
Scientists Hold Secret Meeting to Consider Creating a Synthetic Human Genome - hackuser
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/science/synthetic-human-genome.html
======
notliketherest
Interesting ethical issues arise when talking about "writing genomes" and
essentially creating a designer human synthetically. Now let's say the
scientific community decides against doing this based on ethical reasons.
What's to stop rogue scientists from going ahead with the research and going
around the global community? Would they need the protection of a nation state
to move forward? What could be done to stop them? We're getting into cloners
from Kamino territory here...

~~~
hackuser
Good questions.

* One thing that can stop them is the law; it could be made illegal, which does stop a lot of behavior. International treaties often work too.

* Also, if it's considered out-of-bounds by the scientific community then it could ruin the scientists' career; that's probably not a risk that a talented scientist with a promising career would take. They couldn't even publish a paper, publish in arXiv, get feedback on their work, or participate in any online discussion. They couldn't go to a conference (there wouldn't be one in their field) or even tell anyone what they are working on. What a life to choose.

* Significant progress likely requires more resources than could be mustered covertly, including financial, technological (where do you buy equipment and supplies?), and especially labor: Not only do they need talented PhD students and postdocs, but progress in most fields requires a whole community of scientists who build on each other's work, not one who discovers it all themself.

~~~
visarga
The technology advances when it can advance, no matter what. The raise of
surveillance would have happened even without NSA. The Deep Learning
advancements happened because of faster computers, even though humans have
discovered some of the best ideas 20+ years ago.

<rant>

There is potential for achieving superhuman intelligence by genetic selection.
By scanning millions of people's DNA and their personal traits (predicting
phenotype characteristics from genotype), they want to build a classifier that
would rate a DNA before it got developed. Then they would be able to select
embryos before IVF. This is done today too, but only to filter out some simple
genetic defects.

A selection of 1:2 gives a 5 IQ point boost. A selection of 1:1000 embryos
gives a boost of 40 IQ points. If we repeat this over a few generations,
humanity will evolve much faster.

This iterative improvement by AI rating of genomes could be sped up by
creating sperm and ova directly from embryo stem cells. This way we don't need
to wait for a generation to pass to have the kids become parents. In a few
years many DNA selection -> embryo iterations could be tested and selected and
evolution would be sped up even more.

In the short run, 40 to 80 years, we face the appearance of AGI and human-
computer interfaces. We will evolve together with it, and this kind of DNA
synthesis would be an essential tool for the future. Even if a few people have
been enhanced, when they have kids with non-enhanced people the new genetic
advancements could be passed to the whole population in a few generations. The
final aim is to extend life, intelligence and perhaps gain immortality and
become much more than we were before.

Even if we don't do AI based DNA enhancement, we still need to prepare for the
possible catastrophe at the point of singularity. We need to create databases
of human embryos so we could create humanity back in case it is destroyed. I'd
also put in these databases a copy of all the human produced data and culture,
just in case they need to start from scratch. These databases would have to be
hidden and remain incommunicado for long enough to make sure we didn't get
wiped out. They could even be cared for by robots for millions of years before
opening up, as an insurance ticket that we survive.

</rant>

My point is that we don't really control the evolution of these technologies.
They will be developed because they can be developed. In the past they weren't
developed because it was impossible. We, humans, created even the a-bomb
immediately after we understood nuclear physics. We spied on people as soon as
the internet (and even telephone) was available. Why would we be able to stop
from making synthetic DNA? The temptation to prolong life or to enhance future
children exists, the means also exist.

~~~
hackuser
> The technology advances when it can advance, no matter what.

I know it's a popular theory but I don't know that it stands up to scrutiny.
Nuclear weapons technology hasn't advanced in many years, for example; the few
who could do the R&D don't seem interested. Technologies involving cannibis
and LSD have not advanced in large part, AFAICT, because they are illegal. How
do you overcome those and other obstacles I raised above? Another: Powerful
interests freeze development in many industries.

Here's another way of thinking of it, more theoretically: There are an
effectively infinite number of technologies that could be developed; only a
few are chosen. Almost all tech is ignored.

I think that calling it inevitable is a way to duck difficult questions and
obligations, similar to the way that some blame the free market and self-
interest for their choices (as if those are gods who forced the mortal's
hands).

~~~
Zigurd
That's a good point, but there are many reasons to think it will be much
harder to contain genomics than atomics:

1\. You can sense atomic weapons materials at a distance.

2\. It takes significant capital equipment to make atomic weapons.

3\. It takes precision equipment to make atomic weapons.

4\. While theoretical knowledge of atomic weapons is readily disseminated, it
is easy to find and target experienced experts in the making of atomic
weapons.

I can't find corresponding "choke points" that could control genomics, even on
the scale of a synthetic human genome.

------
brianbarker
While the US debates such efforts in fear what could happen, other nations who
don't see it as a problem will do this. It has always been a matter of time.

------
WhoBeI
I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the
curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on
me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin
wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was
stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs. I
took refuge in the courtyard belonging to the house which I inhabited, where I
remained during the rest of the night, walking up and down in the greatest
agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it
were to announce the approach of the demoniacal corpse to which I had so
miserably given life.

~~~
krapp
Of course, Frankenstein's creation wasn't the monster in that story, at least
not at first. The monster was the human too wound up in his own bigotry and
religiosity to accept the consequences of science on its own terms,
Frankenstein himself.

------
a3n
Maybe this is where "AI" will come from, particularly military AI. If the
genome were synthesized, then some people could convince themselves that what
grew wasn't human and could therefore be shaped and enslaved.

~~~
fiblye
So basically Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep/Blade Runner is going from
scifi to a WIP.

~~~
a3n
I was thinking more like Minority Report.

------
maxander
> “Our ability to understand what to build is so far behind what we can
> build,’’ said Dr. Minshull, who was invited to the meeting at Harvard but
> did not attend. “I just don’t think that being able to make more and more
> and more and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper is going to get us the
> understanding we need.’’

As point of comparison, consider how well any of us would understand software
engineering if it cost thousands of dollars to compile a program. _That_ is
the potential impact of this technology- talk about using this to create
super-humans or whatever is pure hype and/or scaremongering.

------
Houshalter
Such a process could create humans who have multiple times greater IQs than
the smartest humans who have ever lived. Perhaps as high as 1,000, by some
estimates. See: [http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-
ar...](http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming)

Truly a terrifying possibility.

~~~
jhartmann
I'm just curious, why is it terrifying? Would a super intelligent human being
produced by science be any more terrifying then one that occurred naturally?
Couldn't we be creating a being that could push us forward collectively? Think
about the contribution to modern life Einstein, John Von Neumann, and Bohr
had. If we had a way to make very intelligent designer humans, there could be
a chance they could push us collectively forward in a similar way. I imagine
that an Einstein born now, with access to the whole worlds information could
be much more impactful (or maybe he would just succumb to liking cat videos.)
All humans designer or not can be terrifying, beautiful, impactful, and other
worldly. You don't have to be unnatural to be an evil bastard, and maybe an
engineered human could be like Gandhi. Don't prejudge, just because its
unnatural doesn't mean it is not good.

Just like GMO doesn't mean bad (I eat organic food by the way), a lot of this
goes to intent. If science wants to push us forward and make us better. I'm
all for it. If they want to engineer us to be resistant to industrial
chemicals or pollution so that companies can pollute more, or make super
soldiers that is when you have to be terrified . Not just because we have
something artificial.

~~~
Houshalter
I don't know. A lot of people agree with you, that creating superintelligent
humans is necessary.

I'm scared of being replaced. I'm also worried such humans would be so
different than us, they wouldn't identify with us. Maybe even come to despise
us. They would form their own ingroup and view us as enemies even.

I've met someone that had high IQ, and identified with high IQ like some
people identify with their country. He legitimately hated low IQ people, was
ok with exterminating them, and said he would prefer to die or commit suicide
than lose his intelligence. It was such an alien way of looking at the world
to me.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>I'm scared of being replaced. I'm also worried such humans would be so
different than us, they wouldn't identify with us. Maybe even come to despise
us. They would form their own ingroup and view us as enemies even.

You're on Hacker News and you're afraid of nerds? Come on. We're right here.
Ask us what we think of you.

>I've met someone that had high IQ, and identified with high IQ like some
people identify with their country. He legitimately hated low IQ people, was
ok with exterminating them, and said he would prefer to die or commit suicide
than lose his intelligence. It was such an alien way of looking at the world
to me.

To be honest, he probably went through a lot of pain and maltreatment to
acquire that kind of point-of-view. He's not an alien! He's a person. Just
because his cognition has less noise in it and he needs fewer samples to reach
the same inferences doesn't make him some fundamentally different kind of
creature: all the algorithms are the same, only their free parameters are
different.

Smart people have empathy and feelings too, and in fact, most of the time the
most genuinely hurtful thing we experience (speaking as someone who is too
often told that he's the "smart guy" in the group, even among nerdy,
intelligent people) is _precisely_ the Straw Vulcan stereotype about
intelligence. We're not cold-hearted, we're not aliens, we're just people.
Putting us in gifted programs as kids is a great idea. Forcing us to compose
prodigal concertos at age 12 is probably a bad idea. Treating us with respect
and fellowship works best.

~~~
Houshalter
No I'm not "afraid of nerds". I am a nerd. These wouldn't be nerds, they would
be to Einstein, what Einstein was to an average person. The distance would
probably be far greater actually. They could plausibly be a different species
than us.

What happened to this guy I was talking about, was high IQ defined his
identity, what separated him from others. Fortunately most high IQ people do
integrate fine into society, we all still have a lot on common.

But it's likely the superintelligent babies would not integrate well. They
would only be able to communicate and find things in common with other supers,
and not idenitfy with us normies. We'd be subhumans to them.

------
peter303
Humans/mammals have 50 times more coding DNA than simple fungi they've
syntesized so far. Plus natural mammal DNA is usually subdivided into multiple
pieces on a chromosome called introns. It is unclear how important the non-
coding inbetween DNA is. Homever nearly the entire lab mouse genome has been
purified into single pieces called coding DNA and can be purchased from labs.
Maybe they'll try synthezing a mouse first. The human case shouldnt be more
difficult.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
As eukaryotes, fungi also have introns.

------
grondilu
Why focusing so early on a human target?

Animals and plants physiology is still capable of doing things we're not
nearly capable of reproducing in laboratory. Plants and insects production are
still used in pharmacology so it seems to me there would be a huge commercial
potential for plant and animal organisms made from scratch, just as there is
currently for organisms just barely modified.

The human case will always be made difficult by ethicists and other party
poopers, anyway.

------
hackuser
This foolish move could seriously damage legitimate genetics research and
applications, and other science, in the public eye, affecting funding and even
legality. The reality may be different than first glance, but we live in a
world of first impressions and the people invovled should know that.

The participants must have some sense of where the lines are and also respect
that the public has a right to make decisions for their own society.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
Well at least it's a secret meeting.

~~~
tremulant
Phew. "secret"!

------
Tycho
I kind of feel relieved that I'll probably be dead before this kind of thing
irrevocably destroys the relative equality of the human race.

~~~
grondilu
People are already different in terms of capabilities. Yet they are equals in
terms of _rights_ , and there is no reason that should change, even with this
kind of things.

~~~
cgriswald
That change of equality is more or less inevitable. Imagine a line of humans
as far ahead of us as we are of dogs. They're certainly going to have their
own ideas on how to use the resources of the world and will almost certainly
think they know what is best for the rest of us. (Hell, there are plenty of
modern day humans who already think that about their peers.)

~~~
golergka
> They're certainly going to have their own ideas on how to use the resources
> of the world and will almost certainly think they know what is best for the
> rest of us.

And nothing will stop them from pursuing political and business careers at
equal terms with the rest of us. Of course, their superior genes will let them
get ahead, but regardless, that's what already is happening - more genetically
smart and charismatic people can get into positions of power easier than
others, and we seem to be quite OK with it.

~~~
jqm
Much of the time the smartest people don't actually do the best. High IQ isn't
a guarantee of high achievement.

------
kruhft
My first thought was "Wierd Science"[1].

[1]
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/)

