3 ms·

Right, even if there are many, would you be able to justify keeping sickle cell? There was even a recent post on HN about it (thought I can't find the same link

Right, even if there are many, would you be able to justify keeping sickle cell? There was even a recent post on HN about it (thought I can't find the same link here's a jist [1]). People will probably benefit from some type of cure as opposed to trying to save mutation that causes extreme discomfort (maybe death). I totally agree with importance of variety but i think it's equally important to understand and revert some of these unwanted mutations. [1]http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/07/did-gene-therapy-cure-sickle-cell-disease-10950 http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/07/did-gene-therapy-cure-si...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Right, even if there are many, would you be able to justify keeping sickle cell? Would you be able to justify eliminating genetic malaria resistance? It's the same allele, of course, heterozygotes get the benefit, homozygotes get the disease. OTOH, if you can do in vivo editing with appropriate testing, maybe you only edit embryos that would otherwise have the disease, which may marginally reduce the distribution of the allele (in a first order analysis; but if it makes know carriers less unattractive as mates, it might actually increase the distribution), but doesn't eliminate it. There are lots of issues like this, and overzealous editing could eliminate beneficial traits whose genetic origins we don't understand as side effects of targeting undesirable traits.