
New U.S. Experiments Aim to Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos - bcaulfield
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/01/689623550/new-u-s-experiments-aim-to-create-gene-edited-human-embryos
======
ethbro
Good. Because, pardon the colorful language, fuck those bioethicist Luddites.

From a moral standpoint it's inconceivable that we aren't proceeding at full
speed to solve inherited diseases.

There's no ethical hand wringing over this. (In many cases) We know what the
mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is. We're on the cusp of being able
to change the former into the latter.

Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really
disturbing"?

There's a counterpoint about genetic diversity and the dangers of monoculture,
but that isn't what's being brought up. It's always 'This is new and scary,
and so we should spend more time studying the implications before doing it.'

~~~
jake_the_third
> Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really
> disturbing"?

Because it is. Who will be responsible for the suffrage that gene-edited
people will inevitably go through when someone screws up (and make no mistake,
someone WILL screw up). Who will pay their medical bills?

That's only addressing one small issue from an unfathomable pile of issues and
unintended consequences.

I for one am glad those "luddites" have more say in issues like this than
people like you.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
One could easily rewrite your comment to lament the invention of the
automobile:

 _Who will be responsible for the suffrage [sic] that accident victims will
inevitably go through when an automobile driver screws up (and make no
mistake, automobile drivers WILL screw up)._

The answer is: yes, a few suffer, the vast majority benefits, and life goes
on. Your comment insists on a notion of perfect safety that exists nowhere in
the real world.

~~~
ethbro
My larger concern is who is paying for us _not_ making the genetic effort:
afflicted individuals and the social costs of trying to give them at least an
approximately normal life.

Weighing any risk against _that_ cost? I can't make a pursuasive argument that
we shouldn't proceed.

Or as John Donne quipped in 1623, _"... any man's death diminishes me, because
I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell
tolls; it tolls for thee."_

------
biophysboy
Grad student who studies DNA here:

CRISPR is just a cool pair of scissors. What makes it cool is its flexibility.
Different target? Pick a different guide RNA.

But think about it. Many of the challenges of using that pair of scissors
still exist. How do we get the scissors to the target? How do we repair the
target after the cut? How often do the scissors work? Can the scissors cut
exactly where we want them too (is there a PAM site nearby)?

Of course, scientists know all these challenges, and they're clever. I would
take a peek at this CRISPR guide
([https://www.addgene.org/crispr/guide/)if](https://www.addgene.org/crispr/guide/\)if)
you want to know how people actually use it.

Another thing that I'm thinking about: DNA is more than a 1D string of code.
It is a semiflexible polymer wrapped around proteins, constantly changing in
space and time. It bends, folds, and interacts with itself. Every cell does
this organization differently. And I haven't even mentioned epigenetics.

I'm not morally opposed to gene editing in the future. But I'm not so sure
we're there yet. Then again, if I were blind, and CRISPR promised a cure...

------
jostmey
Recombinant genetic engineering was invented almost 5 decades ago, and only
recently has it been used on a human embryo. I think humanity has been
remarkably patient pursuing this technology.

It has a bad rap today, but centuries from now how many people will carry
genetic modifications/enhancements from their descendants? How will these
people look back and judge the scientist today? Might they view scientist like
He Jiankui (the chinese scientist responsible for the first genetically
engineered embryo brought to term) as the Copernicus(es) of our time?

~~~
djohnston
several centuries from now, after the successful quelling of the final
rebellion of natural born poor people, the wealthy genetic adonis's that
inhabit the earth will indeed look upon these developments positively.

~~~
bilbo0s
There would more likely be factional genetic warfare than natural born poor
people or wealthy genetic adonises.

If you're thinking in terms of poor and rich, then you haven't really thought
through all the implications of continuous improvement in genetic engineering.
You wouldn't have poor natural born and wealthy genetically engineered. You
would have old "obsoletes" trying to hold off supremely ambitious and young
"moderns". And it would all be along an age spectrum so that different cohorts
with different abilities would group together due to tribalism.

Think of a dystopia where you might have something like groups of 20 to 30
year olds out hunting the 5 to 15 year old children of the 40 to 50 year olds.
(Because the kids are light years ahead of them in terms of abilities and they
saw what happened to the cohorts before them.)

Maybe not exactly that, but that's more along the lines of the genetic
factionalism that would arise with genetically engineered humans. The great
hero of mankind would be the guy who finally figured out how to genetically
engineer out the tribalism in humans. Finally allowing us all to live in peace
together even if we're out of date in terms of our genetic engineering. (Which
almost everyone would be by the time they were 10 or 15.)

~~~
jostmey
You're assuming that genetic engineering is expensive and that only the rich
will be able to afford it. I think it more likely that genetic engineering
will be cheap and easy to perform, for better or worse

~~~
djohnston
i'm not sure he is. the point of each generation being successively more
advanced would also allow for the rich to receive the most cutting edge tech
ahead of everyone else. even if everyone has access, i don't think it would be
a level playing field. especially because costs may be covered for things like
disease prevention, but probably not for things like intelligence, strength,
etc.

