3 ms·
One 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
by Eridrus 10y ago
One 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 agoUnintended consequences is one of main arguments raised against genetic engineering in general.