General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScientists 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.htmlThe 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.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)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)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)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)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.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)What could go wrong with cloning mentally unstable geniuses en masse?
randome
(34,845 posts)[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]
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)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)She has two children, both of whom also have OI. She's fine with that.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)There is such a thing as disability pride, as hard as that might be for nondisabled people to grasp.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)So you are correct, that's hard for me to grasp.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)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.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)will folks not use it?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Banning the therapy means banning it for those who aren't ok with passing on their diseases to their children.
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)phantom power
(25,966 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)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.
DavidDvorkin
(19,406 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)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.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)from Brave New World.