This may seem like a controversial opinion, but I think that it's a good development.
Some people have lost the "genetic lottery" in ways that make them dependent on medication. And for some, it may block career options, such as color vision deficiencies.
We should embrace it, instead of painting dystopian scenarios. At least, we shouldn't stop people from fixing problems that they were unfairly born with.
A lot of this "controversial" stuff isn't ie therapeutic cures for sickle cell, a single nucleotide mutation with devastating impact on quality of life.
For some like myself with CDH1(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDH1_(gene)) it means a total gastrectomy is the prophylactic solution to avoiding hereditary diffuse stomach cancer. CDH1 is a more complex mutation than sickle cell.
These technologies are capable of doing more good than harm for society in the near term. The dystopian visions are not without merit, but that's the general rule of thumb for technology in general. A loss of genetic diversity is likely the gravest concern. Some mutations have benefit ie sickle cell vs malaria, but others like CDH1 have mostly been slipping under the evolutionary radar. There are multiple variants of concern and the mutation is just independently occurring across the global human population irrespective of any special heritage. There are other cancers/maladies just like this that medicine has no good solution for. They don't noticeably impede genetic reproduction so it carries from generation to generation.
For now most sane people are not considering germ-line modification. I would expect that to require multiple generations of study to even broach the subject.
I think I would be okay with germline editing too, in selected cases. It's not like a child is going to say "hey, thanks for not fixing my cancer-causing mutation when you had the chance, mum".
Then you have less qualms about it than the author of the article, whose career would benefit a lot from a free-for-all.
"The social and political implications of gene editing are also huge unknowns, and unfortunately there’s been scant debate among policy makers and the general public."
There are a lot of genetic defects we can engineer away. There’s a lot of other things that aren’t defects, but social pressure will make people want to engineer them away.
(Bonus points as the gay gene didn’t really exist; but as I’m bi, people like that would’ve tried to eradicate me before I was born if they’d had a way to do so).
As I expect my resistance to social pressure to be exactly average until shown otherwise, I sometimes find myself wondering what things I falsely believe to be real defects that would be moral to eradicate.
What OP describes, at least to the extent that I agree with them, is both but mostly germline editing. Most genetic issues aren't really treatable after birth (though we are nowhere near the limit, so in the future who knows). Genes don't really code for traits so much after the embryo develops, most of the effect comes from the manual process of cells bumping against each other
this is far from the truth in multiple ways. There are a wide range of genetic issues (typically recessive mutations) where somatic engeering would work great. And genes continuous encode for "traits" (really, molecular phenotypes) after development (which ends long after the embryo is born).
If parents could turn their children into tech company CEOs, how could we get non-borderline-autistic weirdos? That's the real question lol. But honestly, I'd expect that the actual result would be that severe autism which results in disability could largely be selected out, but neurodivergency would mostly fade into the background of the data. It's still around for a reason, and I personally am thankful even if I do have trouble with eye contact. If my sensory sensitivities were significantly worse though, or I had co-morbid epilepsy, I might want a tweak or two.
For too long, the children of the rich have been denied their rightful genetic advantages. We need a ruling class we can really worship with a straight face.
It is called education and has been around for millenia. If somebody suggested limiting education due to offering "unfair advantages" and contributing to inequality they would be considered absolutely bonkers. Yet with genetic engineering it is somehow completely different.
Compared to the advantage of "has more money", I really could not care less. Either better genes actually increase standing, in which case it would disproportionately help the lower class (which in this world would have "worse" genes), or they don't, in which case every person helped on the margin is great and it doesn't effect inequality at all. That's a silly reason to cripple the species.
I don't see what's so hard about it. When something gets better than it used to be, that's an improvement. Better eyesight, hearing, intelligence, endurance, strength, etc etc - improvements.
I won't get into any argument that "less is more". I don't believe that crap. We shouldn't stop until we find the limits of the universe.
How about gay vs straight? Being gay used to be classified as a disorder. That has changed in time, many (most?) now understand it as something different but not better or worse than being straight.
When it comes to differences between people, there are a lot of traits that we should be careful about categorizing as better or worse. Especially if it leads to us essentially eradicating the trait via eugenics.
Can you reference a credible study that links sexual orientation to genes? I've never thought of that as something inherited.
I don't think we're anywhere near genetic manipulation of human mind, if that's even a real thing. Perhaps we could manipulate behavior driven by hormones, but I don't think we could do too much there without breaking the whole system.
I wasn’t saying that there is a gay gene, just explaining there are cases where differences in human traits are deemed “better” by some governing body but aren’t actually better.
And I'm saying that you're presenting a non-problem. Traits such as gay/straight won't be changed by genetic engineering, probably ever, so there's no need to have this discussion.
Improvement is just when you make a change and you subjectively think the positives outweigh the negatives.
If the negatives subjectively don't outweigh the positives, that's usually considered "deal with the devil" territory and is the kind of thing sci-fi writers love.
Different people define it differently for themselves, if as a result of these definitions one of the groups grows exponentially and others don't then that group had the correct definition.
Nah, actually probably perfectly obedient communist supercitizens, casually outcompeting the primitive individualistic westerner too concerned with ethics.
Long term it's great, it will remove diseases, promote equality, and fix all kinds of medical problems and deficiencies. I'm for it, but there are cautions to watch for.
My first concern is that with our current economic system, especially the lack of free health care in the US, this would be basically rolled out to rich people first, so for about 50 years or so rich people would not only be healthier from having access to more and better resources but also they would be now evolving in a healthier direction too. This itself is not a huge problem, but inequality becoming a greater inequality is something to think about and hopefully set it up such that it can be somewhat mitigated or avoided.
My second concern is again with out current economic model,(later after years of it being affordable only to the rich) we would end up rolling it out as for lack of a better term "manufacturing batches" like people would go to a store and choose a popular preset of options from what's available, and that preset would then become more economical and therefor commonplace, which in a lot of ways is like turning our species into a mono-gene-pool, with all the same dangers that come from relying on a single mono-crop (Great example is the potato famine of Ireland vs the Incas who also heavily relied on potatoes but had much more variety like over 300 kinds of potato, while Ireland relied on 1). Biggest concern with this, especially after a pandemic is that if a certain strain of virus hit's just right, and everyone is more the same than they used to be, it could be even more catastrophic than predicted. If we did roll it out in batches (highly likely) we will have entire generations and nations start to look all the same, certain groups wouldn't participate (the very poor, certain religious organizations) and they would likely feel significant persecution (much as poor kids are teased at school today) or at the very least be in-congruent with the greater parts of society, many would become second class citizens (much how Gattica predicted), also those laggards would become holdouts for known genetic diseases and so those who are engineered would rightfully avoid marriage/breeding with them, thus further solidifying the persecution and possibly diverging humanity's evolution.
Both of my concerns are not enough reason to not push forward, but they bring more concerns of distribution, pricing and variation, not of the technology itself. More or less I think we need to push forward scientifically, but we need to also make progress as a society too or else there will arise other problems that come with progress.
You say that but most of the ways that humans would want fixing have already been readily implemented via surgery. Between boobjobs, HGH, limb-lengthening surgery, hair transplants, and even labiaplasty, there’s very little you can’t fix on your body today.
My fear is that extremist groups and governments will use this tech to change children according to their religious or extremist doctrine. Stuff like growing women without clitorises to promote FGM in Islamic countries.
Nonsense. There's no surgery in the world which would make me lose my allergies and eczema problems, but a few edited genes before birth might just do the trick.
Or an acquaintance of mine with cystic fibrosis, who's been in and out of hospital for the vast majority of her life and knows that she probably won't make it beyond 40; she definitely wouldn't mind if someone fixed those mutations before she was born.
What an incredibly uninformed and ableist take. There are a plethora of illnesses and disorders that are merely coped with. With no way of improving prognosis, the best medical science can offer is attempting to improve the quality of the life of the individual while they waste away.
Some people have lost the "genetic lottery" in ways that make them dependent on medication. And for some, it may block career options, such as color vision deficiencies.
We should embrace it, instead of painting dystopian scenarios. At least, we shouldn't stop people from fixing problems that they were unfairly born with.