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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
None of those are features (and they are "perfect targets" for gene therapy because we have a thorough understanding of the consequences of the edit).
Sickle cell anemia gets trotted around because carriers are somewhat resistant to malaria, but it turns out that everyone who had the choice eradicated malaria rather than deal with it. And people that have two copies of the mutation are more susceptible to malaria.
Actually, I think that once intelligence and beauty can be "fixed", one could argue that the line between being disabled intelligence-wise (or aesthetically-wise) or not starts to shift. All those millions of children who, in your scenario, don't have to live with a disability will also be at a steep disadvantage compared to the extra smart and beautiful rich kids. If this would continue for some generations, you'll get a genetic upper and lower class. It could even mean that we create a new "super species" that's becoming less and less compatible with humans .
(Yes, I read way too much science fiction, but I think it explores some interesting scenarios we should seriously consider while debating the issue. For a very popular reference: In the Star Trek universe the Eugenic Wars explore problems of genetic enhancements; The character Doctor Bashir in DS9, for example, is an (illegally) enhanced human [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir])
"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?
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.
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.
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 ?"
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?"
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
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
> “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?
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.
46 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 86.6 ms ] threadGENETICS IS HARD.
Given that the other half come from monkeys, is this why babies try and eat their toes?
I've had to wear glasses since I was 4 and would have been very happy if this would have been fixed before being born.
But I agree not everything is so clear cut.
At any rate, I'd prefer to decide myself what is a feature, rather than having some 'ethicist' decide for me.
None of those are features (and they are "perfect targets" for gene therapy because we have a thorough understanding of the consequences of the edit).
Sickle cell anemia gets trotted around because carriers are somewhat resistant to malaria, but it turns out that everyone who had the choice eradicated malaria rather than deal with it. And people that have two copies of the mutation are more susceptible to malaria.
(Yes, I read way too much science fiction, but I think it explores some interesting scenarios we should seriously consider while debating the issue. For a very popular reference: In the Star Trek universe the Eugenic Wars explore problems of genetic enhancements; The character Doctor Bashir in DS9, for example, is an (illegally) enhanced human [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir])
"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?
That's why this is so touchy. Who gets to draw these lines, and why? Bans on anything are rarely helpful.
ban on theft seems to be working out pretty good here, thanks.
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
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
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.
... 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.
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.
http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/miscarr...
Amateur genetic engineering (so-called "biohacking") is in its very early infancy, and it's early to tell how accessible it might become.
Unless you're the steam engine.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
Yet, we're suppose to trust that GMOs are safe for consumption?