
Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome - bitsweet
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/science/biologists-call-for-halt-to-gene-editing-technique-in-humans.html
======
Zikes
> They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the
> technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance
> qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many
> ethicists believe should never be taken.

In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for
countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method
for artificially selecting for them then there should be no ethical quandaries
beyond "but, that's cheating!" There are no scorekeepers of the universe,
nobody's going to give us karmic demerits for finding a shortcut. The only
risks are scientific, like the obvious potential loss of diversity of the gene
pool as we converge on certain universal traits.

From another perspective, what if we could identify genes which bring the
value of a trait below the baseline? For example, imagine we could identify
the gene which would cause someone's teeth to be so bad as to require braces
to correct later in life, but it would still be a largely superficial genetic
change largely related to "beauty". Should some people be made to suffer or
"earn" straight teeth while others are born with it? Why should this be true
of any traits?

~~~
6d0debc071
> In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for
> countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method
> for artificially selecting for them then there should be no ethical
> quandaries beyond "but, that's cheating!"

Or creating a permanent underclass from those who were unfortunate to have
parents who couldn't or wouldn't give them the enhancements - and for that to
carry forwards as jobs, and the wealth to advance your children, increasingly
go to those who have been modified.

In effect, if you found something and it really worked, you might well lock a
large portion of the population out of any realistic chance of meaningfully
participating in the future.

(Though I suppose one might argue that this is the case now, with education
and good environments going primarily to the wealthy. The difference would be
in the _degree_ to which the path was locked in.)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Who's creating any underclass? There's no reason to expect you won't just take
a pill to change our eye color etc. It could be cheap and available. Not yet
time to pull the emergency stop cord, because of imagined inequalities in a
system that's not even been engineered yet.

~~~
ams6110
Have you observed how the real world works? There are many diseases whose
cures/preventions are "cheap and available" yet still continue to kill
millions in the "underclasses."

~~~
bhayden
This point could have been made without the sarcasm, please see guidelines on
being overly negative: [http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-
guideline](http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline)

~~~
angersock
GP made a fair point, and was not overly sarcastic.

EDIT: I appreciate the urge to have a kinder and gentler HN, but let's not
start cluttering up threads more than we have to with references to the
guidelines. It's meta, and meta kills.

------
jaredhansen
With apologies for the somewhat flip turn of phrase, _if we outlaw human
genome editing, then only outlaws will edit the human genome_.

States in general do not have a good track record at preventing things that
can take place in a small room, with inexpensive equipment and few personnel.

Consider the kinds of equipment, and its associated cost, needed for genome
editing -- and compare to that required for development of nuclear weapons.
The collected might of the western world has occasional challenges in
preventing development of nuclear weapons; it's not clear to me how anyone
expects to be able to enforce a "ban" on editing the human genome. And for a
glimpse of what an unenforceable ban looks like, look at the drug war.

The whole thing is empty posturing. Genome editing is coming, like it or not.
Bans won't prevent it; they'll just prevent open discussion on how and where
it's being used.

~~~
clusterfoo
Agreed. This is the crux of the problem: if we're worrying about this leading
to an "underclass"... does anyone think its illegality will prevent the ultra-
wealthy from funding this technology?

And who will be overseeing the research? If it must be conducted in the dark
and on a budget, does anyone doubt that human experimentation will take place?

No thanks.

Ethical or not, the cat is out of the bag and the only way is forward.

------
Lawtonfogle
A tool so dangerous and powerful that scientists consider it worthy of banning
is a tool that governments will continue to work on regardless of the general
scientific community's feelings. So the only question remains is if we want
this tool to be understood and used by all or only those in power.

~~~
fragsworth
This is true.

Regardless of the morality of it, the U.S. government will probably work on
creating super-intelligent humans for national security and defense reasons.

I'd actually be surprised if they haven't started doing this many years ago,
and it's top-secret.

------
humanarity
I really think this is simply a tactic to consolidate market position, by
creating a monopoly and artificial scarcity, by raising the barriers to entry
on what is otherwise apparently not very defensible tech. "Don't use it until
it's safe", is a fairly effective way to stave off competition in medical
research and biology in many places. Added to this, is the idea of
anticipating and smoothing any regulatory humps by gaining consensus before
launch, allowing growth to be faster when it actually does launch.

These are both smooth moves if that's the intent, though I don't think it's
sufficient if the tech is really so indefensible.

I think another important consideration is long-term branding. Because the
tech is not defensible, there's going to be a whole bunch of competitors, so
how can we differentiate ourselves? "We're the ones who did this safest, and
we've been about safety from day one."

That's going to be a pretty compelling narrative for human gene therapy
suppliers.

It's encouraging to see strategic smarts in science at an early stage in a bio
venture that could end up having a very large impact on medicine. So that's
really cool, my hat's off to them for these plays. I think the new biotech
therapies will need huge monopolies with the resources and motivation to push
with the highest standards. After all, for developing biotech, do you really
want to be buying your medical future, from a garage startup? Or from a
massive name?

So I think it's smart they're clothing themselves in the apparel of major
names from day one: caution and safety. It's also exciting to think that right
now could be the start of some huge biotech firms of the future, companies
that will literally be 10x bigger than the energy companies of today.

------
arca_vorago
I worked in a next-gen DNA sequencing lab (as a sysadmin), and learned a lot
while I was there. One of the primary things I took away from it was that the
human genome is it's various interactions with other organisms (microbiome) is
incredibly complex and difficult to understand in an interrelated way. I would
say don't ban it, but rather put regulations that require extremely extensive
oversight and testing.

It's the same reason I criticize GMO products (worked with big agriculture
geneticists before going into bioinformatics), namely that the testing periods
are so short and lack oversight is so nonexistent that it is the unforeseen
consequences that make me _very_ wary of GMO foods.

We need to just be able to admit when a technology is very dangerous, and
instead of hiding it away, open it up to as many eyes as possible, and fund
the testing as much as possible. The key point for me though is the time
factor. Testing over extended periods of time (1,5,10,20 years) is a must for
such dangerous scientific advancements.

Luckily sequencing and modification are becoming cheaper and more reliable by
the year, to the point that I am pretty sure that your local doctors office is
going to have a sequencer before 2020.

I can't wait till my non-compete is up in a few months and I can get more
involved.

~~~
irisnt
Did you delete your reddit account?

~~~
arca_vorago
I did indeed, because I got into a tiff with someone and I like to burn
accounts fairly often. It sorta sucks to see accounts go away, but I don't
like the string of correlation being too easy. Also, are you stalking me?

------
sesutton
The headline is misleading (NYTimes fault not OP's) the scientists are asking
their fellow scientists not to use certain techniques on humans until the
implications are more fully understood. Unfortunately that isn't quite as
sensational of a headline.

------
api
There was a call around here to ban AI research too. Maybe the reason we don't
do new things is that we are too afraid. I blame lazy and unimaginative sci-fi
plots among other things.

Genetics could improve the inequality situation too, but that would require
challenging elements of our economic system which is off the table.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
How, exactly, could genetics solve inequality? It is a social problem.

~~~
bpodgursky
> It is a social problem.

You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social
element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable.

Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be
kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy,
rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field
is a great way to give an investment to the children of the current
underprivileged .

(edit: think about it this way -- health care costs are currently a kind of
regressive tax, as it takes a larger portion of the poor's income than the
wealthy. so anything to lower overall treatment costs will help reduce
inequality.)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
IQ is heritable because IQ selects for the well-educated.

Also, everyone is fairly similar in intelligence anyway. It is not for lack of
intelligence that black people suffer in the United States.

~~~
innguest
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more
well-educated are the fittest?

Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is why
some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in thought
experiments.

Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm them,
like minimum wage laws (first enacted to stifle competition), drug laws (first
enacted on racist grounds to jail minorities), welfare laws (first enacted to
segregate minorities in ghettos). But god forbid we blame the State, it must
be a "social" problem...

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more
> well-educated are the fittest?

IQ isn't nature, IQ is a testing system. IQ is essentially a test of whether
you have been given a high-quality Western education.

> Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is
> why some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in
> thought experiments.

People's intelligence _does_ vary, but not as much as you think it does. A lot
of it, again, is down to education.

> Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm
> them,

The legal system does not exist in isolation. It is influenced by US society
(which is oppressive towards black people).

~~~
innguest
I am more convinced of Dr James Flynn's arguments than yours regarding IQ
because I have gone over some of his work, which contradicts what you are
saying. If you point me to some of yours or your sources I'd take a look.

------
IanDrake
I think it's strange how fear drives people to believe science fiction is
real, but hope makes them laugh at the impossibility.

We're willing to ban a technology because we fear how it could be used? How is
there no discussion about how this could aid the fight against cancer?

I doubt there are any actual scientist driving this ban (a phd in ethics
doesn't make you a scientist in my book).

------
wnevets
Banning these methods won't stop the wealthy from using them. You can't put
the genie back in the bottle. GATTACA here we come.

edit: grammar

~~~
greggman
We've been at GATTACA since long ago. GATTACA is about a guy trying to sneak
into the space program even though he has genes that say he's got a weak
heart. How is that not already part of the space program?

Requirements to be an astronaut

[http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/featu...](http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html)

* Distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected

* Height between 62 and 75 inches.

Both of those are based on your genes. Have bad genes, you don't get to be an
astronaut.

There's also

* Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in a sitting position

And while I suspect most people can adjust their blood pressure through diet
and exercise I'm sure some people could never get in that range. In other
words they'd have the exact same problem as they guy in GATTACA, a bad heart.

~~~
Zikes
Well, visual acuity could potentially be surgically corrected. I'm not sure
how relevant height is, exactly, but I'd be willing to bet a larger range than
that could be accommodated in the right circumstances.

Then again, if you're genetically blind or have dwarfism, that may not be the
case.

I think GATTACA is less about genetics setting a bar, but that the bar is
constantly getting raised until it will eventually be unreachable without
artificial enhancement.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Humans modifying themselves is scary. Very scary.

One way it is scary is it creates a new form of genocide. Rather than
murdering oppressed groups, we will simply disable the genes that make them
part of that group, erasing diversity.

A world with only white, straight, cisgender, neurotypical, conventionally
attractive etc. people is not one I want to live in.

~~~
Zikes
Take a trip on tumblr sometime and you'll see that the psychological drive to
be a unique and special snowflake is strong enough that you have nothing to
worry about.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The moment you mention the word "tumblr" as if it has a particular meaning,
you lose all credibility.

~~~
Zikes
If that's what it takes to lose credibility for you then I can't say I've lost
anything of value.

------
nashashmi
Why is arbitrarily changing human genome something that biologist worry about,
but changing the genome of other creatures and foods that are later consumed
is not something that biologists worry about?

~~~
Zikes
I assume you're referring to GMOs, and yes that is something biologists "worry
about" very frequently.

That's why it works.

------
GoodIntentions
"Standard men and women; in uniform batches. The whole of a small factory
staffed with the products of a single bokanovskified egg."

"..standard Gammas, unvarying Deltas, uniform Epsilons. Millions of identical
twins. The principle of mass production at last applied to biology."

[http://www.huxley.net/bnw/](http://www.huxley.net/bnw/)

------
balabaster
I'm not sure what the problem is. Can't they just be kept 50 metres apart to
avoid cross pollination, the same as Monsanto's regulations to prevent cross
pollination of their GM crops? :P

------
cing
Previously discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9235912](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9235912)

------
datashovel
It seems this is a perfect example of a problem you don't want to spend too
much time / energy trying to make sure other people don't do it. In my
estimation you'd want to throw tons of money / resources at getting ahead of
the issue to understand more about what's about to happen whether we like it
or not.

