Two-thirds of Americans approve of editing human DNA to treat disease(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Two-thirds of Americans approve of editing human DNA to treat disease
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/30/16198594/crispr-gene-editing-survey-public-opinion
76 コメント
Well either abortion is unethical or embryo research is ethical.
Devils advocate: Abortion can be ethical and embryo research can be unethical, since there are additional ethical concerns. There's no consent, if you believe an embryo is alive. Also the embryo is being kept alive artificially, which may be seen as cruel.
Also it's possible to oppose both abortion and embryo research.
Also it's possible to oppose both abortion and embryo research.
We should be cautious, but provided the scientific community is ok with it, I see no reason to limit editing human DNA to just treating disease.
What is the downside of increasing the number of geniuses? What is the downside of saving someone from dealing with severe teenage acne? Why should some men have to worry about their genitalia being well below average in size? Why should some women never experience an orgasm?
I get the instinctual revulsion to the idea of playing God or reducing our diversity, but I try to model my ethics as if I didn't know who I was going to be in the simulation before hand. These are changes that we should be advocating for if they are possible.
What is the downside of increasing the number of geniuses? What is the downside of saving someone from dealing with severe teenage acne? Why should some men have to worry about their genitalia being well below average in size? Why should some women never experience an orgasm?
I get the instinctual revulsion to the idea of playing God or reducing our diversity, but I try to model my ethics as if I didn't know who I was going to be in the simulation before hand. These are changes that we should be advocating for if they are possible.
The issue as I see it is that this is effectively an advanced form of eugenics. The idea behind eugenics (improving the lives of future people) is probably not bad, as you say, what is the downside in increasing the number of geniuses and reducing the incidence of defects? Who doesn't want their children to be strong, beautiful, smart, and happy? The problem is that people are dicks and we will probably end up in an arms race to some sort of superhuman masterrace. It will be like going to college, where before not everyone needed to go to college, but now you have to get a 4 year degree to compete for entry level jobs (I realize there are exceptions, but you know what I mean). We need to be cautious not to end up in a GATTACA situation.
The only real problem with the GATTACA world was that not everyone got the genetic enhancements, creating an underclass. If everyone got the mods, what's the downside?
Well, I guess Jude Law's character couldn't live with the idea of being completely engineered for winning, and still losing. But his problem seems orthogonal to widespread genetic engineering. Everyone has their ambitions thwarted at some point. It has always been a problem humans faced. Hell, maybe even that can be engineered away, by being created with low propensity for self-loathing.
Well, I guess Jude Law's character couldn't live with the idea of being completely engineered for winning, and still losing. But his problem seems orthogonal to widespread genetic engineering. Everyone has their ambitions thwarted at some point. It has always been a problem humans faced. Hell, maybe even that can be engineered away, by being created with low propensity for self-loathing.
Everyone was offered the enhancements, but the protagonist's parents refused them because they were reactionary luddites. Then when their son was born, not only was he un-enhanced, but he had a severe heart defect that would probably kill him by 30. The parents are the bad guys in this scenario, not the society that offered them the tools to fix their kid and were refused.
It's like when modern parents refuse to vaccinate their children - if that kid gets Polio and is crippled for life, that doesn't mean we should abandon vaccinations because we're creating "an unvaccinated underclass". It just means that kid's parents were stupid and ruined their son's life.
>Well, I guess Jude Law's character couldn't live with the idea of being completely engineered for winning, and still losing.
Jude Law's character illustrates one of the flaws the movie has: It was made in the '90s, when our understanding of the power and scope of the influence of genetics was quite primitive. A genetically enhanced person would probably not only be a beautiful genius, but also highly resistant to depression, anxiety, mental illness and even low self-esteem.
It's like when modern parents refuse to vaccinate their children - if that kid gets Polio and is crippled for life, that doesn't mean we should abandon vaccinations because we're creating "an unvaccinated underclass". It just means that kid's parents were stupid and ruined their son's life.
>Well, I guess Jude Law's character couldn't live with the idea of being completely engineered for winning, and still losing.
Jude Law's character illustrates one of the flaws the movie has: It was made in the '90s, when our understanding of the power and scope of the influence of genetics was quite primitive. A genetically enhanced person would probably not only be a beautiful genius, but also highly resistant to depression, anxiety, mental illness and even low self-esteem.
Is it made clear how much the screening costs (there was no enhancement in the movie, just screening)?
The scene where they read out Vincent's future life sure makes it sound like the story considers mental health:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRpQMW77T_o
The scene where they read out Vincent's future life sure makes it sound like the story considers mental health:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRpQMW77T_o
So we should eliminate all the undesirables? Or manipulate the undesirables until they are desirable? Who chooses what traits are desirable, even if they are universally applied.
I'm not arguing that this isn't amazing technology that could potentially cure a lot of disabling diseases, that possibility is very exciting. I am just stating that there are some tricky ethical dilemmas involved.
We're already doing this. In Iceland, 85% of prospective parents who receive prenatal testing and discover that their children will have Down's Syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy. Tay Sachs disease, a condition that afflicts ashekenazi jews, has been eradicated due to abortion upon diagnosis and carrier screening tests for couples that determines their "genetic suitability"
I don't understand peole who are fearful of the elimination of genetic diseases that cause. The majority of articles I read on this subject are littered with lines such as these:
"Deciding what sorts of lives are worth living brings us disturbingly close to the bygone era of eugenics, when only the “right” sorts of people were supposed to procreate."
It's not crazy to think that parents do not want to have to spend extra resources on education and basically support their child not only until their death, but having to arrange for their offspring's care after they perish.
I would like to see these people who think along these lines adopt Down's Syndrome children if they think it is so important. Perhaps if prospective parents know that there is someone willing to take care of their disabled children, more of them may go through with the pregnancy.
Also, if diseases like these end up offering some sort of survival advantage in a future scenario, we still have the genetic data to recreate the condition. it's not like Down's Syndrome or other genetic diseases are going to completely disappear. Also, there will doubtlessly be groups of people who for religious reasons or otherwise will elect not to get treatment
Does anyone regret the virtual elimination of polio or smallpox?
I don't understand peole who are fearful of the elimination of genetic diseases that cause. The majority of articles I read on this subject are littered with lines such as these:
"Deciding what sorts of lives are worth living brings us disturbingly close to the bygone era of eugenics, when only the “right” sorts of people were supposed to procreate."
It's not crazy to think that parents do not want to have to spend extra resources on education and basically support their child not only until their death, but having to arrange for their offspring's care after they perish.
I would like to see these people who think along these lines adopt Down's Syndrome children if they think it is so important. Perhaps if prospective parents know that there is someone willing to take care of their disabled children, more of them may go through with the pregnancy.
Also, if diseases like these end up offering some sort of survival advantage in a future scenario, we still have the genetic data to recreate the condition. it's not like Down's Syndrome or other genetic diseases are going to completely disappear. Also, there will doubtlessly be groups of people who for religious reasons or otherwise will elect not to get treatment
Does anyone regret the virtual elimination of polio or smallpox?
There's a huge difference between not conceiving people and eliminating the ones already here.
Since germline manipulation requires IVF its likely to remain inaccessible for all but the rich for quite some time.
> If everyone got the mods, what's the downside?
You can't get germline gene therapy if you're not a zygote.
You can't get germline gene therapy if you're not a zygote.
Yet?
There is not property of physics that stop us from making the tech. It won't e in the first gen tech, but with all those 20 something geniuses coming out of college they can start working on that tech before too many generations pass.
There is not property of physics that stop us from making the tech. It won't e in the first gen tech, but with all those 20 something geniuses coming out of college they can start working on that tech before too many generations pass.
The Amish have peacefully opted out of this sort of arms race for hundreds of years, and are in no danger.
(I realize there are exceptions, but you know what I mean)
IMO, the core issue is we simply don't understand DNA that well and are likely to introduce many problems potentially across a huge swath of the population.
Disease treatments on the other hand are likely a lot more straightforward and the net gains are also likely larger.
Disease treatments on the other hand are likely a lot more straightforward and the net gains are also likely larger.
There are risks with all activities. The kind of gaps in our knowledge are smaller than ever and there if the experts say there is no obvious risk we would remiss to disregard them.
There will always be the risk of the unknown, there is still the risk of the unknown with seemingly every day things like cars. The utility of cars and gene therapies is so large that we really can't afford for all the data to come in.
There will always be the risk of the unknown, there is still the risk of the unknown with seemingly every day things like cars. The utility of cars and gene therapies is so large that we really can't afford for all the data to come in.
It's a question of sum(risk * each downside) vs benefit. Large scale genetic editing for cosmetic reasons has minimal benefit and several high risks with large associated downsides.
Protein folding as a tiny example is something we have trouble simulating, expanding to multi cellular mechanisms across a lifetime is basically impossible without directly testing it. And those tests will be done on people. Prions are just an example of the kind of issues people will be dealing with. It’s really not just about inserting some code from somewhere else it’s a question of how physical structures interact and degrade.
Long term I have no problem with it. But, right now we could give children blue hair for example but we have no idea what else that might cause.
PS: That said, copying things from other humans is probably significantly safer and this editing will take place. I just don't think we should introduce it at the society level without at least a lifetime of test data and significant sample sizes.
Protein folding as a tiny example is something we have trouble simulating, expanding to multi cellular mechanisms across a lifetime is basically impossible without directly testing it. And those tests will be done on people. Prions are just an example of the kind of issues people will be dealing with. It’s really not just about inserting some code from somewhere else it’s a question of how physical structures interact and degrade.
Long term I have no problem with it. But, right now we could give children blue hair for example but we have no idea what else that might cause.
PS: That said, copying things from other humans is probably significantly safer and this editing will take place. I just don't think we should introduce it at the society level without at least a lifetime of test data and significant sample sizes.
The downside would be that if we modify or select only for intelligence, we may get morally worse individuals. Perhaps morality and intelligence are somewhat correlated, but that may break down if we explicitly select only for intelligence. Imagine flooding the world with ultra-smart ultra-selfish hackers who manage to break all security systems and steal all the wealth or otherwise wreak self serving havoc.
Crime is a really stupid way to make money. I mean objectively, the cost benefit analysis just doesn't make any sense. The only reason to do it is you have poor impulse control and can't succeed in normal financial activities.
An ultra-smart ultra-selfish hacker would sit down, do the math, and spend 5 years killing it on Wall-street doing quasi-legal machine trading in total safety. Rather than risk imprisonment and permanently damaging his career prospects over a few thousand dollars from Grandma's credit card.
Case in point:
Carl Gugasian, graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. Got a masters in systems analysis, and was a PhD student in statistics. His intelligent, methodical approach to robbing banks let him get away with it for 30 years. He earned about 2 million dollars doing it, which is about a million less than his undergraduate engineering degree alone would have earned him during that same period if he'd just gotten a regular job.
He also eventually got caught, through pure dumb chance he couldn't have planned for, and spent 20 years in prison. So not only did he make less money being a criminal, he got to go to federal pound me in the ass prison for his golden years.
An ultra-smart ultra-selfish hacker would sit down, do the math, and spend 5 years killing it on Wall-street doing quasi-legal machine trading in total safety. Rather than risk imprisonment and permanently damaging his career prospects over a few thousand dollars from Grandma's credit card.
Case in point:
Carl Gugasian, graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. Got a masters in systems analysis, and was a PhD student in statistics. His intelligent, methodical approach to robbing banks let him get away with it for 30 years. He earned about 2 million dollars doing it, which is about a million less than his undergraduate engineering degree alone would have earned him during that same period if he'd just gotten a regular job.
He also eventually got caught, through pure dumb chance he couldn't have planned for, and spent 20 years in prison. So not only did he make less money being a criminal, he got to go to federal pound me in the ass prison for his golden years.
Your comment is phrased as if antisocial traits don't already confer greater reproductive success.
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2814%2900077-4/a...
>Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2814%2900077-4/a...
>Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.
I wonder if there is a lower chance of success for children with absent fathers which offsets this. I would be surprised if there wasn't, given the long term trend of societies becoming more civil and less violent on average.
Why would we expect to get morally worse individuals? Given that we would not be making any changes in that area (if there even is any area of the genome that corresponds to morality) you'd expect it to be unchanged overall - unless it negatively correlates with intelligence, but I don't know of anything proving that's the case.
Would be pretty surprising if there was no hereditary component to morality. If there currently is any selective pressure towards pro-social traits or morality, then selecting exclusively for intelligence would take this away and you would see a decline.
Compared to the current qualities we select for? Breeding among humans is by no means random, and I think selecting for intelligence would be an improvement.
I think the bigger concern is how we select for intelligence. Doing it based on a few genes that correlate strongly with intelligence can lead to an increased vulnerability to health issues related to those genes we don't know about, but I think this applies to any gene level selection based on any characteristics.
I think the bigger concern is how we select for intelligence. Doing it based on a few genes that correlate strongly with intelligence can lead to an increased vulnerability to health issues related to those genes we don't know about, but I think this applies to any gene level selection based on any characteristics.
Right I guess that part of my point is that even if you resolve all those issues you would still really want to select for is intelligence and pro-social/moral behavior in order to optimize the positive impact of a person.
There's no downside. It's only the same as what we did with smallpox and polio. I'm all for it: I'd get genedrives for all kinds of genetically-determined diseases.
What concerns me is how genes affect personality. I don't want a world of geniuses if a side-effect is they're all nasty people. Now I like to think that smarter people are also nicer, on the whole. And violence is often associated with frontal-lobe defects. I would like to live in a happier more secure world, and if that means engineering people to be nicer, less murderous people then so be it. But that's Clockwork Orange territory.
What concerns me is how genes affect personality. I don't want a world of geniuses if a side-effect is they're all nasty people. Now I like to think that smarter people are also nicer, on the whole. And violence is often associated with frontal-lobe defects. I would like to live in a happier more secure world, and if that means engineering people to be nicer, less murderous people then so be it. But that's Clockwork Orange territory.
It’s going to be weird, because much like we have standards for what constitutes a USB cable, we may soon have standards for what a baseline genetically modified human is. Treating disease is no threshold, the real question will be IQ or strength - even if you assume equal opportunity to access peak genetics for everyone.
On one hand, society will be far better off with having smarter people (imagine what society would be like where everyone had an IQ of 120 - I’d be very curious). On the other hand, you’ll probably get a Gattaca-like situation. Interesting times...
On one hand, society will be far better off with having smarter people (imagine what society would be like where everyone had an IQ of 120 - I’d be very curious). On the other hand, you’ll probably get a Gattaca-like situation. Interesting times...
Except for that small detail in that there aren't a set single or even set groupings of genes that determine IQ and there's tenuous data to support that we'll ever find such fixtures.
I really hate how every thread there's someone that jumps from "treating genetic disease" which is both small scale (in many cases just the expression of a single gene) and tangible (ready definitions and lack of trade offs in "not having cystic fibrosis" as opposed to "maybe smarter"). We're so close to saving real lives it's a waste of time to bring up a terrible dystopia movie(the reason gattaca's protagonist can't got to space is he's got a heart condition that's likely to kill him; not because he's lacking the hand-wavy "genetic ubermench" qualities) to construct an artificial ethical dilemma.
I really hate how every thread there's someone that jumps from "treating genetic disease" which is both small scale (in many cases just the expression of a single gene) and tangible (ready definitions and lack of trade offs in "not having cystic fibrosis" as opposed to "maybe smarter"). We're so close to saving real lives it's a waste of time to bring up a terrible dystopia movie(the reason gattaca's protagonist can't got to space is he's got a heart condition that's likely to kill him; not because he's lacking the hand-wavy "genetic ubermench" qualities) to construct an artificial ethical dilemma.
>Except for that small detail in that there aren't a set single or even set groupings of genes that determine IQ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
I don't think any sane person doubts intelligence is genetic and inheritable.
I think the other poster's point was more that there isn't a simple genetic switch that adds 5 IQ points. There appear to be many complex factors that are part of intelligence and currently we are not sure how to untangle that mess to get simple thing we can do to make people smarter.
I think the other poster's point was more that there isn't a simple genetic switch that adds 5 IQ points. There appear to be many complex factors that are part of intelligence and currently we are not sure how to untangle that mess to get simple thing we can do to make people smarter.
> I don't think any sane person doubts intelligence is genetic and inheritable.
Are you kidding? It's probably one of the most controversial statements you can make in the general population.
Are you kidding? It's probably one of the most controversial statements you can make in the general population.
Exactly. It's a fundamentally different problem to solve as compared to treating genetic illnesses and far more likely to involve some sort of trade off or side effects due to the number of genes involved.
Considering that approximately half of measured intelligence variation isn't concluded to be genetic [0] it's my opinion you get a lot more bang for your buck focusing on social and environmental factors if you want to increase a populous's overall intellectual acumen.
Considering that approximately half of measured intelligence variation isn't concluded to be genetic [0] it's my opinion you get a lot more bang for your buck focusing on social and environmental factors if you want to increase a populous's overall intellectual acumen.
>far more likely to involve some sort of trade off or side effects
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/04/myers-race-car-versus-t...
>People with high IQ tend to live longer. For example, a person with IQ 115 (85th percentile) is 20% more likely to survive to age 76 than an average person with IQ 100. [...] People with high IQ tend to be taller. This is interesting since height is often used as a measure of health and fitness during childhood, and since taller people get a bunch of advantages including being rated as more attractive and earning higher income. [...] People with high IQ may be more attractive. This is the conclusion of a meta-analysis that finds a positive correlation between intelligence and body symmetry, usually used as a proxy for attractiveness unaffected by things like hairstyle and cosmetics [...] People with high IQ commit much less crime [...] People with high IQ tend to be more physically fit. [...] People with high IQ have lower rates of heart disease, stroke, circulatory diseases, and diabetes.
Doesn't look like there's much in the way of a tradeoff between high IQ and biological fitness.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/04/myers-race-car-versus-t...
>People with high IQ tend to live longer. For example, a person with IQ 115 (85th percentile) is 20% more likely to survive to age 76 than an average person with IQ 100. [...] People with high IQ tend to be taller. This is interesting since height is often used as a measure of health and fitness during childhood, and since taller people get a bunch of advantages including being rated as more attractive and earning higher income. [...] People with high IQ may be more attractive. This is the conclusion of a meta-analysis that finds a positive correlation between intelligence and body symmetry, usually used as a proxy for attractiveness unaffected by things like hairstyle and cosmetics [...] People with high IQ commit much less crime [...] People with high IQ tend to be more physically fit. [...] People with high IQ have lower rates of heart disease, stroke, circulatory diseases, and diabetes.
Doesn't look like there's much in the way of a tradeoff between high IQ and biological fitness.
First off correlation != causation.
Secondly that's not the point. If we need to edit multiple genes, genes that are also tied to other traits, that's what's driving the chance of side effect, not the increased intelligence.
Secondly that's not the point. If we need to edit multiple genes, genes that are also tied to other traits, that's what's driving the chance of side effect, not the increased intelligence.
> First off correlation != causation.
These are more powerful than the usual designs. For example, the correlation of intelligence with longevity survives a within-family sibling study which controls away all effects of family SES and shared environment https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyx168/... You can also verify this using twin comparisons eg http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/07/24/ije.d... .
More importantly, because so much of the underlying genetics of intelligence has been found and are covered by the GWAS's polygenic scores, it is possible to compare with the genetics for scores or hundreds of other diseases and measures of health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Education The correlation is invariably negative: higher genetic potential for intelligence predicts lower disease and better health.
> If we need to edit multiple genes, genes that are also tied to other traits, that's what's driving the chance of side effect, not the increased intelligence.
Whether it is horizontal or vertical pleiotropy is irrelevant; it is irrelevant whether a particular SNP decreases risk of heart disease by increasing one's level of education so one knows to exercise regularly, or if it instead avoids a bad mutation which makes mitochondria slightly more inefficient thereby damaging the brain & heart. You want that SNP regardless of which causal pathway it is. If intelligence polygenic scores predict lower risk for disease and better health, then doing embryo selection or editing based on that will in fact do what it's supposed to.
These are more powerful than the usual designs. For example, the correlation of intelligence with longevity survives a within-family sibling study which controls away all effects of family SES and shared environment https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyx168/... You can also verify this using twin comparisons eg http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/07/24/ije.d... .
More importantly, because so much of the underlying genetics of intelligence has been found and are covered by the GWAS's polygenic scores, it is possible to compare with the genetics for scores or hundreds of other diseases and measures of health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Education The correlation is invariably negative: higher genetic potential for intelligence predicts lower disease and better health.
> If we need to edit multiple genes, genes that are also tied to other traits, that's what's driving the chance of side effect, not the increased intelligence.
Whether it is horizontal or vertical pleiotropy is irrelevant; it is irrelevant whether a particular SNP decreases risk of heart disease by increasing one's level of education so one knows to exercise regularly, or if it instead avoids a bad mutation which makes mitochondria slightly more inefficient thereby damaging the brain & heart. You want that SNP regardless of which causal pathway it is. If intelligence polygenic scores predict lower risk for disease and better health, then doing embryo selection or editing based on that will in fact do what it's supposed to.
Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature...
We are beginning to identify genes that determine IQ. It's only a matter of time until we get a useful predictive model of genetics of intelligence.
We are beginning to identify genes that determine IQ. It's only a matter of time until we get a useful predictive model of genetics of intelligence.
IQ enhancement is almost the only thing that matters in the genetic engineering story. If we don't allow it, somewhere else will; and it is they who will control future technological progress. Strength matters little in comparison.
I get the feeling opposition to IQ enhancements (beyond fixing obvious problems) have been drilled into the public by scifi and frankly history. I don't see it turning out real well unless humility and empathy can be genetically engineered.
China has orthogonal moral hysterias. Again, someone will do it and they will have an enormous advantage, 8 IQ points per generation at worst and 60+ at best. Considering the effect on the tails of the distribution, the vast majority of scientific productivity will be from edited or selected individuals.
I guess we'll see if all those scifi authors are correct and they tear themselves apart as the "new humans" deal with the "old humans".
Would lifespan matter?
Isn't IQ based on a standard deviation? If everyone had an IQ of 120, wouldn't 120 become the new 100?
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't try and make comparisons over time.
E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Well if you will not engineer geniuses you will eliminate them. Will mutations and thus good/bad outliers still be present?
Nitpick: IQ is based on a normal distribution with 100 as the mean. If everyone had an IQ of today's 120, then it would no longer be an IQ of 120.
Meta nitpick: he's clearly referring to the future relative to now, so it makes sense in that context.
I don't think it gets recalibrated year to year.
The killer application for gene therapy is enhancement, not disease treatment. Genetic diseases are present in only a tiny number of people, and so the markets that will form there will be miniscule in comparison to those that improve healthy people.
This will play out over the next decade or two.
Look at, e.g. gene therapy for inherited disorders (lysosomal storage diseases, DNA repair deficiencies, etc, etc) versus myostatin / follistatin gene therapy that increases muscle mass, reduces fat tissue, and generally adjusts metabolism into a better direction.
The first companies to commercialize the former will be successful mid-sized biotech concerns. The first companies to commercialize the latter will be behemoths.
The state of development in this field is dependent on methods of delivering genes that are reliable, tissue specific, and achieve high degrees of cell coverage. Once that happens, which seems fairly close at hand, then we'll see a very interesting expansion of the medical tourism marketplace into enhancement technologies, a market hundreds of times as large as therapies for sick people.
This will play out over the next decade or two.
Look at, e.g. gene therapy for inherited disorders (lysosomal storage diseases, DNA repair deficiencies, etc, etc) versus myostatin / follistatin gene therapy that increases muscle mass, reduces fat tissue, and generally adjusts metabolism into a better direction.
The first companies to commercialize the former will be successful mid-sized biotech concerns. The first companies to commercialize the latter will be behemoths.
The state of development in this field is dependent on methods of delivering genes that are reliable, tissue specific, and achieve high degrees of cell coverage. Once that happens, which seems fairly close at hand, then we'll see a very interesting expansion of the medical tourism marketplace into enhancement technologies, a market hundreds of times as large as therapies for sick people.
Of course most people are going to support editing it to "treat medical conditions or improve health" the question becomes what precisely are "medical conditions" and when should they be treated.
Very few people are going to say that those people with cancer should die because we shouldn't do something to save them.
Very few people are going to say that those people with cancer should die because we shouldn't do something to save them.
It's going to be interesting.
At first people may want to treat physical expressions of health, then mental psychological and then cosmetic.
At some point people will think about the genetics of gender (in multiple dimensions, not just sex at birth but gender) and race and all the questions and opinions that will bring.
And of course the desired traits like strength, beauty, height, intelligence.
At first people may want to treat physical expressions of health, then mental psychological and then cosmetic.
At some point people will think about the genetics of gender (in multiple dimensions, not just sex at birth but gender) and race and all the questions and opinions that will bring.
And of course the desired traits like strength, beauty, height, intelligence.
Science by consensus. Let's see how that works out.
[deleted]
Gene editing beyond treating diseases quickly boils down to doing animal experiments on humans. Imagine that the gene editor made a mistake and now the test subject is missing the left ear. How do you deal with these "defects"? Of course! By putting them to sleep like regular lab animals.
Of course there is nothing inherently wrong about doing experiments on humans but the problem is you now need to justify that gene editing is good and eugenics is bad, that the test subjects do not need basic human rights and therefore can be disposed when convenient.
Of course there is nothing inherently wrong about doing experiments on humans but the problem is you now need to justify that gene editing is good and eugenics is bad, that the test subjects do not need basic human rights and therefore can be disposed when convenient.
Germline genetic manipulation is unlikely to extend beyond the super rich in the short or medium term due to cost. Plain IVF is not accessible to most due to cost and its not likely to get more so any time soon. Hence, IVF + genetic manipulation will take quite a bit longer to get to a cost where it could be widespread.
Also, its not clear to me how many therapeutic paths this opens up versus simply screening preimplantation embryos.
Also, its not clear to me how many therapeutic paths this opens up versus simply screening preimplantation embryos.
Not true.
In Net Present Value accounting terms genetic manipulation or screening has a reasonable chance of becoming mainstream in the medium term. Governments will start to do it to ease the health burden of some of the more costly diseases, and if we can simultaneously increase the strength, drive, and intelligence of our population at the same time why not throw it in for free?
In Net Present Value accounting terms genetic manipulation or screening has a reasonable chance of becoming mainstream in the medium term. Governments will start to do it to ease the health burden of some of the more costly diseases, and if we can simultaneously increase the strength, drive, and intelligence of our population at the same time why not throw it in for free?
Its an interesting idea. I suppose a rich, socialistically inclined country could undertake such a project, which could set off a chain of dominoes.
Maybe start with what the Chinese are trying to achieve and do screening and selection before inception? Should be a lot lower risk and easier to accomplish.
My wife has Diabetes and would gladly have a cure from DNA modification.
I would like a DNA modification to make my metabolism return to age 19.
I would like a DNA modification to make my metabolism return to age 19.
That's a strikingly high number. Do 2/3 of Americans even approve of GMO food?
I feel like there is a strong emotional component at play in these approval rates. There are many people who have been touched and directly impacted by disease, terminal or otherwise. It changes your life in a really stark and eye-opening way, whether you're the afflicted or it is someone you love or care about. While GMO's certainly draw concern and ridicule from swaths of the public, many aren't impacted by them in the same immediate (read:empirical I see it with my own eyes without a shred of doubt) way a serious disease is capable of. Probably part of the reason, anyway.
I feel that the same effect is at play with vaccines.
Because few Americans have seen Measles, Mumps and Rubella first hand they are more willing to take irresponsible risks. Things like a 10% mortality rate make a disease feel safe because people think they will always be in the 90%. Anybody with a cursory knowledge of mortality rates knows that 10% is a horrifying number and that disease must be awful, some strains of Ebola kill 10% of people getting it.
Because few Americans have seen Measles, Mumps and Rubella first hand they are more willing to take irresponsible risks. Things like a 10% mortality rate make a disease feel safe because people think they will always be in the 90%. Anybody with a cursory knowledge of mortality rates knows that 10% is a horrifying number and that disease must be awful, some strains of Ebola kill 10% of people getting it.
I don't think its such a high number. I've seen the religious argument, but have met very few (one to be specific) religious folks that would not move heaven and earth to fix some of the problems with children before birth. Love and protection of the children extends quite far. Its really a small fringe that doesn't participate in modern medicine.
[deleted]
But `we` won't eat gmo food?
Normalizing eugenics has never ended well for any human society.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the goal of eugenics. The problem has always been unethical treatment of the individual components of the society implementing them.
Gene editing is a responsible for a society to engage in eugenics without forced sterilization or killing off undesirable segments.
The 'damage' of this method is opt in. Those who choose to 'stay natural' will fall behind and become a disadvantaged underclass.
Gene editing is a responsible for a society to engage in eugenics without forced sterilization or killing off undesirable segments.
The 'damage' of this method is opt in. Those who choose to 'stay natural' will fall behind and become a disadvantaged underclass.
As if anyone tried it at meaningful scale using manageable tools.
This is just laziness. Waiting for the next wonder to fix their health than taking control of it now and live a healthy life.
Quite many genetic diseases manifest independently of lifestyle choices.
Because genetic defects can be solved by healthy living?
This is just a lazy comment. Who says these people aren't living a healthy life right now?
For instance:
> Scheufele also found that very religious people were less likely to support either type of gene editing (for therapy or enhancement) compared to less religious people. That could be because altering the human genome — perhaps permanently — could be seen as "playing God."
I think the "playing God" aspect might certainly factor into it, especially when you move beyond merely treating disease/disorders. But perhaps a bigger reason is the ethics around the research itself, which involves manipulating human embryos and then essentially discarding them once the research is over.
And then the survey questions themselves have some ambiguity:
> The scientific community is capable of guiding development of new technologies in a responsible way
There are several ways to interpret this. Are they talking about a morally responsible way? A scientifically responsible way? One might have full confidence that a scientist can pursue research in a scientifically sound, responsible way, but one may have far less confidence that the scientist will make choices that accord with one's morality. That may not mean violating Ethics Boards guidelines, but a more fundamental disagreement about what the Ethics Boards consider to be ethical.