Good. Because, pardon the colorful language, fuck those bioethicist Luddites.
From a moral standpoint it's inconceivable that we aren't proceeding at full speed to solve inherited diseases.
There's no ethical hand wringing over this. (In many cases) We know what the mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is. We're on the cusp of being able to change the former into the latter.
Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really disturbing"?
There's a counterpoint about genetic diversity and the dangers of monoculture, but that isn't what's being brought up. It's always 'This is new and scary, and so we should spend more time studying the implications before doing it.'
I would argue that we have no choice and have to master our own genome. Consider that we have entirely removed many of the selective forces that ensured we had a healthy gene pool.
Take, as a simple example, the selective pressure on any disease that would have killed someone 1000 years ago. Now whatever susceptibility lead to that is not drained from the gene pool, the person is cured at great expense and reproduces furthering the presence of the gene. Don't get me wrong, evolution runs off of death and murder. Replacing it can be amazing, but we almost have no choice.
> Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really disturbing"?
Because it is. Who will be responsible for the suffrage that gene-edited people will inevitably go through when someone screws up (and make no mistake, someone WILL screw up). Who will pay their medical bills?
That's only addressing one small issue from an unfathomable pile of issues and unintended consequences.
I for one am glad those "luddites" have more say in issues like this than people like you.
One could easily rewrite your comment to lament the invention of the automobile:
Who will be responsible for the suffrage [sic] that accident victims will inevitably go through when an automobile driver screws up (and make no mistake, automobile drivers WILL screw up).
The answer is: yes, a few suffer, the vast majority benefits, and life goes on. Your comment insists on a notion of perfect safety that exists nowhere in the real world.
My larger concern is who is paying for us not making the genetic effort: afflicted individuals and the social costs of trying to give them at least an approximately normal life.
Weighing any risk against that cost? I can't make a pursuasive argument that we shouldn't proceed.
Or as John Donne quipped in 1623, "... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
you could make a case that millions of people currently suffer genetic diseases they are born with that have the potential to be cured using this technology if it's developed
Your comment reveals a massive naivety about the medical, scientific and ethical conversations in the field. But you also don’t seem too interested in learning about it...
The biggest issue is that gene editing techniques are not perfect yet, and the danger of introducing bad mutations at other places in the genome is real. Once the gene editing techniques work 100% of the time with no side effects this will be of no concern.
That's right. Bring on those radioactive underwear.
We cannot solve your insecurities using gene editing, but we can definitely destroy the lives on millions. Those "Luddites" made sure that your current genes aren't edited by a dumb PhD student in the 80s, and you're not permanently crippled as a result of that.
Gene editing should stay exactly where it is, in the dystopic dreams of uneducated eugenics supporters.
> (In many cases) We know what the mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is.
Do we?
Do we really ? The best argument I’ve seen until now pro gene editing is that we foundamentally lack understanding of what the genes really do relative to each other and the whole body, and the best way to see unintended consequences is to “jut do it”
In the last discussion about the rogue chinese researcher I didn’t see sources arguing it’s the right time to do that, is it your hunchbor do you see signs pointing at the contrary ?
As the other commenter pointed out, there are a number of diseases that have been pinpointed down to single gene mutations. There's a list of monogenetic disorders on the genome.gov page [1].
If this needed to be regulated in the same way as abortion to appease some folks, fine. Legal only to apply if you have one of these listed mutations.
Eugenics gets brought up a lot as a strawman (see comment a few above), but the scientific and ethical reality is there's a huge difference between treating someone with...
(a) a defective huntingtin gene
(b) a gene we believe to be associated with a disease
(c) a gene we believe to be associated with a superior outcome (e.g. intelligence)
Conflating the three to the preclusion of addressing (a) is ethically criminal.
the truly disturbing thing is that there exists a group of people that think they can make ethical decisions for others and that people think that has any merit whatsoever
CRISPR is just a cool pair of scissors. What makes it cool is its flexibility. Different target? Pick a different guide RNA.
But think about it. Many of the challenges of using that pair of scissors still exist. How do we get the scissors to the target? How do we repair the target after the cut? How often do the scissors work? Can the scissors cut exactly where we want them too (is there a PAM site nearby)?
Of course, scientists know all these challenges, and they're clever. I would take a peek at this CRISPR guide (https://www.addgene.org/crispr/guide/)if you want to know how people actually use it.
Another thing that I'm thinking about: DNA is more than a 1D string of code. It is a semiflexible polymer wrapped around proteins, constantly changing in space and time. It bends, folds, and interacts with itself. Every cell does this organization differently. And I haven't even mentioned epigenetics.
I'm not morally opposed to gene editing in the future. But I'm not so sure we're there yet. Then again, if I were blind, and CRISPR promised a cure...
Recombinant genetic engineering was invented almost 5 decades ago, and only recently has it been used on a human embryo. I think humanity has been remarkably patient pursuing this technology.
It has a bad rap today, but centuries from now how many people will carry genetic modifications/enhancements from their descendants? How will these people look back and judge the scientist today? Might they view scientist like He Jiankui (the chinese scientist responsible for the first genetically engineered embryo brought to term) as the Copernicus(es) of our time?
several centuries from now, after the successful quelling of the final rebellion of natural born poor people, the wealthy genetic adonis's that inhabit the earth will indeed look upon these developments positively.
There would more likely be factional genetic warfare than natural born poor people or wealthy genetic adonises.
If you're thinking in terms of poor and rich, then you haven't really thought through all the implications of continuous improvement in genetic engineering. You wouldn't have poor natural born and wealthy genetically engineered. You would have old "obsoletes" trying to hold off supremely ambitious and young "moderns". And it would all be along an age spectrum so that different cohorts with different abilities would group together due to tribalism.
Think of a dystopia where you might have something like groups of 20 to 30 year olds out hunting the 5 to 15 year old children of the 40 to 50 year olds. (Because the kids are light years ahead of them in terms of abilities and they saw what happened to the cohorts before them.)
Maybe not exactly that, but that's more along the lines of the genetic factionalism that would arise with genetically engineered humans. The great hero of mankind would be the guy who finally figured out how to genetically engineer out the tribalism in humans. Finally allowing us all to live in peace together even if we're out of date in terms of our genetic engineering. (Which almost everyone would be by the time they were 10 or 15.)
You're assuming that genetic engineering is expensive and that only the rich will be able to afford it. I think it more likely that genetic engineering will be cheap and easy to perform, for better or worse
i'm not sure he is. the point of each generation being successively more advanced would also allow for the rich to receive the most cutting edge tech ahead of everyone else. even if everyone has access, i don't think it would be a level playing field. especially because costs may be covered for things like disease prevention, but probably not for things like intelligence, strength, etc.
From a moral standpoint it's inconceivable that we aren't proceeding at full speed to solve inherited diseases.
There's no ethical hand wringing over this. (In many cases) We know what the mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is. We're on the cusp of being able to change the former into the latter.
Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really disturbing"?
There's a counterpoint about genetic diversity and the dangers of monoculture, but that isn't what's being brought up. It's always 'This is new and scary, and so we should spend more time studying the implications before doing it.'