gene editing

[chair jockey]

Using a technique provocatively acronym-named CRISPR, scientists at University of Oregon managed to edit the genes of a human embryo to remove a usually fatal heart defect.

 

This is the first time that the genes of a human embryo have been successfully edited.

 

Here's a story I found on it, although this story has a bit of a Canadian angle to it:

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/gene-editing-breakthrough-stokes-fierce-debate/article35892575/

[Yatogami]

I seen a controversial video on this. 

 

[Guest]

It's interesting proof of concept, but if this was legalised, you could quite easily have eugenics movements wiping out entire groups of people, evolutionary paths would be dictated to by social norms, Autistic people being quite easily wiped out, what if a country elects some crazy conservative like donald trump or mike pence who decided that anyone having children must have any "gay" gene removed before the baby is born.

 

Even if it was "claimed" that it would only be used for medical purposes, it's not like the medical industry exists independantly of society, just 50 years ago being gay was considered to be a paraphilia.

 

It's an interesting proof of concept but the costs outweigh the benefits.

[mAce]

^^^ Editing genes is such an ethically grey area - on one hand, you could potentially eliminate at least genetic factors for things like cancer or heart disease, but at the same time, who are we to say that removing those genes is a moral and ethical thing to do. We can't possibly know what effect that might have on the future, and it could also be seen as an affirmation that people who do carry the genes and refuse to edit their own genes are lesser or don't deserve to exist because it could be seen as having "inferior" genetics - like in the movie Gattaca. And, on the other side, societies idea of what is acceptable and normal is largely based on the prejudices of society - it is, by definition, exclusionary - which means that people can, will, (and to some extent, do) arbitrarily decide to decimate populations based on pseudo-science, ableism, and societal pressure. I think it's impossible to remove gene editing - at least in relation to "fixing" faulty genetics - from eugenics.

[Tanwen]

Would the people who have one of the genes giving a  potential predisposition to develop breast cancer prefer to retain the gene or have it 'edited' - because that would mean not only would they have the same 'chance' as the rest of us but also their children.

My ex died from bowel cancer - he'd had no contact with our sons (his choice, not on my part) but got in touch to tell them 'By the way it's genetic so you might want to get yourselves tested'.  Wont print our sons' replies to that one.

[mAce]

I don't know. I honestly don't know. This is - at least to me - an ethically grey area. I think, if such a thing is developed, it should be the choice of the person whose genes are being edited - I, for one, would be very glad to see cancer become a problem of the distant past- but at the same time, I think the pressure to edit out "unsavory" genes - like near-sightedness, if that is a genetic thing, or baldness - would be overwhelming. Mostly, I'm concerned, like @teaandpeppermints that people would eliminate various neurodiversities and disabilities from the genetic population because they are inconvenient instead of building a society where people are accommodated and accepted regardless. It doesn't even necessarily have to be a malevolent act - someone could find out that they have the necessary genetic markers to have autistic kids and choose to remove them. Even then, I can't say for sure what an ethical or moral course would be for that. Personally, as an autistic person, I would probably see that as a judgement of my worth as a member of society. But at the same time it is also a matter of reproductive and personal freedom - people should have absolute control over their bodies and what they want to do with it.

[mAce]

Of course, I could be incredibly off-base with this. I clearly don't know enough about the arguments or regulations surrounding this issue, and I imagine these points are brought up every time gene editing is mentioned.

[Yatogami]

If we make eveyone physically similar and destroy genetic diseases, but maintain genetic diversity in dna alone, and boost everyone's intelligence standard. It would abolish racism and ableism. 

 

The cultural aspects of race will become universal rather than exclusive.

[mAce]

By making everyone physically similar and eliminate genetic disease or hereditary disability, you are not eliminating racism and ableism, you are eliminating the people that are targeted by these things. If there is no variance in humanity we do not become more accepting and compassionate to difference, rather that difference is more heavily stigmatized. 

 

I am all for learning about and understanding other cultures, but trying to create a universal culture more often than not means that the significance of things - rituals, stories, objects - becomes lost or forgotten in favor of a cheaper and less complicated - and often offensive - portrayal of that culture.

 

And intelligence should not be the measure of our progress as humanity - we should measure ourselves in our ability to be compassionate and accepting of difference.

[Yatogami]

1 hour ago, mAce said:

By making everyone physically similar and eliminate genetic disease or hereditary disability, you are not eliminating racism and ableism, you are eliminating the people that are targeted by these things. If there is no variance in humanity we do not become more accepting and compassionate to difference, rather that difference is more heavily stigmatized. 

 

I am all for learning about and understanding other cultures, but trying to create a universal culture more often than not means that the significance of things - rituals, stories, objects - becomes lost or forgotten in favor of a cheaper and less complicated - and often offensive - portrayal of that culture.

 

And intelligence should not be the measure of our progress as humanity - we should measure ourselves in our ability to be compassionate and accepting of difference.

Please note how I said "Appearance" and intelligence wise, not DNA wise. You can remain genetically diverse, and still look like one unified race.

 

You can't be targeted by racism, if you don't stand out as a different race. This is under the presumption that everyone undergoes gene therapy to make everyone look like one race. It would also be negated if anyone can choose what race they want to look like.

 

What you are thinking of is Xenophobia, and that is something that cannot be gotten rid of no matter anyone's appearance. Humans don't like things that are different. But what if gene editing can erase this survival instinct? 

[mAce]

I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible for everyone to "appear as one race" while remaining genetically diverse, at least in that regard. Without editing genes, the only way I can think to make everyone appear to be the same race would be extensive plastic surgery and skin bleaching/darkening, which is extremely invasive, unacceptable, rooted in a history of racism, and physically not possible. The only way to make people appear as one race is to eliminate the genetic basis of race, which was not only one of the foundations of the eugenics movements, especially in the 20th century, but is also harmful to the human species as a whole. Species survive becuase of genetic diversity, not in spite of it. Species, such as the most popular brand of bananas, that have literally no genetic diversity are often subject to diseases that can wipe out the entire species in one go.

 

Secondly, people's worth is not dictated by their intelligence, nor is intelligence the pinnacle of human evolution or achievement. For one thing, there is no agreed upon definition of intelligence and no universal measure of intelligence. For another, intelligence is rooted in sexist, racist, and ableist assumptions that favor the people who defined what an ideal human is. It was, for a long time, and to some extent still present in today's society, the root "cause" behind the American - and other - eugenics movement that lead to thousands of poor, disabled, and mentally ill people to be sterilized against their will by the United States Government.

 

Finally, I know perfectly well that people don't react well to difference. I've spent most of my life ostracized because I don't naturally comprehend neurotypical behavior. And I know perfectly well that people tend to group around others that have something in common with each other - isn't that why we are all on this website? That does not mean that xenophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, or any other sort of bigotry is hard wired into our DNA, nor that we are genetically predisposed to this sort of behavior. People are perfectly capable of accepting and celebrating difference - bigotries are the problem of a dysfunctional society, not some pervasive evil of humanity.

[gisiebob]

I think most people are going to make sweeping assumptions about what genetic editing does and does not mean as the core understanding to why they might be for or against it. and I don't know how to make peace with that idea.

 

[Skycaptain]

It's an expensive process, which only the wealthiest can afford. So the rich will be able to edit out genes which carry either the risk of illness or physical traits they don't want in their children, whilst the poor can't. 

Won't be long after this before cash-strapped health services start refusing to finance care for these conditions saying that you should have had them edited out. 

[Sally]

On 8/8/2017 at 0:48 PM, Tanwen said:

Would the people who have one of the genes giving a  potential predisposition to develop breast cancer prefer to retain the gene or have it 'edited' - because that would mean not only would they have the same 'chance' as the rest of us but also their children.

My ex died from bowel cancer - he'd had no contact with our sons (his choice, not on my part) but got in touch to tell them 'By the way it's genetic so you might want to get yourselves tested'.  Wont print our sons' replies to that one.

Actually, it's something for them to consider, regardless of how they feel about their father.   I have had colon cancer and was tested to determine if it was familial;  it wasn't.  If it had been, I would have even more strongly urged my son to have a colonoscopy, which can find any dangerous polyps and remove them before they turn cancerous (my daughter's already had one).  You might mention that to your sons,Tan.  

[XYZ96]

CRISPR will be/has been/is being extensively researched on, there is no holding it back, so debating if it's ethical and should be researched on is imo useless. The debate should be on in what situations it should be allowed to be used/to what extent it can be used on humans and animals, and wether or not it should only be allowed on somatic cells (non heritable cells of the body) or also on germ cell (heritable). In most places germline genetic engineering is forbidden or restricted I believe, due to for example eugenics concerns. Personally I agree with this, germlines should be left alone.. though further research into CRISPR, and we could develop significantly better treatments for cancer, HIV and get rid of malaria  ...

one thing to always consider with new scientific discoveries is that change is scary, and the concerns that are always brought up are being brought up enough by many people including scientists, politicians and average citizens that restrictions will usually be made and often the technology and knowledge of things aren't even good enough for these horror scenarios to even happen.. to take an example of something that has already been used in this thread for how our lack of knowledge and tech will prevent some of these horror scenarios: Autism isn't going anywhere, Autism is genetically heterogeneous (as in, different mutations can cause the same disorder) and usually probably also polygenic (caused by many genes working together) and partially environmental and most of the genes that can cause Autism aren't even probably known (I don't really study much on the genetics of autism, so to what extent the genes are known or not I do not know..), and because heterogeneity and polygenic disorders are kinda of a pain to study, especially if there are also environmental factors, all of these genes probably won't be known for very very long time.. same thing goes for most neurodevelopmental disorders... also, remember, most traits are polygenic and at least partially environmental, meaning it will be insanely hard to get rid of them, and most research (like pretty much all of it) is being put into finding what genes do what and getting rid of fatal diseases, only really the minority of researchers probably want to actually eliminate non-fatal whatevers... 

 

on the expense thing, one of the things about CRISPR-Cas9 that makes it so spectacular is that it isn't expensive..  

 

well that's my 2 cents on the topic.. 

 

Spoiler

just a few links to CRISPR-Cas9

https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/gene-editing-crispr-cas9-designer-babies/

https://www.nature.com/news/crispr-the-disruptor-1.17673

 

[Somebodysomeone]

So after a whille we are creating the perfect work force for companies so they have the highest profit all to feed the disgusting greed of our species. Free of disease  free of emotions not in need of vacations. Simply put organic robots.  

[gisiebob]

5 hours ago, Somebodysomeone said:

So after a whille we are creating the perfect work force for companies so they have the highest profit all to feed the disgusting greed of our species. Free of disease  free of emotions not in need of vacations. Simply put organic robots.  

did you know that we are continuously falling into the sun? the only thing keeping us from getting crispy fried that way is that we are continuously dodging out of the way of the sun just as quickly. I think orbital mechanics are a nifty idea that make cynicism acceptable without depression. everyone is trying hard to follow the rules to the game they thought they were playing, but i think a lot of us don't realise those rule sets are just on a piece of paper that someone wrote because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Homer]

One more step towards mankind destroying itself. Nobody has any idea what we're getting ourselves into but sure, let's race down that road. I'm not even touching the subject of ethics, that's just a bonus.

 

What could possibly go wrong.

[NoLongerActive1234]

My grandmother died because of breast cancer, another relative did as well...my mom is fully recovered but there is a gene in her side of the family that makes this happen easier. I cannot help but feel biased here, I would much rather see that gene take a hike. It doesn't have any good purpose whatsoever. Fuck cancer. If altering a gene to take away the higher risk of getting it works and is safe then why not?  With big emphasis on it being safe, maybe there is where it needs to be put more research into and then there is the issue of it not being voluntary. At the same time at least when it comes to cancer or anything fatal, who would want that.

[mAce]

Here's a good article that talks about the point of view of people with disabilities, and partially why they are hesitant to celebrate or certain of the destruction to the disabled community that this brings:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-we-start-editing-genes-people-like-me-might-not-exist/2017/08/10/e9adf206-7d27-11e7-a669-b400c5c7e1cc_story.html?utm_term=.c3f7859c974f

[shockkkk]

There are definitely issues that would arise with more widespread gene editing, but its also one of those technologies that if your country (or whatever) is the one that doesn't have it, you are at a major disadvantage.