4 ms·

Human Gene Editing Receives Science Panel’s Support

40 points by azuajef 10y ago

alextheparrot 10y ago
From the article: “This opens the door to advertisements from fertility clinics of giving your child the best start in life with a gene-editing packet, and whether these are real advantages or perceived advantages, they would accrue disproportionately to people who are already advantaged.” Germ-line "vaccination" against common heritable diseases may go a long way in decreasing health-care costs over the long-term. My belief is that this is the first area for gene-editing. We should create legislation that allows us to separate cosmetic or "value-add" (Increased IQ, etc.) gene-editing from basic disease prevention. One thing I would like to note, however, is that the loss of common heritable diseases does not make our population, necessarily, stronger. Many disease genes have been linked to "Hybrid-vigor" type effects, in which case being a disease character makes the carrier more fit.
lend000 10y ago
I would be glad to see a few thousand babies derived from Gauss, Euler, Newton, Da Vinci, and/or Turing being born every year. Assuming there's any DNA preserved. It brings back the question of how "super-intelligence" will first take form: through biological engineering or hard AI? I am not convinced that one is easier or less ethical than the other (or that either are inherently unethical).
- arcanus 10y ago
  > biological engineering or hard AI Why not both? The future is synthesis, imo.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Scott Aaranson once said that he would consider it criminal if he had the option of making sure that his child was as smart as Turing and he deprived her of it. I totally agree.
- credit_guy 10y ago
  Our ability to understand our genetic code is a bit less than the ability of an Ancient Egypt scribe to understand Haskell. With a bit of effort he could figure out individual letters, with a genius level of insight he could figure out a few words. From here to functional composition or monads it's a long way to go.

40 points by azuajef 10y ago

From the article: “This opens the door to advertisements from fertility clinics of giving your child the best start in life with a gene-editing packet, and whether these are real advantages or perceived advantages, they would accrue disproportionately to people who are already advantaged.” Germ-line "vaccination" against common heritable diseases may go a long way in decreasing health-care costs over the long-term. My belief is that this is the first area for gene-editing. We should create legislation that allows us to separate cosmetic or "value-add" (Increased IQ, etc.) gene-editing from basic disease prevention. One thing I would like to note, however, is that the loss of common heritable diseases does not make our population, necessarily, stronger. Many disease genes have been linked to "Hybrid-vigor" type effects, in which case being a disease character makes the carrier more fit.

lend000 10y ago

I would be glad to see a few thousand babies derived from Gauss, Euler, Newton, Da Vinci, and/or Turing being born every year. Assuming there's any DNA preserved. It brings back the question of how "super-intelligence" will first take form: through biological engineering or hard AI? I am not convinced that one is easier or less ethical than the other (or that either are inherently unethical).

arcanus 10y ago
> biological engineering or hard AI Why not both? The future is synthesis, imo.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Scott Aaranson once said that he would consider it criminal if he had the option of making sure that his child was as smart as Turing and he deprived her of it. I totally agree.

credit_guy 10y ago
Our ability to understand our genetic code is a bit less than the ability of an Ancient Egypt scribe to understand Haskell. With a bit of effort he could figure out individual letters, with a genius level of insight he could figure out a few words. From here to functional composition or monads it's a long way to go.