
Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos - tysone
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html
======
matt_wulfeck
> _They injected a synthetic healthy DNA sequence into the fertilized egg,
> expecting that the male genome would copy that sequence into the cut portion
> ... Instead, the male gene copied the healthy sequence from the female gene.
> The authors don’t know why it happened._

This seems like the most remarkable part of this entire article. It sounds
like a huge discovery. There's a lot of ethical concerns that can be laid
aside if the embryo is simply replacing genes from the other parent. That's
still just a healthy baby, not a "designer" baby.

~~~
tathougies
On the other hand, being completely unfamiliar with genetic imprinting as we
are, we have no idea what the effects that this kind of single-gender
inheritance may be.

~~~
ece
Isn't this called crossing over and a common thing in gametes?

------
komali2
>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies
with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism.

If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with
a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-
to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will.

I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exert
control over their environment, it's inevitable that we also learn to control
our own evolution. Rejecting this seems like tying our hands behind our backs
unnecessarily. But I get that huge swathes of the population reject it for
religious reasons or what have you. I argue that the "arms race" argument
could work well to sway these people, and then before we can send super-
soldiers into battle, our much more intelligent children will realize total
species improvement is a better investment than squabbling over arbitrary
borders, and carry on the race without these disputes.

~~~
laydn
I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject
matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said:

If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a
population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing
toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will.

Maybe it is time to start thinking about an international agreement to limit
unethical genetic engineering. A "Paris Accord" for "Genetic Engineering" if
you will...

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
It's not moral standards we have, it is ridiculously parochial notions of
purity and natural-is-better attitudes. If we fail to free our children from
stupidity and ill health, we are the moral imbeciles. If Asian nations
increase health, IQ, and happiness through genetic selection and engineering,
this will speak of higher moral sophistication. We have right-wing religious
conservatives on one side and on the left a sort of Lysenkoism that pertains
to all mental traits. I fear this will prevent us from implementing this
technology.

~~~
seanp2k2
If you outlaw genetic engineering, only outlaws will be genetically
engineered. Then they'll take over the world.

~~~
scierama
That's a paradox since a genetically improved species would abhor violence.
They would have no ability to take over the world. They would become
subservient like the Eloi in The Time Machine.

~~~
defen
> a genetically improved species would abhor violence.

On the other hand, humans are the apex predator of the known universe, the
output of 4.5 billion years of evolution driven by relentless, unceasing
violence. It's not clear that a genetically improved species would abhor
violence.

------
bognition
This is really exciting news.

However, a big challenge that makes this work extremely difficult to bring to
fruition is that you have to let an embryo develop fully to figure out to
determine if the therapy actually produces a healthy human. At which point the
consequences of failed experiments become increasingly difficult to work with
for obvious ethical and moral reasons.

~~~
abhi3
They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though
what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered
ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be
considered ethical for science as well.

~~~
openasocket
The practical reason is it's not clear how long they would survive. These
embryos are in a petri dish, unless they were to implant them in a women's
uterus I'm not sure how long they would be able to develop.

You might be able to develop them longer than five days, but then you hit the
ethical issues. The entire moral argument for abortions is based on bodily
autonomy of women, and that those rights trump the rights of an unborn fetus.
But for raising a fetus in an artificial environment there is no body autonomy
argument.

Another issue is murkier, and is based on the circumstances. Generally
abortions are used by women who did not intend to get pregnant as a last
resort form of birth control. When you're performing abortions for scientific
purposes it's different, and there are different ethical standards to
consider.

~~~
chii
I think i would put the same importance on the well-being of a women and
scientific progress.

One shouldn't trump the other.

------
roceasta
There's a huge difference between eliminating known mutations and somehow
engineering for enhanced positive traits. The latter requires knowledge that
we simply don't have.

Even if we did obtain it, it doesn't follow that Jo Slow would be worse off.
We're all of us already better off living in a world with smart people in it.
We're _obviously_ better off living in a world with _healthier_ people in it
(reduced healthcare costs)

Futhermore it doesn't make sense to be personally jealous of smart people. It
seems that being smart can be a significant burden; you're an outsider at best
or you veer into mental disorder at worst. Only rarely do smart people flower
into creative geniuses, the kind of people who contribute to progress. Most
people use their smarts to be more normal than the norm...

~~~
justonepost
Healthier people don't reduce costs, they just delay them.

~~~
macleodnine
What? Maybe if you only count the costs of someone on their deathbed. Someone
who requires Care their whole life definitively costs more than someone who
doesn't

------
fbdhsfagdshafgh
The particular fix done in this study prevents hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a
genetic disorder that I have.

I cannot explain how weird it feels to read front page headlines that
scientists have "fixed" me, that its a huge breakthrough that scientists will
be able to remove part of what makes me ME from future generations.

I'm all for it, of course. HCM, most frequently diagnosed in people by their
sudden death, is bad. But at a personal level, this feels unnerving.

~~~
angersock
Now imagine when we can "cure" things like autism, nonstandard genders, race,
etc.

A lot of tolerance is predicated on things being out of our hands,
practically. That goes away if we can change them.

~~~
0xffff2
I can't claim to represent the last two, but I would gladly trade a great deal
less tolerance of autistic people for no one to ever be born with autism ever
again, even if I didn't personally benefit at all.

------
jubabuba
I can't wait until this technology matures and I can fly in to a clinic
somewhere in the world to have this work completed so my future children will
never have to suffer from debilitating diseases.

------
logronoide
Baby Designer... DNA Architect... Genes Coder... they will sound very good in
Linkedin.

~~~
pishpash
"Led the effort to clean up the genetic debt introduced by previous teams and
refactored for efficiency. Offspring eats less and no longer randomly shits
everywhere."

------
phkahler
I've often wondered about Cystic Fibrosis and DNA editing. For people with two
copies of the variant gene, they get the disease. But there are indications
that having one copy of it can bring benefits
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage)).

So what if the optimum for humans is to have both variants? It would seem
appropriate to move the newer CF gene variant to a different place on the
chromosome so that doesn't need to displace the original gene. I imagine
nature may eventually figure this out, but embryonic DNA editing could bring
it about sooner. Of course this is speculative on my part and people would
obviously debate taking such action even if the science really suggests it's a
good idea.

------
ngneer
It would be nice if we could figure out a way to encode knowledge in the
genotype (serialization) to be extracted by the phenotype (deserialization).
Injecting Wikipedia into an embryo...

------
The_Notorious
I think it's unethical for us to not pursue gene editing. Why bring children
into this world with greater susceptibilities to disease? Also, if people want
to go a step further and alter traits like appearance and athletic ability
that should be their choice. It is their genetic material.

~~~
chii
The issue I think is one of accessibility and availablity. If you're poor, and
can't afford this, you are literally priced out of the gene pool. There has to
be regulation to make sure that the tech is not out of reach of the poor.

------
basicplus2
One step closer to the 'master race', I guess my decendants will end up as
pets, slaves or killed off.

------
quotemstr
Good! For too long, we've been hampered by the limitations of a human nature
evolved millions of years ago for a very different environment. All previous
attempts at changing human nature have failed. Activism does not work. Grand
social movements do not work. Policing language does not work. We now have a
chance to succeed in improving ourselves using tools that actually work.

~~~
lallysingh
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_(Firefly)#Origin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_\(Firefly\)#Origin)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Fallacy of Fictional Evidence.

------
donbronson
> She doubts a flood of couples will have “edited children.”

And one person's gut check should be ok, right?

------
CoolNickname
A lot of people will be talking about ethics. But I'm thinking more along the
lines of economics.

Rich people having expensive gene edited kids. They're stronger, smarter, more
driven, and healthier than your kids. They are better looking. They'll be more
advanced than kids their age. They'll have all sorts of built in advantages.

The social and economic gap will widen. Opportunities come easier to the
people who look great, are crazy smart, and are driven to attain them. So the
rich kids become richer and more powerful.

It's one thing to get a head start in life because your parents give you
money. It's a much bigger advantage when your parents can also afford to give
you built in physical and mental advantages far beyond other people.

Imagine being the kid who realizes he's slower than his classmates because his
parents are poor, and that it's too late to ever change that.

~~~
0xffff2
I don't see any alternative here. You could theoretically make the gene-
editing a standard benefit paid for by the government, but the US at least
can't even agree on how to provide basic healthcare, so it's unlikely we would
agree on this. You could outlaw gene-editing, but as long as it's medically
possible some people will still do it, and at best you get the same result at
a slower rate.

------
EvilDictator
As someone with a genetic disease that involves my spine disintegrating and my
heart basically being a time bomb, I have a really hard time seeing a problem
with this.

Limit it to diseases and genetic anomalies so it doesn't become a race thing
and voila. Why would getting rid of things like my disease be a bad thing?

