
The gene drive dilemma: we can alter entire species, but should we? - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/magazine/gene-drive-mosquitoes.html
======
thrwaway69
I wonder if there ever will be completely artificial birth with modified
genome to mass produce voluntarily slaves since their brain is altered to feel
buoyant from slaving for the corporate overlords.

Would that be unethical?

Should you stop someone from slavery if they perceive it as better? Wouldn't
you impose your own will if you did that? What if they feel pain from not
slaving away? Since it's from scratch and you can make them infertile or
fertile with only similar people, what other reasons are there for you to not
do that?

~~~
mc32
Android robots will be a reality before your scenario has a chance at reality.

People will opt for the dependable, low maintenance ethics-free option.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
In the described case robots are indistinguishable from biorobots. Does type
of hardware make any difference for ethic problems?

Btw, the original robots [0] from which the name originates were made of flesh
and blood, not mechanical parts.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R).

~~~
mc32
I think if something is made of electronics and material parts the ethics are
different. It's be like asking if someone bashing their motorcycle is the same
as someone bashing their horse.

And, while an interesting footnote for the English word robot, that in Slavic
languages whence it's deriven it can refer to worker/servant/serf/slave is
beside the point.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
In TV show Westworld, early robots are mechanical, but later replaced by
biological ones. Does it make torturing early models any less or more bad,
considering that they behave the same?

~~~
mc32
It’s probably like eating animals. At one point there was little thought about
it in terms of ethics for most civilizations, but then gradually things become
fuzzy.

Although that being said, it’s interesting that definitions have such a huge
impact. For example you can be an extreme vegan but also be okay with abortion
(note I’m not anti abortion rights) just pointing out how a definition can
affect human ethics among people who are very cautious about affecting living
things.

------
pier25
We've already done it albeit slowly with all the plants we eat. Also dogs.

I think the problem is not really ethical but simply that we don't really know
the consequences an immediate change in the DNA would have. We programmers
know that changes in complex projects rarely turn out as expected and nature
is the most complex system in existence.

I certainly would have loved that my parents had altered my DNA to not need
glasses and not have a skin of almost vampiric sun resistance. AFAIK DNA is
not related to personality traits but if it is I would have also liked a
couple of changes there too.

~~~
bagacrap
Gene drive is not the same as selective breeding or GMO. Gene drive is not the
same as CRISPR. It's not just giving an organism a particular favorable trait
and waiting for nature to take its course by spreading that trait throughout
the population.

Gene drive involves artificially increasing the likelihood of transmission of
a gene to offspring. One such theoretical technique (according to my
layperson's understanding) is basically to use CRISPR to encode CRISPR into an
organism's DNA, in a way that is self-perpetuating. Then the genetic
modification will spread through the entire population regardless of whether
it improves fitness.

~~~
hinkley
What happens when you get a mutation in CRISPR?

------
saulrh
Dogs, cats, cows, horses, yeast, chickens, rice, wheat, corn, and sheep were
fantastic successes. Humans have already designed and engineered literally
thousands of organisms that are critical infrastructure for human
civilization. So I think the answer is an unqualified "yes"; we absolutely
should continue doing what we're already doing.

~~~
vosper
> designed and engineered

No real design or engineering was involved beyond having an idea of what we
wanted and trying to select for that trait in breeding and offspring. We've
just rolled the genetic dice repeatedly and selected the outcomes we
preferred.

> we absolutely should continue doing what we're already doing.

This is very unlike what we have been doing, and it's hardly been an
unqualified success - lots of traits we have selected for (eg what defines a
particular dog breed) have come with real trade-offs (at least for the
animals: arthritis and fits, respiratory conditions, uncontrolled drooling,
eye infections, ...)

~~~
saulrh
> We've just rolled the genetic dice repeatedly and selected the outcomes we
> preferred.

And? That's just a particular choice of tool. I do the same thing when I'm
working on a particularly tough problem; I might try five or ten different
approaches before finding one with the right combination of advantages and
trade-offs.

> lots of traits we have selected for [...] have come with real trade-offs

That's engineering.

~~~
vosper
> And? That's just a particular choice of tool.

It wasn't a choice, it was literally the only method we had available.

> I do the same thing when I'm working on a particularly tough problem; I
> might try five or ten different approaches before finding one with the right
> combination of advantages and trade-offs.

But I bet you don't do it by a process of natural selection, setting criteria
and evolving solutions through an at-best semi-guided generally-black-box
process that you don't really understand, and where you're only able to
understand a portion of the full complexity of the results.

> That's engineering.

No, that's outcomes. Engineering would be understanding the tradeoffs in
advance and choosing them with consideration of the outcomes. Not only do we
not understand the tradeoffs in advance, we're also not able select them
reliably. If we have that ability now via breeding (not that I'm aware of, but
I'm no expert on breeding technology) then we've only had it for a very short
time relative to how long we've been doing this.

~~~
saulrh
> Engineering would be understanding the tradeoffs in advance and choosing
> them with consideration of the outcomes.

You're not giving enough credit to the people that designed domestic animal
breeds. Modern working dog breeds were _absolutely_ engineered for particular
tasks; target characteristics were selected up-front, size and hair and
temperament and so on, and dogs and breeds were chosen to start from and bred
in predictable ways to increase the likelihood of obtaining the desired
characteristics. Animal husbandry is only "random" in the same way that sports
is: There's absolutely some variation in outcome in each individual game, but
if you put a professional NFL team against even a college team there's not
much doubt about the outcome of a best of five. Or it's random in the same way
a loaded die is: individual trials may be random, but if you consistently use
it for the important rolls you'll clean up.

Also, I'd just like to say that software engineers would be _ecstatic_ if they
had a reliable way to accurately predict the tradeoffs involved in many
architectural choices.

------
ch4s3
I wonder if there is an ethical case for using gene drives to revitalize
species that are going extinct due to climate, habitat loss, or other factors.
It seems like some species are probably quite important to regional ecology
but are under great pressure and face issues due to a dwindling gene pool.
Perhaps we could in the not distant future give such species a small genetic
boost as part of broader conservation efforts. I’m not sure though.

------
ergothus
> There were executives in expensive suits, young men and women looking
> unaccountably dressy in ripped jeans and, according to James, a
> disconcerting number of people wearing hats.

Can anyone explain the significance of the hats to me?

~~~
dx87
Some people consider it rude to wear hats indoors. I personally haven't heard
anyone younger than 60-70 complain about it though.

~~~
qwerty456127
I'm not nearly that old yet wearing a hat indoors really seems bizarre
(although not rude) to me. But so does wearing clothes closely resembling what
many others are wearing. E.g. whenever I see a group of people wearing suits I
find that funny.

------
elfexec
Haven't we been trying to genetically alter entire species to wipe them out
already? I thought the plan was to make mosquitoes genetically sterile or
infertile and wipe them out forever?

"Let's Kill All the Mosquitoes"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11536074](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11536074)

But I suspect livestock, pets and humans would be the most likely candidates
for "entire species genetic modification".

If we could genetically alter humans, pigs, etc to be resistent to the flu,
wouldn't we do it?

~~~
zionic
IIRC Only a something like 3/30 mosquito species bite humans. We could wipe
those out without impacting the food chain.

------
rapnie
I just watched the documentary Human Nature and can really recommend it. Goes
into science and ethics of coming CRISPR-CAS revolution.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Nature_(2019_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Nature_\(2019_film\))

------
callesgg
Gene drives with the current method is way too sloppy. What happens when the
gene in the gene drive is corrupted.. it only has to happen in one sex cell
and it will spread through the population. Then you you have two competing
gene drives.

~~~
jcims
Isn’t that where evolution picks up and runs with it?

~~~
callesgg
Yes it's like a new phase of evolution!

------
lowdose
Yes, human like FOXP2 variant + dogs.

------
jcims
Maybe this is how you get the scene at the cantina

------
deusofnull
Not tryna be flippant here but probably not. See comment history for other
arguments ive made on this.

I am incredibly skeptical that the engineering ethics / practices of any
organization currently in existence adequately surpass the requirement for
large scale genetic editing.

Im not against the idea in the abstract, but we live in a world full of
fragile, profit-motivated institutions that are oft to skimp on engineering
best practice and ethics in the pursuit of profit.

Something like NASA circa 1970 maybe could but they arguably had their own
problems with ethics re: Wernher von Braun, aerospace engineer responsible for
great contributions to the US Atlas V rocket system and the Nazi V2.

In regards to all that and the content of the article using malaria and
mosquito editing as a potential argument to do this, consider also that
mosqutios are a critical base source of food for many species. Unintended long
term consequences are the name of the game when it comes to thinking about if
we should do this.

~~~
natechols
Please don't make the mistake of assuming that pursuit of profit is the only
reason for an institution to skimp on best practices. Or rather, please don't
assume that non-profit institutions (and governments) can automatically be
trusted to follow best practices because their motives are pure. They're no
more immune to bureaucratic infighting, external pressure, and general human
weakness than any company. (And remember, while NASA does incredible work, the
actual hardware is mostly built by for-profit defense contractors... for
better and for worse.)

That said, is anyone actually suggesting that for-profit companies should
undertake gene drives on their own? Because my assumption was that any such
decision would have to be made by governments, regardless of who actually does
the work.

------
drharby
I want a thunder-cougar-falconbird

------
quotemstr
Yes. Why is that even a question? Bans on tools have only ever delayed
progress and caused misery.

Besides, we've been genetically alternating species for tens of thousands of
years. Understanding the essential similarity of selective breeding and
genetic modification is table stakes for having a serious and informed opinion
about this technology.

~~~
claudiawerner
>Bans on tools have only ever delayed progress and caused misery.

It really depends on the "tool"; arguably a great many atrocious weapons are
tools, yet it's hard for me to see nuclear disarmament as anything but
progress. Technology is not neutral, it is informed by concerns and
developments outside of its own instrumental purposes. In the same way that
recent (last century or so) tools/technology have brought massive improvements
to the lives of everyone, the same way they bring massive improvement is the
way that other tools (or even the same ones) bring massive regression.

As for this particular technology, I don't know enough about it to comment -
only to say that in general a variety of different concerns should be involved
in its design and evaluation - from scientists to ethicists.

~~~
asdf21
M.A.D. had resulted in the most peaceful time in history by far

