8 ms·
This podcast mentions that only testing against non-viable embryos has been done. It's worth noting that just the other day, the results of the first testing ag
by jwcrux 10y ago
This podcast mentions that only testing against non-viable embryos has been done. It's worth noting that just the other day, the results of the first testing against viable human embryos was released [0].
Also, I thought it was interesting when they talked about "who would turn down the ability to remove diseases for $x?" My answer would be people who simply don't have that kind of money.
This makes things complicated.
I'm not even close to an expert in this area, but I don't think it's too far a stretch to consider that having technology like this where you can theoretically pick and choose "add ons" for set prices would lead to class divides that are clearly visible when these add ons stop being just internal changes and start including exterior traits.
[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-o...
- NotreDev 10y agoHealthcare (as an industry) is full of schemes to replace chronic conditions with fixed cost solutions. If there is an insurance mandate for individuals, then actuaries who work at the payers (insurance companies) will absolutely fund CRISPR on embryos to reduce future costs.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- diamondlovesyou 10y agoWouldn't that incentivise insurance company treatment exclusivity?
- Amezarak 10y agoI firmly believe that the advent of human genetic engineering marks the end of humanity, at least as we know it, and if we had any sense, we'd abolish it right now and and punish any research into it with the most severe penalties possible. We lost our chance with nuclear weapons, we still might have a shot with genetic engineering. Yes, we can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering. But as you allude, it won't stop there. People will pick and choose external characteristics for their children. The idea that doctors will somehow be able to keep this in check is to ignore history and the huge incentives that are set up here. First, it will be diseases. Then it will be, for instance, the genetic propensity to obesity. Then 'disadvantages', like being too short or a little too dull. Then it will be external traits, like blue eyes or blonde hair. Then it will be mental traits and personality characteristics. And where it will end will be totally inhuman and beyond our present comprehension. The result will be massive suffering, inequality, and possibly even the extinction of humanity as human genetic diversity is replaced with an ever-accelerating social competition that ends in a monoculture that will probably be ill-suited for survival the same way modern dog breeds often end up unsuited for survival. Yes, it would be lovely if we could use genetic engineering technology safely and responsibly. We can't. That's to say nothing of the risks inherent in the technology if it became simple and cheap for anyone to use even on non-humans.
- maxerickson 10y agoGet some religious leaders to declare it blasphemy and you'll have a big group of boring old humanity for quite a long time.
- theWatcher37 10y agoI'm sure glad people like you aren't able to hold us back anymore. This sounds a lot like the old religious authorities burning scientists.
- Amezarak 10y agoScience is all well and good, but the survival of the species is even better. I am sure you would agree that if science, say, discovered a simple way to make large amounts of antimatter at home, it would be better to suppress that knowledge by whatever means necessary so that one crazy guy somewhere doesn't decide to obliterate the European continent.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoI don't know if you've noticed, but we haven't destroyed ourselves with nuclear weapons, despite giving it a fairly good go for five decades. The Cold War is over. We can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering Sounds good enough for me. Fuck cancer, fuck heart disease, fuck diabetes, fuck obesity. Full steam ahead!
- noam87 10y agoBut will those benefits be shared equally? How do you feel about current class inequality being split further into a select "super race" of a beautiful, genius-IQ, long-living 1% vs... the rest? The weaponry cold war did happen: how do you feel about a genetic enhancements cold war?
- chillacy 10y agoThat might be true for awhile but technology tends to become cheaper and more available over time, barring artificial constraints like the types of regulations on drugs in America (which is a social issue, not a tech issue). Then of course the risk is that a lack of genetic diversity wipes people out all at once, so some care is needed. Also there already is a competition to become super beautiful, it's called sexual selection.
- Eridrus 10y agoOne of the things I don't usually see discussed is the potential risks of this editing. The editing has errors, but we have the technology to detect those, so it's really only a cost increase. The more concerning issue for anyone who might want to do this is that AFAIK our understanding of what these edits do is pretty limited, so for things like known diseases it may be worth the risk to choose embryos or make edits, but for things that are more marginal, the risk might not be worth it and this may have a drag on people wanting to use the tech, even when it works great.
- pcarolan 10y agoCan you give a source for your assertion that "we have the technology to detect those"? That sounds hand wavy. I am not aware of a complex system where that kind of thing exists predictably. Especially when you're doing editing that will permanently affect the gene line, I'd say predictability is impossibly if not in theory, computationaly.
- Eridrus 10y agoYou're right, it's a little hand wavy, but we can fully sequence the DNA we extract; so I guess it depends on the error type, if there is an error that is only present in some DNA strands, that could be problematic.
- maxerickson 10y agoYou've seen discussions where people aren't concerned with the risks?
- Eridrus 10y agoPeople usually think about societal issues, or the editing technology failing, not that the unintended consequences of our edits due to a weak understanding of what genes code for and how they really interact.
- maxerickson 10y ago
- busted 10y agoCrazy. There is basically an international consensus that editing viable human embryos is unethical and China just doesn't give a damn.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoSo no international consensus then. I disagree that editing viable human embryos is unethical.
- RivieraKid 10y agoThose were unviable embryos. And personally, I don't consider it unethical and am really glad that China is doing that research.
- martinpw 10y agoThe more recent results referenced in this thread were with viable embryos: "The latest study is the first to describe the results of using CRISPR in viable human embryos, New Scientist can reveal."
- wavefunction 10y agoConsider being born into debt as an infant for all the 'deviations' that 'had to be corrected.' Presumably the wealthy will have not only potentially negative traits removed but positive traits added where missing. And given that there will likely be a reinforcement effect where people with unfortunate or fortunate genotypes run away into two distinct populations, given the way wealth inequality is growing. Living in sci-fi times...
- theWatcher37 10y agoWhile this is certainly a risk, the medical industry has done a prettt good job at making non-cosmetic tech available. If we have the ability to knock out breast cancer or heart disease it'll happen just like polio. Cosmetic stuff will probably always have a $$$ above and beyond "normal" however and I'm fine with that
- theWatcher37 10y agoWhile this is certainly a risk, the medical industry has done a prettt good job at making non-cosmetic tech available. If we have the ability to knock out breast cancer or heart disease it'll happen just like polio. Cosmetic stuff will probably always have a $$$ above and beyond "normal" however and I'm fine with that
- pdkl95 10y agoWhile originally written with a focus on "intellectual property" and predatory EULAs, Tom Scott's terrifyingly-plausible Welcome to Life: the singularity, ruined by lawyers[1] becomes even more frightening when adapted to your "born-into-debt" scenario. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E
- RivieraKid 10y ago> My answer would be people who simply don't have that kind of money. CRISPR is cheap.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jwcrux 10y agoThat doesn't mean that: 1) it's not a luxury 2) that medical providers will pass the savings on to consumers
- RivieraKid 10y agoI'm certain that at least in Europe, it will be free and regulated, if allowed.
- jwcrux 10y agoAh, I see - I'm speaking as someone from the US. I don't have the experience to speak to EU healthcare.
- _yvjs 10y agoIf you're a remotely rational government, why would you not subsidize it? The dividends you could reap from a population with greater health, intelligence, self-control, low time-preference, etc., would be ridiculous. Of course maybe people will want to use it for more zero-sum things like height or looks, so maybe you ban or don't subsidize that, but inequality in more positive-sum traits is unlikely.
- Jach 10y agoDo you think the same as vaccinations? Those cost $x too: http://children.costhelper.com/baby-immunization.html http://children.costhelper.com/baby-immunization.html What if someone doesn't have the money for them?
- taneq 10y agoThat's like saying that software development is cheap because all you need is a $1000 machine. Sure, the barrier to entry is low, but achieving anything significant still costs a lot (whether in recruitment costs and salaries, or in sweat equity and personal time investment.)
- infectoid 10y agoA better money spinner would be to take the cryptolocker approach. Engineer a relatively benign gene edit that makes life a little more annoying for someone and offer to send them the fix for 1 BTC. And actually deliver on the promise. But you are correct that a class divide could be created. Perhaps a solution would be to class all the possible fixes people can get and have some that are considered "elective" and other that are deemed "critical". The state covers the cost of critical fixes (e.g. remove genetic diseases) but you can pay to have elective updates (e.g. vanity related or doesn't severely affect quality of life). Just some thoughts. I'm sure there are better ideas out there to regulate this.