
Outrage Over Human Gene Editing Will Fade Fast - petethomas
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-27/crispr-fears-designer-baby-outrage-won-t-last-as-ethics-evolve
======
platz
> If children like the twins who have been reportedly modified are born and
> live healthy, normal lives, then scientific worries about off-target effects
> will begin to recede.

Unless the change is one that produces greater fitness in individuals but
lowers fitness for the species as a whole. e.g. the environment changes (it
happens) and all the folks that would've been naturally adapted (via this
diversity) to the new environment were edited out.

Humans are great at thinking about individual risks, but not so great at
thinking about systemic or ecological risks (climate change, economics)

~~~
emmanueloga_
Should we apply A/B testing?

~~~
tomrod
Ethically, I think not.

------
fwip
This paragraph rings hollow: "Other examples of human variability, such as
intelligence, would be even harder to change with current editing techniques.
We can’t even produce a consistent definition of intelligence, much less
identify its genetic determinants."

Even if we can't tell for sure what effect a particular genetic edit will
have, telling customers "Yes this should make your baby smarter" is enough to
convince a lot of people.

Also, the risks of off-target editing is massively understated - the FDA is
reluctant to allow clinical trials for CRISPR-based therapy in consenting
adults, requiring thorough evidence that you've catalogued and proved safe all
off-target effects.

Here is a better article from actual scientists:
[https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/gene-editing-embryo-
cris...](https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/gene-editing-embryo-crispr/)

~~~
analog31
Likewise "yes this investment should beat the market."

My guess is that, given the ability for quacks and hucksters to outnumber
legitimate practitioners, the results of gene editing will suffer a signal-to-
noise problem for years if not decades to come. Even if some particular
treatment is proven, it will be set aside if someone else offers a better but
unproven treatment.

------
nuguy
I watched a 60 minutes segment about horse cloning. An oil heir from Texas
became very interested in polo, a sport where horses are rode and where the
genetics of the horses are what decide the winner more or less. So instead of
starting his own breeding program, this guy started a horse cloning operation
in Argentina — its absolutely fascinating. When asked how different horse
cloning would be from human cloning, he shook his head slowly and said that
horse cloning is probably extremely similar to human cloning and that human
cloning could be done very, very easily. When asked if he would ever consider
cloning humans he gave an emphatic “no” and said that he had been asked by
“some of the wealthiest people in the world” to clone humans in some capacity,
and that he refused every time. Gives me shivers :P

It is interesting that there are both the means and the demand for human
cloning. It stands to reason to assume that it has been done.

Cloning is a remarkably simple process from what I have read. Basically all
you do is extract an egg from a female doner, take out its dna, insert a skin
cell from the animal you want to clone, pull current through the egg to
activate it and then place the egg Into a surrogate mother. The extraction and
insertion of dna is literally done with a very small needle — no nano-tech or
black magic. Just a needle. It really is remarkable.

~~~
sytelus
> Cloning is a remarkably simple process from what I have read

Fewer than 10% of cloned animals survive to birth as of below 2016 report.
Given human gestation period are much longer as well as far more limited
cycles available per female, you are going to have very hard time cloning
humans.

[https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/cow-gene-study-shows-why-
most-c...](https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/cow-gene-study-shows-why-most-clones-
fail/)

~~~
nuguy
I’ve actually already read that link. I was disappointed in its lack of
detail. I’ll have to read the paper sometime.

Your point about the gestation length is really good. Do you have a background
in biology or cloning?

Also I just read that horses actually have a slightly longer gestation period
than humans

------
briandear
I was a research fellow part of the Missiplicity project and I worked on the
feline cloning part of it.[1] I still remember protesters at Texas A&M and how
our lab was in an anonymous outbuilding near the vet school and we had
occasional threats from various groups and various talking heads pontificated
as they were prone to do.

While gene edited children aren’t clones, the bioethics aspects aren’t much
different. But, this too shall pass. A lot of hand wringing, then a Streisand
type will have a gene edited child and all will be forgiven. (I mentioned
Streisand because she had her dog cloned not long ago.)[2]

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/feb/15/genetics.hig...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/feb/15/genetics.highereducation)

[2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2018/feb/...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2018/feb/28/copycat-
culture-is-it-wrong-to-clone-a-beloved-dead-pet)

------
pmiller2
Outrage over anything fades fast these days. Who's up at arms over the Equifax
breach anymore?

~~~
sytelus
Generalization: Outrage follows exponentially damped cycles unless a
significant observable direct immediate loss is incurred.

First outrage has huge spike, second exponentially lower and so on. Example
net neutrality.

I feel this is population's way of minimizing energy spent but with very small
horizon optimization.

------
hprotagonist
CRISPR in individual humans sounds potentially great.

Touching the germ line is a hard pass.

~~~
all2
What, you don't want to wipe out half the planet's ability to procreate in a
single generation? (the genocidal maniacs and overpopulation buffs are going
to be all over this, maybe, if one of them has the guts and the brains)

~~~
VectorLock
If a change to the gene line prevented procreation it would eliminate itself
pretty quickly. Unless we changed half of the already born world's genes all
at once.

------
ericdykstra
I think the fears might be underblown, not overblown. Not enough people are
paying attention to the Revolutionary Phenotype hypothesis and how it relates
to gene editing. The moral fears are less scary than the existential ones.

There's a fascinating video that responds to the propaganda put out by the
Chinese scientist who performed the gene editing on twins here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ND3_clSPM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ND3_clSPM)

And you can read the first chapter of the book that will come out the next
month describing the phenomenon here:
[http://book.jfg.world](http://book.jfg.world)

~~~
newuser6969
Do you mind summarizing the hypothesis for the person who doesn't have time at
the moment to read that (me).

~~~
ericdykstra
It's the conclusion of Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_ and _The Extended
Phenotype_.

The Revolutionary Phenotype describes the transition of life from protein
self-replicator (no known current ancestors), to protein-RNA tangos (no known
current ancestors), to RNA replicators (current RNA viruses), to RNA-DNA tango
(RNA-DNA reverse transcribing viruses), to DNA replicator (biological life).

The next revolutionary phenotype (let's call it RT) would be one that replaces
DNA, first via a DNA-RT tango (machines editing our DNA) and eventually with
RT (the machines) replacing DNA completely.

The video I linked above goes over the consequences of this. The book will
describe it in more detail, and is slated to be released next month.

------
darawk
Completely agree. This has always been a fabricated issue anyway. People
enhance themselves all sorts of ways, diet exercise, tutoring, etc.

The hysteria over genetic engineering will last just as long as it takes for
the first few successful attempts to show their benefits, and then everyone
will promptly forget it was ever an issue at all.

~~~
untog
Yes, but genes are one of the last equalisers out there. To an extent,
obviously - your genes come from your parents - but rich and poor alike have
both benefitted and suffered from their genetic makeups. Before long genetic
engineering will be commonplace but almost exclusively among the rich.
Arguably, much like dieting, exercise and tutoring.

~~~
speby
Perhaps. And like salt in ancient times, there are luxuries of the rich that
eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest
means. I can see that being the case for genetic engineering too. Consider
that the first genome sequencing (the human genome project) cost around $2.7
billion dollars in the 90s ([https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-
project-complet...](https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-
completion-frequently-asked-questions/)). These days, you can do a full
sequenincing of your DNA (not like the 23andme style) for around $1,400
([https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-
complet...](https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-
frequently-asked-questions/)).

~~~
PavlovsCat
> there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and
> more accessible to people of more modest means

Inequality is _rising_ , not falling.

For example, any person at all today can easily get their hands on weapon that
would win them any fight with a caveman wielding a bone, sure. But today,
there's tanks and satellites and whatnot -- the most powerless became WAY more
powerless in contras to the most powerful. You don't compare the poor of today
with the rich of yesterday, you compare the them with the rich of today. And
you compare the poor of tomorrow with the rich of tomorrow.

> _Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic
> weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon -
> so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak._

\-- George Orwell

Already it's pretty normal for rich people to consider themselves above
socializing with poor people. Adding editing of genes on top of that might not
just turn that wide gap into a fortified moat, complete with property rights
and patents and enforcement of said patents (imagine getting a mutation by
chance that you have no license for), it might also mess up the incentives for
medical research even more.

Why find a cure for a disease that anyone can get, that is another
"equalizer", when you can immunize yourself and your offspring to it? You may
say all such things will always be made available to everybody, but how would
you know now? What of the current behaviour of the powerful gives you reason
to consider that likely? When it comes to biodiversity and the possibility of
extinction, not many HN comments mention the people with the biggest
footprints, but a lot mention "overpopulation". So how would that mesh with
making the unwashed masses more resilient and healthy? Wouldn't it make more
sense to go the opposite way? You see, "perhaps" isn't good enough with
something like this. At these speeds, "eventually" steering means crashing
into a wall.

------
remir
Let's put aside 2018 for a moment and imagine society in 2100.

Gene editing and human cloning will happen: only a matter of time. What we
can't accept today, someone else will accept tomorrow.

Now, add automation (remember, this is 2100), climate change and resource
depletion into the mix and well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

~~~
b_tterc_p
Im not sure what your point is. There are numerous possible paths to go here
with the tech listed.

~~~
remir
The point is that past a certain point, things will get wild.

------
winchling
If IQ varies inversely with overall mutational load, intelligence-enhancing
edits to the genome exist on the same continuum as fixing things like Tay-
Sachs and Huntington's disease. Therefore, yes, they may well be inevitable.

Similarly, life extension treatments may double as the cheapest way to prevent
chronic health problems such as cancer and heart disease.

------
nabla9
When rich Asian parents realize that they can make their children light
skinned it will really take off.

Skin whitening is big business in Asia.

------
overcast
Of course it will. Soon as one of their children is saved from dying,
opponents will quickly shut their mouths about it.

~~~
saagarjha
How about when their children can be saved, but they can’t afford to do so?

~~~
jlawson
This applies to the development of many medicines today.

------
pochamago
I genuinely doubt that any amount of hand wringing or letter writing will slow
the pace of this research. It's too enticing. The potential benefits are so
overwhelming. I'm not even convinced outlawing it will stop its march. If I
were a billionaire I would happily fund research in whatever country allowed
it. We're looking at a development that could be equal or greater than the
invention of the vaccine, and it's not worth taking it slowly

------
webwielder2
Just like the fabricated Bloomberg stories about Super Micro before it.

