Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 01:26 PM Apr 2015

Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/science/biologists-call-for-halt-to-gene-editing-technique-in-humans.html

A group of leading biologists on Thursday called for a worldwide moratorium on use of a new genome-editing technique that would alter human DNA in a way that can be inherited.

The biologists fear that the new technique is so effective and easy to use that some physicians may push ahead before its safety can be assessed. They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many ethicists believe should never be taken.

“You could exert control over human heredity with this technique, and that is why we are raising the issue,” said David Baltimore, a former president of the California Institute of Technology and a member of the group whose paper on the topic was published in the journal Science.

Ethicists, for decades, have been concerned about the dangers of altering the human germline — meaning to make changes to human sperm, eggs or embryos that will last through the life of the individual and be passed on to future generations. Until now, these worries have been theoretical. But a technique invented in 2012 makes it possible to edit the genome precisely and with much greater ease. The technique has already been used to edit the genomes of mice, rats and monkeys, and few doubt that it would work the same way in people.


I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie.
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome (Original Post) KamaAina Apr 2015 OP
This shouldn't be banned LittleBlue Apr 2015 #1
Not evolution. Intelligent Design. DetlefK Apr 2015 #3
I'm thinking modification of intelligence LittleBlue Apr 2015 #5
Existence isn't that linear The2ndWheel Apr 2015 #6
Genius and madness share the same genetic source. DetlefK Apr 2015 #16
This isn't related to cloning. randome Apr 2015 #20
People who have inherted the cancer gene would disagree. PADemD Apr 2015 #2
God, schmod. I want my monkey man. Orrex Apr 2015 #4
What about inherited diseases n2doc Apr 2015 #7
One of my dearest friends has osteogenesis imperfecta (brittle bone disease) KamaAina Apr 2015 #11
If I had it, and I could prevent my children from having it, I would prevent it. phantom power Apr 2015 #12
If you had it, you might feel differently. KamaAina Apr 2015 #13
The kind of "pride" that would give children a preventable disability doesn't sound healthy to me. phantom power Apr 2015 #14
Children are not property. If a way exists to remedy faulty genes how can a parent mikehiggins Apr 2015 #15
If the technology exists, and there is a law against using it, Trillo Apr 2015 #22
She doesn't get to decide for others. n2doc Apr 2015 #17
Easy! Only let AIs perform genetic engineering Bosonic Apr 2015 #8
I want us to be able to do this. phantom power Apr 2015 #9
That's how we got into our environmental predicament The2ndWheel Apr 2015 #23
I call for a ban on ethicists. DavidDvorkin Apr 2015 #10
Worker drones, uber-soldiers dreamnightwind Apr 2015 #18
Deltas and Epsilons KamaAina Apr 2015 #19
Will Monsanto have the rights to modify babies? Will they be labeled GMO Modified? Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #21
 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
1. This shouldn't be banned
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 01:31 PM
Apr 2015

I'm content to know that whatever bans western scientists concoct, China and other countries will ignore such a ban.

This is the next great step in human evolution

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
3. Not evolution. Intelligent Design.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 01:47 PM
Apr 2015

Evolution is when you throw a bunch at a wall and see what sticks. Intelligent Design is covering something in glue and sticking it to the wall, whether gluing something to the wall makes sense or not.

Intelligent Design would allow to eradicate dwarfism, which can be lethal for the child if both parents pass it on.
On the other hand, your genes would now be open to be modified to satisfy someone's sense of fashion/beauty. You would be a living art-project, an object unwillingly conveying the artist's message.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
5. I'm thinking modification of intelligence
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 01:55 PM
Apr 2015

Just imagine the wonders we could discover if geniuses were thousands of times more common.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks by a huge margin

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
6. Existence isn't that linear
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:19 PM
Apr 2015

The risk doesn't even have to be only for humans. Have to factor in the rest of life on the planet.

There's a comparable downside to everything, even if, and sometimes even especially if, it's used properly.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
20. This isn't related to cloning.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 04:25 PM
Apr 2015

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)
[/center][/font][hr]

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
7. What about inherited diseases
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:22 PM
Apr 2015

Will we condemn those who carry such genetic defects to either childlessness or the chance of passing on the disease? This seems cruel.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
11. One of my dearest friends has osteogenesis imperfecta (brittle bone disease)
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:48 PM
Apr 2015

She has two children, both of whom also have OI. She's fine with that.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
13. If you had it, you might feel differently.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 02:56 PM
Apr 2015

There is such a thing as disability pride, as hard as that might be for nondisabled people to grasp.

phantom power

(25,966 posts)
14. The kind of "pride" that would give children a preventable disability doesn't sound healthy to me.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 03:01 PM
Apr 2015

So you are correct, that's hard for me to grasp.

mikehiggins

(5,614 posts)
15. Children are not property. If a way exists to remedy faulty genes how can a parent
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 03:06 PM
Apr 2015

decide to pass the fault along? To me that'd be like deciding that since I had smallpox I shouldn't vaccinate my kids against it.

This idea is probably blue-sky stuff right now but if the technology exists someone will use it at some point.

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
17. She doesn't get to decide for others.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 04:20 PM
Apr 2015

Banning the therapy means banning it for those who aren't ok with passing on their diseases to their children.

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
23. That's how we got into our environmental predicament
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 05:00 PM
Apr 2015

One little beneficial step at a time.

Which makes sense. We're not built to care about consequences. Built to survive. That's why short term interests always win out.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
18. Worker drones, uber-soldiers
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 04:21 PM
Apr 2015

People in this thread, some of them, seem to assume this tech would be used for things like not passing along genetic defects. That would be one possibility. To assess a technology and its ramifications, it is wise to look at the darker possibilities.

I can see genes being modified to minimize a person's critical analysis capabilities. TPTB would see such analysis as a benefit only for a small elite, and as a threat to the status of the elites and to the overall "harmony" of the social order if the rabble keeps its analytical abilities. Better to modify the masses to be able to perform their menial labor without thinking about it too much.

Same with soldiers, and many other roles that could be selectively engineered. Knowing who in society generally controls things, writes and passes legislation, and enforces such legislation against the public, I don't think we should trust them to do the right things, in fact I'm sure of it. If we value equal opportunity, social mobility, self-determination, if we think of ourselves as anything more than farm animals or worker drones, we don't want to go down this path.

Perhaps there might be a way to very selectively decide as a society that we want to eliminate or modify a certain gene (autism, disease susceptibility come to mind for me) but I see no way to keep it at that task without being used for the wrong tasks.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Scientists Seek Ban on Me...