morally wrong about the precursors. We control auto traffic and water and all
manner of the immaterial as part of our civilization. This is just the next
rung in the ladder.

~~~
vixen99
Reality check! There is no ladder.

~~~
jack9
There's no progression between invitro gender selection and genetic design?
Wat? One's more sophisticated and an inexorable movement toward turning raw
chemicals into manufactured organic machines (specifically humans).

------
bostik
As much of a cliché as it is, I fear we are sleepwalking towards the world of
Gattaca, like a ghastly scene of a train crash. The details may sicken us, but
we are still helplessly attracted by it.

Even the rhetoric used gives me the creeps. Quoting a paragraph from the
article:

> _Critics of germline therapy argue that any couple at risk of passing on a
> genetic disorder to their children could avoid the outcome by going through
> IVF and having their embryos screened for problematic genes, by using
> donated sperm or eggs, or adopting. Future uses could see germline editing
> used to lower people’s chances of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other
> conditions by removing high risk genes._

The last sentence alone could have been used as a newspaper clipping and
inserted at the beginning of this deleted scene:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjaOnCp0lo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjaOnCp0lo)

Less than 20 years from satire to a policy talking point.

------
corwinbad
Good! enough of the fear mongering - this is a great technology that we need
to continue to improve and use to potentially solve huge issues we have

------
jrapdx3
I like the expression, I believe attributed to Alan Kay (but I could remember
incorrectly), saying "when we think we know what we're doing, we don't know
what we're doing".

By no means am I _per se_ opposed to exploring gene editing technology, but
the gleeful enthusiasm for use of this nascent technology seems to be
neglecting due diligence to make sure that we "above all do no harm".

The history of medicine is chock full of instances where researchers and
clinicians alike jump on it with both feet, only to be dismayed when
eventually finding out about risks not initially known or adequately
appreciated.

I'm no expert in genomics (though a good friend of mine is), but it's easily
apparent that we know very little about the implications of discoveries made
every day. At the least, a note of caution before plowing ahead, and modifying
things we know little about makes sense.

No doubt I have much to learn on these subjects, but I don't think I'm alone
in that. The issue for the field may best be summarized by the idea of
"premature optimization", painting ourselves into a corner from which no
easily extricated.

Sure gene editing is a very enticing prospect. I'd call it a fantastic
research tool, and in that respect let's use it to the hilt. But applying it
to real clinical situations before having much more knowledge about the risks
(and you know it's inevitable there will be "side-effects") seems to me to be
foolish, and maybe even embodies a measure of hubris.

------
Pxtl
Good. Anybody who disagrees should go visit a ward full of children dying of
genetic diseases like MD or cystic fibrosis.

~~~
bdcravens
I don't know what I think yet, and you think it'd be easy, since I have cystic
fibrosis.

I was probably nudged toward development and similar minded activities because
any type of physical labor just isn't an option for me. Will we similarly
shape our society?

Some conditions like CF have advantages, such as an increase resistance to
cholera. Will we see a side effect if we eliminate those conditions?

Don't get me wrong. Somedays being short of breath sucks (no pun intended), I
wish I could eat without taking a handful of pills, and my wife certainly
wishes we didn't have to deal with CF's infertility issues. I do think all of
the calculus has to be considered, however.

~~~
danieltillett
I am glad to hear you are well enough to be unsure.

Just to nitpick, but it is being a silent carrier (heterozygous) that provides
the resistance to cholera - until very recently few suffers of cf lived long
enough to die of anything else.

------
chm
Genetic engineering of humans will be a public issue much bigger to our
grandchildren than what the environment is currently for us.

~~~
njohnson41
Not if we genetically engineer them to like it first!

------
greggman
Looking forward to the countries not banning this making healthier people

------
jonah
All human embryos are destined to become adult people. (Barring any naturally
occurring or artificially induced fatal flaws of course or if their
development is interrupted either accidentally or intentionally.)

~~~
escape_goat
Pragmatically speaking, a human embryo that does not end up being properly
embedded in the endometrium of a suitable uterus is not destined to become a
human person. I do not think that the possibility of _in situ_ genetic
experimentation (on a naturally implanted embryo) was taken into consideration
by whomever came up with the phrase.

