25 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 35.9 ms ] thread
... and then there was this Phase-1 trial in Japan about re-growing missing teeth.

We're really making astonishing progress in many different areas in medicine these days. They are mostly pretty narrow, but also so awesome that ~20 years ago, many doctors would have called it science fiction.

Anyone from the deaf community that can tell us how these kind of news are received?

I wonder how this compares to animosity towards coclear implants by a subsection of the community

This is great news. Hopefully this will be expanded to other forms deafness like those caused by ototoxic medication, ear infections, and general sensorineural hearing loss.
It's good that the article title doesn't use "congenital deafness", but it would be even better if it were simply "Deafness Cured!" /s
I see alot of advances powered by genetics now days.

Is there a specific field in genetics pushing this?

I used to hear buzz about CRISPER/CAS9 is it what is underlying most of these advancements?

How come alot of gene editing stocks have taken a serious beating if the tech is so good.

Many, many gene editing stocks have lost more than 90% of thier value since IPO.

How challenging is it for a person who has been deaf for let's say 20 years to suddenly regain hearing?
Really challenging. In some aspects it can be worse than to regain vision.

If you are not accustomed to sounds, they can be annoying, and may make you feel tired. The same can happen with vision, it is just too much, but you can close your eyes, and shut out vision stimuli. You can't do that with hearing. At least if you regain hearing with normal sensitivity, you can be overwhelmed by sounds of your body.

It is easier with implants, which can be shut off.

If they've been deaf from infancy, basically the entire hearing center of the brain is non-existent. So they'd be hearing sound, but processing it into meaningful content would not happen, if at all. So basically, its like having a cacophany of sound that you can't filter and process...

As for others, one thing hearing people, particularly monolingual hearing people, don't understand very well is that hearing != understanding. Just because you hear a sound doesn't automatically equate to it having meaning. The default for many people is to just SPEAK LOUDER and slower, which does not help in the vast majority of encounters

You know, whenever treatment for autism comes up, we get a lot of comments heavily suggesting curing autism is basically eugenics.

Why is it that some things are seen as a disability we should try to fix in our children, and others - which are in many ways just as debilitating - seen as some kind of beautiful part of humanity?

While I'm probably considered high-functioning autistic, I have seen the devastating effects autism can have on people less lucky than me. I don't know if I'd go for an autism cure myself, but if autism can be corrected for in the womb or right after birth, I would definitely be in favour. How necessary such a cure would be, depends on how extreme someone's autism is, and if the cure can be administered before their disability helps form and solidify their personality.

However, I think mental disorders like autism and physical ailments like deafness don't have the same ethical impact. One changes who a person is, the other changes what a person is capable of. It also depends on how bad the disability is; in this case, the kids showing most promise could already hear, though badly, and the treatment let them hear much better. I'm not even deaf but I'd happily take a treatment to fix whatever hearing damage I've collected over the years.

And for what it's worth, eugenics is already with us and that's actually not so evil. People carrying certain genetic diseases choose not to have (biological) kids all the time. Others still choose to risk it. As long as there isn't some large conspiracy about perfecting the human race behind it, eugenics can be helpful.

Some part of the deaf community would see the treatment in this article similarly to eugenics; erasing deaf culture.
How would one find out if they have this type of hearing loss? I have moderate to severe hearing loss in both ears since birth and there’s never been an attempt that I’m aware of to diagnose the cause beyond a standard inner ear examination.
In the UK, Newborn hearing screening (https://www.nhs.uk/baby/newborn-screening/hearing-test/) is a mandatory test that happens in the first weeks of life.

Genomics-driven diagnosis of several (treatable) conditions is not science fiction anymore, but requires support from governments and national health systems. The technology is there, and can be scaled up.

With studies like this: https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/initiatives/newborns

and initiatives like this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo#:~:text=Eve...

What immediately sprung to mind is how the deaf community has seen things like this as a personal and existential threat.

To me it's an obvious disability, and deaf people SHOULD want to be cured, but tribalism wins that argument all too often.

This is interesting because the quack who created Chiropractic wrongly thought he cured deafness with spinal manipulation. Just shows how powerful the real scientific method is.
(comment deleted)
I have always felt that hearing problems are difficult to truly "cure" and that most people can only use hearing aids. But this study is really different. If the key protein can be repaired, those conditions that seemed unchangeable in the past may now have a chance of turning around. Both children and adults can benefit from it, and this medical progress is really impressive.