

Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome - applecore
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/science/biologists-call-for-halt-to-gene-editing-technique-in-humans.html

======
blackbagboys
Of note, an excerpt on a related blog (excerpted from a paywalled article:
[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1301.full](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1301.full))

... Rumors are rife, presumably from anonymous peer reviewers, that scientists
in China have already used CRISPR on human embryos and have submitted papers
on their results. They have apparently not tried to establish any pregnancies,
but the rumors alarm researchers who fear that such papers, published before
broad discussions of the risks and benefits of genome editing, could trigger a
public backlash that would block legitimate uses of the technology.

... But scientists don't yet understand all the possible side effects of
tinkering with germ cells or embryos. Monkeys have been born from CRISPR-
edited embryos, but at least half of the 10 pregnancies in the monkey
experiments ended in miscarriage. In the monkeys that were born, not all cells
carried the desired changes, so attempts to eliminate a disease gene might not
work. The editing can also damage off-target sites in the genome.

Those uncertainties, together with existing regulations, are sufficient to
prevent responsible scientists from attempting any genetically altered babies,
says George Church, a molecular geneticist at Harvard Medical School in
Boston. Although he signed the Science commentary, he says the discussion
“strikes me as a bit exaggerated.” He maintains that a de facto moratorium is
in place for all technologies until they're proven safe. “The challenge is to
show that the benefits are greater than the risks.”

... Although many European countries ban germline genetic engineering in
humans, the United States and China do not have such laws. Research with
private funds is subject to little oversight in the United States, although
any attempts to establish a pregnancy would need approval from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. In China, any clinical use is prohibited by the
Ministry of Health guidelines, but not by law.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So, redesign them after they're born. Isn't that how this technology works -
it can spread through your body and change the working DNA you have right now?

Sure its more effective to change DNA while its still building the scaffolding
- after you're born its too late for some things. But that leaves a lot to be
done.

~~~
dekhn
It is really, really, really hard to target DNA changes to a small number of
specific cells reliably.

------
Patrikvo
We should carefully build up the knowledge and experience on genome editing.
If we can prevent children to be born with genetic defects, we should. And I
don't care if the rich and powerful get to make their kids extra smart and
beautiful if that means millions of other children don't have to live with a
disability.

~~~
throwawayaway
one man's defect is another's feature. the old bug vs. feature debate, applies
here. maybe my thinking has been horribly warped by over exposure to
computing.

~~~
ticking
Bullshit. I'm in my early 20s and have MS. That is not a feature.

~~~
Fiahil
What is MS?

~~~
throwawayaway
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis)

------
josinalvo
Can't express coherently how much the idea of "not going with this research
160 mph" irritates me.

Human genetic variation is so profoundly unfair. There is such a wide IQ
range, such a wide physical development range, such a wide 'beauty' range. To
think of condemning one extra person to be in the bottom of those ranges is
painful.

What the hell can such a benefit be measured against ? The aesthetic objection
of 'ethicists' ? (read: filosophers trying to answer unanswerable questions
armed just with 'common sense')

\------------

Btw: I am not sure that, given the possibility of writing genes, we'd know the
right genes to alter. Just answering to the article on its terms

~~~
JoeAltmaier
When the alternative is 'allow random chance to produce a possibly-deformed
child with no particular chance of success' its not hard to decide. Of course
we want to improve our children! We spend our lives doing that after they're
born. Now we have a chance to do it before. It obvious what we will choose.

And we know more about genes literally every day. We will start with small
changes (remove defects). Then we will tune physical details (height, weight,
strength, skin). Then we will turn to the serious stuff - IQ, longevity,
disease resistance.

To complain that some children will suffer, is to ignore all the children that
already suffer.

------
philipp-de
Well if they do test this on humans, and if something goes wrong - they can
easily fix it. Just apply a wetware update. Maybe we can even deploy wetware
updates wirelessly soon. Just think of the possibilities. "Have you installed
the Starbucks(tm) Wetware upgrade that makes you able to digest our latest
drink, yet ?"

~~~
joeyspn
Or... "the latest patch for <brand>(tm) protects your genome against future
cell aberrations so you can safely consume our (carcinogenic) products. Update
_your_ system now?"

------
booruguru
If you're having difficulty understanding what all the fuss is about, try
watching Gattaca.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/)

------
iask
Let us, the average intelligence, start building even better flat screens and
HE systems so in the near future we can sit back and watch the battle between
AI (robotics) and MI (modified intelligence).

------
EvaK_de
The world has changed significantly since the 70ies, when such a moratorium
worked. I don't think that it would in today's world, where information is
more free than ever.

~~~
dr_
People sure move fast when there's a potentially promising technology.
[http://crisprtx.com](http://crisprtx.com)

------
probablyfiction
You can't honestly expect people to observe a ban on technology, voluntary or
otherwise. Just look at the music and movie industry. As soon as the
technology existed to bypass DRM, people embraced it whole-heartedly. If
people have a chance to rid themselves and their descendants of defective
genes, they sure as hell are going to do it, regardless of whether it's legal.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
The barrier to entry simply isn't comparable. The technology to bypass DRM and
copy protection has existed since the day of its invention. You've always had
black-box analysis.

Amateur genetic engineering (so-called "biohacking") is in its very early
infancy, and it's early to tell how accessible it might become.

~~~
probablyfiction
Back in the 70's when you had people phone phreaking, the barrier to entry was
high. You would need access to a box of Cap'n Crunch along with the knowledge
on how to phreak. The barrier to entry was low with DRM-bypassing. You didn't
need special knowledge; all you needed was a computer and the right software
program. In this case the barrier to entry is high: by necessity you need to
be a scientist with years of training. The principle, however, is the same.
Once set lose, technology cannot be put back in the box.

Unless you're the steam engine.

------
zimbatm
This article made me want to try human genome editing. It's obvious that given
the possibility people are not going to be able to resist.

~~~
lotsofmangos
When subcultures like furries or bronies get hold of it, things may get more
than a bit odd.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Any genome edit large enough to make you look like a dog would most likely
kill you, or _at least_ render any embryos you may conceive non-viable.

GENETICS IS HARD.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Simultaneously its easy. We modify bacteria, fish, dogs all the time with
success. Sure you can go wrong sometimes, but you can go very right too. Add
limbs to flies. Make them glow in the dark. And so on.

~~~
nsxwolf
But there are limits to what genes can express, based on the cell's
capabilities. For instance, you could make someone a wolfman by adding hair,
but you couldn't have them grow leaves like the Jolly Green Giant. Our cells
just don't have the kernel level support or whatever you want to call it.

~~~
transphenomenal
We share half our genes with the banana. Granted the scientists are (probably)
only talking about editing the 0.3% of the genome that makes humans different
from each other, but with so much of our DNA shared with other eukaryote
celled life, adding leaves may not be that difficult.

~~~
lotsofmangos
_We share half our genes with the banana._

Given that the other half come from monkeys, is this why babies try and eat
their toes?

------
JoeAltmaier
Its easy and inevitable. Better than a moratorium: an open database to help
track what works and what doesn't, to help you decide.

~~~
lotsofmangos
While building this database and working out what doesn't work, would you not
have a moratorium?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Not if it was built from practical experience.

------
Folcon
This perspective is interesting:

"Many ethicists have accepted the idea of gene therapy, changes that die with
the patient, but draw a clear line at altering the germline, since these will
extend to future generations."

Doesn't this imply that ethically you can alter your own geneline as long as
from that point on you cannot have progeny?

~~~
themartorana
It's a weird situation. Why wouldn't I want to edit out BRCA1/2 for myself
_and_ my downline? Who gets to say that my progeny have to live with the
significant risk of dying from breast cancer?

That's why this is so touchy. Who gets to draw these lines, and why? Bans on
anything are rarely helpful.

~~~
throwawayaway
> Bans on anything are rarely helpful.

ban on theft seems to be working out pretty good here, thanks.

~~~
pharke
The intellectual property debate would beg to differ.

~~~
throwawayaway
I think you are doing both sides of the intellectual property debate a
disservice by calling it theft, don't you?

copyright infringement = theft? sure, industrial espionage is theft, but
that's not what you are talking about.

EDIT: this is probably the best essay I've read on it:

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-
ipr.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html)

------
booruguru
> “We worry about people making changes without the knowledge of what those
> changes mean in terms of the overall genome,” Dr. Baltimore said. “I
> personally think we are just not smart enough — and won’t be for a very long
> time — to feel comfortable about the consequences of changing heredity, even
> in a single individual.”

Yet, we're suppose to trust that GMOs are safe for consumption?

~~~
rdudek
Because I do believe that this is the next step in our human evolution. Be
able to modify our DNA to increase our chance of survival in the future.
Fungi, bacteria, and viruses modify at an alarming rate and outpace us humans.
Humans are complex creatures and it takes many generations for enhancements.
We may not be fast enough in the future without some modification help.

------
snyp
but aren't crops already genetically modified to give better yields etc? Whats
wrong with making people smarter? Of course the safety of such procedures
should thoroughly be checked but i still think this kinds of things should not
be banned over moral and ethical grounds

