
Biology is the New Tech: Letter from a conference on CRISPR - spking
https://airmail.news/issues/2019-7-27/should-the-rich-be-allowed-to-buy-the-best-genes
======
landryraccoon
I’m more than happy to let the rich buy the best genes first, if that means
that everyone else will get to buy them later.

Is the implied attitude that if the rich get something first it shouldn’t
exist at all? If gene therapy follows a progression like mobile phones, that
would good for humanity. First it’s super expensive and only a few get them,
but it becomes much cheaper within a few decades and eventually almost
everyone can have one.

~~~
coldtea
> _I’m more than happy to let the rich buy the best genes first, if that means
> that everyone else will get to buy them later._

Why would they sell it to you later?

Even more so, why would they even need most people (say 80% or so)? Automation
wins and AI means they don't have to, in order to maintain their status quo
and build things.

It's more likely for the west to become the same way large parts of the third
world already are: some highly advanced zones cut off by walls, police,
private armies etc. (which get the genes) and huge areas of slums...

~~~
zarkov99
Because the rich are no more evil than the rest of us and, all things being
equal, would rather their fellow man be as happy, healthy and fulfilled as
they are?

~~~
coldtea
I, along with millennia of common wisdom, doubt that the rich are "no more
evil" than the rest of us.

~~~
tziki
A good portion of HN readers are rich. If you take the perspective of an
average 3rd world laborer, vast majority of HN readers are rich, likely
including you. Maybe we're more evil than average, but I have to admit, I
haven't noticed.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
Humans are communal creatures who have particularist ties to people in their
own society. If we want to speak about the intentional beliefs of the rich, I
think we need to take an intra-societal view rather than a cosmopolitan one.

Five reasons why the rich tend to be worse people:

1) Humans only need some modest necessities to live and a stable income to be
secure, and beyond this, our desires are largely manufactured and driven by
status

2) Unlike in the past, today, the higher our income the longer hours we are
likely to work

3) There are many people who are poor and destitute and need money orders of
magnitude more than the rich

4) People have a tendency to search for legitimations for their actions, and
so the rich try and justify their wealth as a result of merit, natural
inequality, work ethic, etc.

The rich are disproportionately driven by status, spend less time with their
friends and family - and indeed their lives are absorbed in instrumental gain
- hoard wealth at the grave expense of others, and are given to excessive
pride and covetousness.

------
mirceal
this whole article is hilarious. biology and genetic engineering is way way
more complicated than anything we’ve done as far as software and hardware
goes. performing a few tricks does not equal we can enhance anything we want
any way we want it. my guess is that we’re a few decades away from really
understanding the underlying mechanisms that would allow us to truly enhance
ourselves. some will say that we can edit DNA today - while that’s true we
have a limited understanding of what we’re doing or what the effects might be.
Evolution is great because it wipes out all of its errors and you only see the
beautiful end product. Now, do you want to be a guinea pig and/or be the
unfortunate outcome of these experiments?

also:
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667997/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667997/)

another point that a lot of people miss is that super intelligence means
nothing if you don’t have the right environment and the right opportunities.
being wealthy exponentially increases your chances of a good outcome and it’s
almost orthogonal to your IQ.

yet another point is that if we continue to destroy our ecosystem no matter
how smart individuals get we’re all collectively doomed.

~~~
shpongled
I can pretty confidently say that we will never fully understand human cell
biology/biochemistry. The interplay between proteins, genes, metabolites, etc
is mindbogglingly complex. I say this as someone who works as a chemical
biologist and uses CRISPR/Cas9 in my work to perform gene editing in cancer
cells.

We are still quite a ways away from performing real editing in humans, and
even then it's gonna be a crapshoot. Most traits are polygenic, and we don't
understand how tweaking one gene will effect distal biology.

~~~
mirceal
never is a long time but I definitely agree with the sentiment of what you’re
saying/describing

------
ZhuanXia
The tourism angle mentioned is the real deal killer for these regulations.

If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill-
health on their children by withholding these technologies is morally wrong)
will just fly to Singapore. Even if you could enforce this, not every country
will. 5+ standard deviation increases in many traits is on the table:
[https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection#iterated-embryo-
selec...](https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection#iterated-embryo-selection)

If we make this illegal here, we will be as children compared to those in
China or Singapore.

The potential increase in IQ is so high that any country that defects from a
global ban, even a smallish one like Iran say, would quickly be producing the
vast majority of all genius-level intellects.

A global ban is just is not a stable equilibrium.

From a balance-of-power perspective, we would expect huge shifts in future
power to those countries that embrace the technology. An absence of taboos
against human enhancement may be a more important factor in this than current
scientific achievement for predicting global leadership in the next couple
generations.

In islamic culture, traditional scholarship places the point of ensoulment
anywhere between 40 and 120 days after conception. Our western taboos around
this topic, likely even our western secular taboos, derive from a belief in
ensoulment at conception.

This simple doctrinal dispute may end up having huge consequences. And may
allow islamic cultures to return to a position of scientific power, likely
shared with China and other Asian countries who similarly do not share our
taboos.

~~~
aphextron
I think you're placing far too much faith in genetic determinism. Intelligence
is a highly fluid concept with no widely accepted defining characteristics. To
think that geneticists can just "pick and choose" genes to add to an embryo
that will reliably result in genius level intellects is absurd. The human mind
is not a tomato plant or a wheat kernel. It's a highly complex system that
requires a multitude of biological and environmental factors to flourish into
an above average intelligence.

~~~
haihaibye
This is a belief just like God making man and animals on separate days.

We have DNA and (partly) heritable traits just like tomatos and wheat. The
only reason modification (eg CRISPR) was done later in humans vs other
organisms was due to ethical not technical reasons.

We have easily obtained metrics that work as a proxy for intelligence like IQ,
educational attainment, elite professional success, number of patents,
publications etc.

As for having many genes being responsible for a trait, Fisher showed in 1918
you can perform selection even if there were an infinite number of loci
involved, see
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal_model](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal_model)

~~~
justforyou
>> educational attainment, elite professional success, number of patents,
publications etc.

None of these are meaningful measures of intelligence.

~~~
haihaibye
They correlate and as I said are 'easily measured.. proxies for intelligence'

You can't just sequence people who have accomplished great things and are
widely recognised as geniuses as there aren't enough of then and they're busy.

We need huge sample sizes. Ideally, you'd sequence a million people and have
them sit rigorous tests, interviews etc. But it's way cheaper and faster to
have them tick boxes on forms.

~~~
justforyou
>> They correlate and as I said are 'easily measured.. proxies for
intelligence'

You're going to have to provide meaningful evidence to back up the assertion
that numbers of patents (as well as the other criteria listed) actually
correlate to higher intelligence.

------
defertoreptar
70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation.
[http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-
wealth/](http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/)

90% is lost after that. [https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/why-wealth-
barely-last...](https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/why-wealth-barely-lasts-
for-3-generations-d409e5f28106)

~~~
VectorLock
Maybe if they were able to put superior genes in their offspring they'd be
able to move that metric.

~~~
defertoreptar
That implies that it has to do with genes in the first place. Perhaps there's
an argument there. However, I would also consider that the size of an estate
may grow, but not exponentially (at least not indefinitely). Yet, the size of
a family tree does grow exponentially.

~~~
codeisawesome
Genghis Khan would like a word with you.

------
DoreenMichele
Be very careful what you wish for. There is some evidence that debilitating,
even deadly, genetic disorders correspond to higher-than-average intelligence.

 _Only about 2% of the U.S. population is of full Ashkenazi Jewish descent,
but 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century, 25% of the
winners of the Fields Medal (the top prize in mathematics), 25% of ACM Turing
Award winners, a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners, and
38% of the Oscar-winning film directors have either full or partial Ashkenazi
Jewish ancestry.

...

Today's Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a number of congenital diseases and
mutations at higher rates than most other ethnic groups; these include
Tay–Sachs disease, Gaucher's disease, Bloom's syndrome, and Fanconi anemia,
and mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2.

...

At least one of the diseases in this cluster, torsion dystonia, has been found
to correlate with high IQ._

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligenc...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence)

~~~
dkural
The concept of "Ashkenazi Jewish" does not correspond as strongly as you might
think to a homogenous genetic make-up. Ashkenazi Jewish people come from a
wide range of European and Middle Eastern genetic make-up, and you'll find as
much diversity within Ashkenazi Jews as there is between Ashkenazi Jews &
Europeans / Ashkenazi Jews - eastern Mediterranean basin. The higher rate of
heritable disease is due to isolated communities marrying lots of first
cousins etc (historically speaking). But there were many such dispersed &
distinct such communities.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I wasn't suggesting that the term corresponded to a homogeneous genetic/ethnic
makeup. I was only suggesting they win a lot of "smart people" type awards and
also are known to suffer at high rates from genetic disorders.

------
icxa
how about the hubris that we could ever possibly know what the "best" genes
are, save whatever is currently desired for our current, extremely limited
viewpoint on what "best" is. It's like reaching a local maxima and thinking
you found the peak, but in the grand scheme of an evolutionary timeline were a
factor of 100x away from what the real "best" was

~~~
ben_w
“Best”? No. But evolution isn’t even trying, and only gave us what we have by
trial and error. Most of those errors are worse. We’re descended from the
mutations which were not worse, but _every_ mutation was random and unplanned
(by any reasonable use of the word), all the way back to the primordial soup.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Evolution is largely a winnowing process. What doesn't die before it can
successfully reproduce "wins."

This is the explanation behind genetic disorders being more common in certain
populations. Sickle Cell Anemia (2 copies of defective gene) is terrible, but
Sickle Cell Trait (1 copy) protects against Malaria. Having one copy is
advantageous in areas where Malaria is endemic.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say _evolution isn 't even trying._ Bacteria
apparently produce more mutations than normal in hostile environments,
apparently a form of gambling on _anything_ being better than what we are d
meoing currently.

~~~
ben_w
That last paragraph is an interesting perspective, thank you.

------
noisy_boy
They are rich - I don't have the confidence that they can be stopped in this
age of lopsided wealth/power concentration. Better to let them be the guinea
pigs evolving the technology to become stable and inevitably common. When
everyone is able to buy genes, we will all be at a new square one.

------
_coveredInBees
I'd highly recommend Radiolab's "G" Series of mini-podcasts that cover
material pretty pertinent to the discussions in these comment sections. I
really enjoyed the entire series. Here is the abstract for it:

 _Radiolab’s “G” is a multi-episode exploration of one of the most dangerous
ideas of the past century: the concept of intelligence. Over six episodes, the
series unearths the fraught history (and present-day use) of IQ tests, digs
into the bizarre tale of one man’s obsessive quest to find the secret to
genius in Einstein’s brain, reveals the ways the dark history of eugenics have
crept up into the present, looks to the future with a controversial geneticist
who has created a prenatal test for intelligence, and stages a raucous game-
show throwdown to crown the smartest animal in the world._

------
austincheney
There are superior gene combinations that are not known or are poorly
understood, such as high bone density, resistance to acute radiation exposure,
faster environmental adaptability, greater pulmonary volume. By higher bone
density I mean 3-5x greater than normal. These supposedly superior conditions
are things that actually exist and boost performance, but they also impose
stress on other health systems. After accounting for complexity superior is in
the eye of the beholder after consideration for what factors/goals are most
desirable.

~~~
lanstin
Strong bones but death st sge 50. It will take as long as fifty years to learn
that. Or maybe this system will be easy to fix forward and hack. I mean
evolution is clearly going to result is modularism as a design principal and
separation of functions of chemical pathways. Not like hacking some hand
crafted assembly code by a dead mad genius, it wont be like that.

------
Noos
Is this even possible? Buying the best genes as if you could buy an Armani
suit.

What this should say is "Should the rich be able to saddle their children with
untested, unproven genetic technology in the hopes they can select for traits
that give them competitive advantage in their social world, no matter what the
side costs are?"

The answer should be no. If you want to breed children like show dogs, it
doesn't matter how smart they are in the end, you've diminished them.

~~~
nyolfen
>The answer should be no. If you want to breed children like show dogs, it
doesn't matter how smart they are in the end, you've diminished them.

this is called 'choosing a partner'

------
vecplane
Perhaps a different way of asking the question is 'will the rich be buying the
best genes?'

And the answer is 'yes' because they already are, in limited ways.

But we may be overlooking the breadth of the 'rich' in the future. Most humans
today are far more rich than anyone else alive in the recent past. If this
trend continues into the future, the accessibility and affordability of gene
selection will make it commonplace.

------
cafebeen
The bigger issue seems to be determining what "best" means. While there are a
handful of diseases associated with specific genetic variants that could
obviously be cured, the traits people would likely try to optimize (e.g.
intelligence) seem to involve a complex combination of genes and environment,
and an attempt to select for such genes could incur some potentially negative
side-effects.

~~~
jlawson
It seems like your two sentences don't really fit together.

"Best" pretty clearly means higher IQ in this context.

The fact that the practical engineering required to accomplish that will
involve setbacks, failures, costs, and suffering doesn't mean that we can't
define the goal.

~~~
cafebeen
Agreed that intelligence is a good thing, but the question is about whether
there is a set of genes that are “best” for producing it. At the moment it’s
unclear which genes those are, and even if we found some genes related to
intelligence, they may have other negative consequences that make the idea of
a “best” set of genes questionable

~~~
jlawson
Well, to add some data:

Intelligence genes discovered by scientists The Telegraph, Dec 21 2015
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-
news/120617...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-
news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html)

Many similar articles, not all about the same discovery, at this DDG search:

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genes+for+intelligence+found&t=ffa...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genes+for+intelligence+found&t=ffab&ia=news)

~~~
cafebeen
Yes, there is surely evidence that intelligence is heritable, but it's worth
giving the research on this a close reading. Current approaches can only
explain 10% of the variance in intelligence
([https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104)),
plus the effects from the environment. My main issue with the article though
was the assumption that a "best" set of genes exists without futher discussion
(in addition to obvious ethical concerns)

~~~
jlawson
I was just responding to this: "intelligence is a good thing, but the question
is about whether there is a set of genes that are “best” for producing it. At
the moment it’s unclear which genes those are"

Basically just noting that we now know at least some of those genes.

Many more will be found. Some will have other deleterious effects, and we'll
figure that out too. The cause-and-effect of genotype and phenotype will be
slowly decoded. It's just a matter of time; there's nothing unsurmountable
here at all.

~~~
lanstin
If there are 200 mind trait affecting genes you are saying a 2^200 search is
fine.

~~~
jlawson
That's... Not how any of this works.

------
test6554
What's the point of money if you can't spend it on the things you want?

~~~
defterGoose
What's the point of life if the things you want can only be bought with money?

------
tw1010
Look at it this way: a lot of smart people contribute to common goods, e.g.
scholarly progress. So in a way, it'll benefit everyone.

I understand the counter-argument. But isn't a bit of a strange feature of the
world that people kinda don't _want_ more people to be produced with a higher
IQ than themselves?

~~~
ASalazarMX
Genius-level heirs who aren't psychopaths would be a great thing actually. If
we had this a generation ago, maybe our leaders would have been smart enough
to act responsibly about climate change.

~~~
YaxelPerez
The climate problem we have right now wasn't caused by incompetence.

------
asdf9240
i mean, the rich already gets the best education, the best healthcare, etc...

~~~
xenospn
Having your tuition paid for does not equal getting the best education. Lots
of dummies graduate from the world's top schools simply because of pedigree.

~~~
gingabriska
But such people with connection can often be found employed in powerful
organizations.

------
credit_guy
This guy thinks gene A makes you smarter, gene B makes you stronger, gene C
makes you taller. And then rich people will buy gene A, B, C and become
smarter, stronger, taller, and then richer still. And poor people will be poor
forever.

In reality gene A makes a protein a, which triggers an increase in the
expression of genes B,C,D, and a decrease in the expression of genes E,F,G.
They in turn trigger other and other effects, so there's a cascade of cause-
effects that we have no chance to model/simulate/understand, at least not now,
and not in the next 30-50 years. The end result is that gene A may make you
smarter, but also more prone to macular degeneration or leukemia. Do you think
rich people will take the chance ?

~~~
joquarky
I've long wondered if genes are more like seeds to a fractal. Evolution works
great, but I suspect it results in a chaotic system.

------
codeisawesome
People don't seem to be talking about Crime and Policing, btw. If Criminals
get super-intelligent, then we are going to need super-intelligent Policing.
This is a smaller fractal of the Military competition aspect, but the dynamics
are similar. Ultimately, once this tech becomes reality, it will be impossible
to contain for this reason alone. You can't have Enhanced Cops themselves
imprisoned in a way that they can't spread their genes.

------
ASalazarMX
Someone has to beta test genetic enhancement before it becomes mainstream. If
it is currently expensive, only the rich can pay it... or pay other people to
be the guinea pigs.

It understandably hurts traditional western sensibilities, but genetic
engineering is the inevitable cusp of evolution. At the base it's natural
selection, then civilization added social selection on top, and finally tech
will finish the pyramid with genetic engineering.

------
buboard
Tech became tech because it was unregulated. Biotech is anything but, in the
west.

~~~
opnitro
Tech also became tech because of massive centralized investment from the
defense industry.

~~~
buboard
Would be interesting to compare DARPA spending in the 70s with the current
levels of NIH spending

------
peter303
I attended Isaacson's Aspen panel on CRISPR this June. He said his next book
is on biotechnology. He wrote the definitive biography of Steve Jobs and some
major scientists.

------
mettamage
I see a major tasks for philosophers to collaborate with these scientists so
that they have the best awareness of what they are doing.

Not that it will ever happen but one can dream.

------
bayesian_horse
No. I don't believe Human gene-editing will enhance socio-economic divides.
For one thing genetic enhancements is incredibly hard. There will always be
some risk of side-effects. Even without side-effects there will be huge
problems in coordinating multiple changes and making sure they are actually
beneficial. This is especially so for traits like intelligence. And you don't
get a do-over in Humans. If the treatment doesn't work as intended, you still
have a child.

We're very far from routine genetic enhancements. Multiple Decades, in my
opinion. Even single-mutation treatments for serious diseases should not
become routine in the next 10 years.

On the other hand these treatments could be relatively cheap, once the
technology has progressed far enough. At the very least, it would be
beneficial for any society to pay for any health- or intelligence-improving
treatment for any parents who want it.

Next issue: Virtually any improvement in Health, especially during childhood,
will lead to higher intelligence, body height and muscle mass. The reason is
that the foundations for those traits are "grown" in a specific period of
time, using the resources available. If a child gets less nutrition, less time
in school or gets sick, those traits are negatively affected. That means not
only gene-treatments improve intelligence, but so do vaccinations,
antibiotics, antihelmintics and better hygiene.

------
cconroy
I am sure these best genes will "trickle down".

~~~
tachyonbeam
You're right in the sense that these genes will propagate into the rest of the
population. However:

1\. Rich people are more likely to get into a relationship with other rich
people.

2\. At least for the next 100 years, it's likely the tech will improve at a
rapid rate. That means by the time those high IQ genes spread to children, we
will already have identified even better genes. People who can intentionally
apply this technology to their designer-babies will stay ahead of the curve.

3\. Sexual reproduction is a random process. If we begin to understand
genetics well enough, we will almost always be able to get a better, more
effective combination of genes by hand-picking them (or letting a computer
decide) than by letting sexual gene recombination spin the wheel of fortune.

We're definitely looking at a future where the ruling class will have a huge
genetic advantage, and will be able to maintain that advantage because of the
huge cost associated.

~~~
thaw13579
A counter point, it seems that wealth and the power it provides already
provide such a huge advantage that the effects of genetic editing may end up
being a negligible.

I wonder about the preservation of wealth though. As other posts have pointed
out, most wealth is lost within a generation or two. Genetic engineering could
end up being used to modulate risk taking behavior and decision making, in an
effort to mitigate this. That could have a big effect on the structure of
society if successful...

~~~
tachyonbeam
Right now, in America and Europe, if you work hard, you have a decent shot at
becoming wealthy, or upper middle class. Once genetic engineering enters the
picture, wealthy people will have a genuine intrinsic advantage.

~~~
thaw13579
True, and to add one more point, poverty presently brings a along
environmental factors, such as stress, toxic exposure, poor nutrition, that
tragically impact brain development and leave people with an analogous
intrinsic disadvantage later in life. On a positive note, I think these things
are well within reach of fixing in our society and leveling the playing field.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-poverty-
affec...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-poverty-affects-the-
brain/)

------
sasaf5
Genetic improvement, just like eyeglasses and unlike college admission, is not
a zero-sum game.

------
esturk
I wonder whether anti-vaxxers are against gene modification or not? On one
hand, their children may truly be immune and not need vaccines. But on the
other, they might think the procedures will give them even more diseases.

------
Finnucane
Was biotech previously not tech? What an odd thing to say.

------
rowanG077
Yes!

------
AlexCoventry
Didn't bother to read the article, because the title seems silly. Firstly, we
don't have a clue about the genetic architecture of intelligence, so genetic
engineering is a ways off. Secondly, what is GRM ("Genetic Rights Management")
going to look like? Copy-protection of genes almost seems like a contradiction
in terms.

~~~
mlguy456
GRM can be as simple as a corporation owns rights to certain genes and thus
owns a part of the income of those who happens to have these genes. Yes,
children inherit the genes and thus owe to that company. The GRM rights can be
bought or sold, like IP rights. Various regulations will determine how much we
owe per gene.

------
carapace
People have been calling IT the "Information Revolution", but that has really
only just begun. The singularity will (has) happen(ed) in meat before silicon.

Cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
circuit_model_of_conscio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
circuit_model_of_consciousness)

This is activation in the "neurogenetic" circuit. We know that the soma
thinks: "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous
System"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698)
With a little practice you can establish two-way communication with this
aspect of yourself ("neurosomatic" circuit) and engender e.g. accelerated
healing, &c.

Now that we know that CRISPR-style genesplicing is possible, it seems likely
that it could be taught as well. In other words, go into a trance and mutate
yourself.

Our DNA already contains the coding for self-splicing, in fact it's littered
with quiescent viruses in all degrees of viability. So we have all the
biotechnology we need to practice self-modification of DNA now. Grok your
cells! Go forth and mutate!

~~~
redisman
> Now that we know that CRISPR-style genesplicing is possible, it seems likely
> that it could be taught as well. In other words, go into a trance and mutate
> yourself.

Well that seems like a "bit" of a logical jump...

~~~
carapace
It's not easy to unpack the train of thought there, and it would take a book
(at least) to do it justice. Let me see if I can sum it up...

Your brain is a powerful feedback-based information processor. It's whole deal
is to get your DNA into the future. Now it's learned about the existence of
DNA. (Maybe from reading Dawkins.) And it's also learned about easy gene
splicing with CRISPR. So as a bio-computer dedicated to self-replication, it
has entered into a very strange loop.

I'm saying that this loop doesn't require any external hardware. You have a
brain, you have cells, they are already connected, so you have your lab and
Neural Network General (non-)AI already.

If you can convince your brain to try it (and this is where hypnosis comes
into play) there is no reason to suspect that it wouldn't be able to figure
out how to self-hack your own DNA. Just explain what to do and let 'er rip.

