[HN Gopher] Human genetic engineering is coming
___________________________________________________________________
Human genetic engineering is coming
Author : acqbu
Score : 35 points
Date : 2022-05-14 21:50 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theglobeandmail.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theglobeandmail.com)
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| The film Gattaca (1997) speaks to this better than I can.
| cntainer wrote:
| I thought the same before reading the article.
|
| After reading it I feel like Gattaca barely scratched the
| surface. It was actually a pretty tame movie.
|
| Some of the points made by the author are far scarier: gene
| editing startups with VC funding and sociopathic founders or
| amoral autocratic governments (think N.Korea, Russia, etc)
| ramraj07 wrote:
| I'd wager that it is the second most accurate and prescient
| science fiction movie only behind 2001. It's also better than
| 2001 because it's pretty much the only good sci-fi movie I know
| that didn't involve a "fantastical" or god-like being/power
| playing a major role (in that regard tying with Martian).
| pcurve wrote:
| You're gonna miss your flight Vincent
| Animats wrote:
| Why is low-risk minor gene editing such a big deal? Much higher-
| risk breeding is allowed. Parents with genetic defects likely to
| produce rejects are allowed to breed, and the babies are not
| culled. It's not like humans have a breeding quality control
| program.
| [deleted]
| frontman1988 wrote:
| > In my mind, to alter genes that will be passed down from
| generation to generation is a sacred act
|
| There is nothing sacred about it. It's just a biological process.
| The only problem with GM babies are ethical considerations. But
| given how humanity as a whole could benefit immensely if these
| tests are successful, I think it's worth the sacrifice. Like even
| today we brainwash kids into fighting pointless wars where there
| is literally no benefit to mankind. On the other hand Genetic
| engineering can literally carve a new race of humanity. I am
| pretty sure China is already doing it. Unfortunately the west is
| too weak to take such tough moral decisions which benefit the
| community at the expense of the individual. Communism will win
| over here. Hopefully it takes all of mankind with it rather than
| some super sino master race.
| DontMindit wrote:
| benreesman wrote:
| "I expect that human genetic engineering, both therapeutic and
| "vanity" applications, will become an unfathomably profitable
| industry in the coming decades. I am open to the possibility that
| germline editing could be ethically applied in narrowly defined
| arenas of public health. But the determination of where to draw
| the lines should not be left up to venture capitalists and self-
| centred founders, as it was to a large extent with the IT
| industry. They are already salivating."
|
| I thought I was terrified of this shit before, but that phrasing
| hits like the doorframe of a Crown Victoria.
| qgin wrote:
| I love to hate on tech bros as much as the next tech bro, but
| I've watched so many people suffer with terrible diseases that
| I'm totally fine if it we end up with 1000 hairloss biotech
| startups if that also means we get one that prevents
| Alzheimer's.
| benreesman wrote:
| I'm not saying that we should outlaw Cas9 or something. I'm
| saying that a company with the ethics of Theranos and the
| leadership of Theranos and the gold-plated, infinite money VC
| backing of Theranos playing jazz with the human germline is
| the stuff of nightmares.
| michaelt wrote:
| Hair loss cures aren't the problem.
|
| But what about a treatment giving unborn children +15 IQ, but
| affordable only to parents earning $300k/year?
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| epigenetic alterations which is very similar to genetic
| alterations are already trivial to achieve for anyone right now.
| It's not that it is coming, it has been there for decades.
| Despite popular belief, people don't care about
| transhumanism/gerontology, more generally people can't care about
| things that require more than their very limited attention span.
| istinetz wrote:
| Can you elaborate on that? If it's "trivial to achieve for
| anyone right now", what does that mean? Is there any
| commercially available service?
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| An epigenetic alteration is a multiplier on the expression of
| a gene. it can either inhibit its expression or increase its
| expression, in a continuum like manner, and remarkably, in a
| tissue/cell specific manner. A complete inhibition is akin to
| a gene removal, behaviourally speaking and indeed there can
| be many synergies between multiples altered genes
| expressions. The effects of an epigenetic alteration usually
| last 6 month although some consequences of the alteration
| might in some contextes be permanent.
|
| Of course the main drug class for this are peptides.
|
| An example being melatonan 2, which activate melanin in a
| continuous like, dose dependent manner. so you can
| progressively darken your skin
| https://alchetron.com/cdn/melanotan-
| ii-d26dbedd-94fb-434a-8d...
|
| if abused, you can become ultrablack https://i.dailymail.co.u
| k/i/pix/2015/08/15/04/2B6033FA000005... this change is
| permanent.
|
| now there are much more useful peptides out there, for
| example: thymalin, the thymus hormone, is revolutionnary as
| it reverse thymus involution. Thymus involution is the main
| programmed aging factor, which leads to your death as an
| evolutionnary advantage. I have discussed this topic enough
| the last week so I won't go into details here. just so you
| know thymalin rejuvenate the thymus and increase lymphocite T
| naive cells production by up to 680% which totally fix
| immunodepression in the edlerdly and e.g. fix covid since day
| 1 (would have avoided 15 million deaths were people
| litterate) or reduce all cause mortality in humans by 410%
| when coadministarted with epitalon,
|
| epitalon allow your cells to bypass the hayflick limit
| (maximum number of divisions). It also rejuvenate the pineal
| gland and therefore fix age related sleep issues.
|
| BPC-157 significantly accelerate the time it takes for a
| physical injury to resorb. It is also unique in it's tendon
| rejenerative properties, its angiogenesis superior to VEGF,
| neuromodulation and its effect on IBS.
|
| cortexin/cerebrosylin are potently nootropics and
| neuroprotective. Rethinalamin rejuvenate the eyes which can
| un-blind people in some conditions, e.g. solve glaucoma and
| macular degeneration.
|
| PNC-27 is one of the most interesting peptide, since it is
| basically the best cure against cancer e.g.
| https://touroscholar.touro.edu/sjlcas/vol13/iss2/7/
|
| there is an unlimited potential for peptides, many
| "incurable" diseases have seen peptides specifically made for
| them and acts as effective cures (e.g. multiple sclerosis),
| however for the most part their potential is untapped, the
| reason being that this tech is endogenously produced in the
| human body, which make them unpatentable, which makes them
| unlucrative and since public research clinical trials are
| inexistant, you will never see them massively adopted, unless
| by accident.
| acadapter wrote:
| 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.
| angstrom wrote:
| Agree.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| From the article I learned that there is "somatic gene editing,
| a therapeutic application of CRISPR administered by injection
| to consenting subjects",
|
| as well as "germline editing, in which changes are made to the
| DNA of an embryo".
|
| The author is concerned by the latter and I think you describe
| the former.
| ravi-delia wrote:
| 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
| acadapter wrote:
| 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".
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| 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."
| ben_w wrote:
| Personally I think both are true.
|
| 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.
|
| For example, when I was a child, British tabloids were
| saying "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding":
| https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/30/gay-gene-
| newspapers-19...
|
| (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.
| xeornet wrote:
| And at what point does "problems that they were unfairly born
| with" stop?
| ravi-delia wrote:
| Nowhere! Why draw the line right beneath yourself, we could
| all be better and it sucks that we aren't
| michaelt wrote:
| If parents could get their children cured so they don't
| turn into borderline-autistic weirdos, where would we get
| our tech company CEOs? :)
|
| Of course, it's not like society has any choice - if rival
| nations are willing to genetically engineer humans, can we
| afford to fall behind?
| karaterobot wrote:
| 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.
| emteycz wrote:
| Why should we stop improving?
| superdisk wrote:
| Who defines improvement?
| emteycz wrote:
| A dictionary, I guess?
|
| 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.
| jjj123 wrote:
| 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.
| qgin wrote:
| 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.
| chr1 wrote:
| 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.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| 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.
| Shacklz wrote:
| 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.
| dorolow wrote:
| 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.
| istinetz wrote:
| It is coming, but too slowly. Everyone, including people itt,
| gesture vaguely towards "ethical considerations", without being
| able to specify what they are and how they outweigh the _massive_
| ethical benefits.
|
| >I expect that human genetic engineering, both therapeutic and
| "vanity" applications, will become an unfathomably profitable
| industry in the coming decades.
|
| The most important application, by far, dwarfing both therapeutic
| and vanity, is improvements to intelligence.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I've long wondered what the result of superintelligence would
| be. Mostly artificial but human superintelligence would be
| interesting too.
| glerk wrote:
| This. Problems like preserving life on earth, and expanding to
| other planets are something that our descendants will have to
| solve. Increasing the intelligence of future generations is not
| only ethical, it is our duty.
| adamcharnock wrote:
| Intelligence really doesn't seem like the solution to any of
| our big problems.
|
| I've heard this argument before (and probably made this
| argument at some point too), and it seems to boil down to
| thinking that people would agree with me if they would just be
| a bit smarter and/or more informed.
|
| But I don't think this is true at all. If it was then smart
| people would agree, but they don't.
|
| There is another line of thinking (often seen in science
| fiction) that suggests all problems are solvable if only you
| are smart enough. But they are not, some problems simply don't
| have a reachable satisfactory solution. There is a reason these
| science fiction stories often come with a 'benevolent' dictator
| to impose the smart fix on everyone, because taking away free
| will is the only way to solve some of the hardest problems.
|
| I think there is a strong argument for emotional intelligence,
| worldliness, and empathy though.
| rajin444 wrote:
| The current push for equity combined with the technical ability
| to genetically engineer humans is frightening. Society has
| decided we have "incorrect" levels of diversity...though nobody
| can answer what the correct levels are. Without any question of
| "how do you know what you're doing is correct" we're changing our
| environment as much as possible to achieve the "correct" level of
| diversity. It's pure luck we can only modify our environment
| because we lack the technical capability to modify our genetics -
| given our current low standards of evidence, the damage we could
| do is immense.
|
| We really need to come to terms with equity, privilege (nobody
| earned their genetics), etc. before this is a reality.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Equality?
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| Maybe instead this stuff will be kept away from the general
| public and is only accessible to the true upper class, who is
| above the equity reshuffling of the unwashed masses anyway.
|
| Capital and social capital is already giving their offspring an
| uncatchable advantage on, or outside of levelled playing
| fields. Genetic engineering could finally cement them into a
| biological royalty.
| qgin wrote:
| Why would anyone do that? It makes a great dystopian novel
| storyline, but no other medical advancement has ever been
| treated that way. The elites could easily have everyone dying
| of simple infections, but I can get antibiotics for $5 at the
| Walmart pharmacy. The elites could easily have people elderly
| dying of heart disease at much higher rates but Medicare pays
| tens of thousands of dollars for heart surgery on senior
| citizens.
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| No one is being _evil_ by trying to harm others. Everyone
| is just seeing if they can get a reasonable advantage for
| themselves. All of us are doing it on a scale that 's
| available to us, it's an emergent behaviour, not a
| conspiracy.
|
| "Surely doing wild west genetic engineering would be bad,
| right? So let's have oversight and laws around it."
|
| "But our friends advised us to check out that one clinic
| when we're in Dubai next time, and their kids are really
| exceptionally pretty and are doing so well in sports. I
| want to be careful for our baby since my grandfather had
| that one condition..."
| Freestyler_3 wrote:
| I think for future space travel we need genetic modifications.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-15 23:02 UTC)