6 ms·

There are two big risks, as I see it: 1) the human tendency to turn statistical averages into absolutes. Imagine genetic testing saying that gene A is associate

There are two big risks, as I see it: 1) the human tendency to turn statistical averages into absolutes. Imagine genetic testing saying that gene A is associated with a slightly higher than average propensity for coding ability (say, 3%). Then we see people saying "Oh you can't code? Must not have gene A!" Or genetic testing revealing that someone doesn't have gene A, so they're told they can't code, even though they could very well have been great at it. All because of an extra 3% probability. 2) Making it impossible/unbearably expensive for people with genes that are correlated with higher risk of whatever conditions to get health care/insurance. We need to be really careful with how we talk about genetic insights as we gain more and more understanding, as well as what uses of that information we allow, or we're going to get ourselves into another period of atrocities justified by what boils down to eugenics. Perhaps not on the scale of genocide of entire populations, but still bad enough.

zo1 9y ago
I'd add 3) A Genetic arms race between nation states. It's only a matter of time before a nation state starts spending a not-so-insignificant amount of money on IVF + DNA-based screening to start picking good genetic offspring for their populace. It's only going to start becoming more and more plausible the cheaper we make this technology. Very awkward and important questions/decisions await us in the near future.
- tosser350 9y ago
  China already paid people with high intelligence to ship them DNA for research in 2013, they are already doing embryo gene manipulation. They are years ahead of us due to not caring about ethics. Political correctness will be the death of the west. https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genetics-of-genius-1.12985 https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genet...
  - mcbits 9y ago
    Different ethics != not caring about ethics. And if not caring about ethics were the key to winning the nation-state game, the ethical response would be to tear it all down ASAP, which is usually quite unethical in practice.
    - dTal 9y ago
      I'm not sure I follow your argument. Tearing it all down is or isn't ethical, therefore not caring about ethics is not the key to winning the nation-state game?
      - mcbits 9y ago
        Ethics is stuck between a rock and a hard place if nations collapse because they're not disregarding ethics enough, as the previous comment suggests. (I'm disputing the premise.)
    - tosser350 9y ago
      I phrased it a bit harshly, more like less inhibited. The US can't even have a discussion about IQ and genetics due to the pushing of BS like blank slate and political correctness, which makes doing research impossible.
      - soundwave106 9y ago
        Well, there are potential reasons beyond PC for caution. Keep in mind that eugenics, the "old school" version of genetic manipulation, is widely considered a failure, and has a nasty association with certain unsavory leaders that loom large in European/American history (the most notorious one being, um, Hitler). One can say that eugenics has that nasty issue of raw tribalism clouding any potential good judgement. Personally, I would consider the sordid history of eugenics to be a warning sign to everyone in regards to genetic engineering. The other angle to bring up regarding genetic manipulation of humans, is that genetic manipulation of animals and crops, whether through the old school "selective breeding" or more modern techniques, have not been without unexpected big problems. At the very least, specific health problems have popped up in certain purebreds, and certain bred crops are far more vulnerable to being wiped out by single parasites (eg: our "perfect bananas" have this nasty tendency to keep getting wiped out by the Panama disease). Biodiversity is also the reason that in-breeding of humans is widely looked down upon. The other ties with the former: it is not impossible for some unsavory leader to take some research, bastardize the science through blinders of tribal instinct, say "Ah! Gene X is the key to IQ!", and do some nasty tribal things "justified" by science. And in the end, get it quite wrong in the end due to lack of biodiversity.
  - everheardofc 9y ago
    If by political correctness you mean the basic human rights of the constitution Of course we could add an exception to the constitution that excludes lab grown children. Well, unfortunately gene manipulation is eugenics unless you are willing to support your "defects" until they die of old age plus their offspring but then china is probably going to win again because they are disposing their defective subjects as soon as they notice the defect. It doesn't take much imagination to think of this scenario. Creating artifical super children that grow up inside a lab and get killed off when convenient is the most common staple in scifi books and movies involving gene editing. What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness?
    - cabalamat 9y ago
      > If by political correctness you mean the basic human rights of the constitution I think the US constitution is silent on the subject of genetic research. > What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness? If a nation is uncompetitive, it won't matter in the long term what it thinks about human rights, as that nation will will be out-competed by other natinos that are more competitive.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    I agree. Sometimes cowardice masquerades as ethics. Things will go wrong with genetic experiments. We should do them anyway.
  - knowThySelfx 9y ago
    I doubt it will end well.
  - marchenko 9y ago
    The BGI project referenced above was hindered by certain suboptimal methodological assumptions. It does not appear that the Chinese are any further than the West in the field, and the most notable replicable advances have occurred in the supposedly-stymied labs of the West. It is worth remembering that China is a highly ideological society with blinders and "PC" of its own, and is not entirely uninfluenced by Western priorities.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- memeCrasher 9y ago
  Genetic arms race, or intentionally crippling your population to make them easier to control? I wonder which the various governments will go for? Are gene-modded babies going to have genetic compulsions that make them predisposed to propaganda and suggestion? Biological kill-switches? There's a lot of good and a lot of bad that is going to come out of these technologies.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Genetic arms race, or intentionally crippling your population to make them easier to control? I wonder which the various governments will go for? This hypothetical doesn't make sense in the face of robotics. If people are around, they are because they are useful.
    - newscracker 9y ago
      The GP's point is, to put it in your terms, whether the people are more useful for their friends, families and humankind or if they are more useful for governments to retain (and grow) their power. The activists today who are fighting their governments and government agencies are of the former kind, and there is a natural conflict between them and the governments in many areas (not saying all areas). Unless one sees all governments as benevolent agencies that are truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people", this is a distinction to be wary of.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Nation states could already do this, but they've been remarkably uninterested. Yao Ming is the only example I know of. You don't need DNA tests, or even knowledge of the concept of DNA, to participate in a genetic arms race. DNA tests were not necessary to produce dogs that would rescue drowning humans or cows that would produce incredible amounts of milk. They also aren't necessary to produce "good genetic" humans.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    And furthermore, even after producing / selecting those, we struggle to give them a good education in a repeatable way.
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  We outdated Betas surely wont be the ones to make those decisions.. which is kind of relieving.
pjscott 9y ago
Insurance companies actually have strong incentives to price things in a way that reflects the expected value of the money they'll have to pay out, and they have people who are paid to do those calculations. If some genetic variant makes someone ten cents per month more expensive, on average, then an insurance company would have trouble charging much more than that.
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  That's not really the threat, though. We're worried about what happens when someone has an 80% chance of having a disease that requires expensive treatment for the sufferer's whole life. At that point, insurance is either too expensive to buy or amounts to giving money away.
i2shar 9y ago
Reminds me of GATTACA.
- splintercell 9y ago
  Which reminds me of GATTACA law which congress passed after the movie came out.
amelius 9y ago
> "Oh you can't code? Must not have gene A!" To which the response could be: "You can't perform logical reasoning? Must not have gene B!"
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sacado2 9y ago
Point 2 is not a problem per se, it can be solved with a national/mandatory health insurance system like the one we have in most european countries.
- r00fus 9y ago
  In the enlightened USA, The GOP-controlled congress is considering a rollback to the ACA rescission and pre-existing condition regulation that would allow insurance companies to not cover these folks.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
Coding is such a nice example to go with. Imagine if gene A showed a 3% higher chance of having some socially extremely taboo sexual attraction? Imagine how a child would be treated, growing up with everyone knowing this about them?

zo1 9y ago

I'd add 3) A Genetic arms race between nation states. It's only a matter of time before a nation state starts spending a not-so-insignificant amount of money on IVF + DNA-based screening to start picking good genetic offspring for their populace. It's only going to start becoming more and more plausible the cheaper we make this technology. Very awkward and important questions/decisions await us in the near future.

tosser350 9y ago
China already paid people with high intelligence to ship them DNA for research in 2013, they are already doing embryo gene manipulation. They are years ahead of us due to not caring about ethics. Political correctness will be the death of the west. https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genetics-of-genius-1.12985 https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genet...
- mcbits 9y ago
  Different ethics != not caring about ethics. And if not caring about ethics were the key to winning the nation-state game, the ethical response would be to tear it all down ASAP, which is usually quite unethical in practice.
  - dTal 9y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your argument. Tearing it all down is or isn't ethical, therefore not caring about ethics is not the key to winning the nation-state game?
    - mcbits 9y ago
      Ethics is stuck between a rock and a hard place if nations collapse because they're not disregarding ethics enough, as the previous comment suggests. (I'm disputing the premise.)
  - tosser350 9y ago
    I phrased it a bit harshly, more like less inhibited. The US can't even have a discussion about IQ and genetics due to the pushing of BS like blank slate and political correctness, which makes doing research impossible.
    - soundwave106 9y ago
      Well, there are potential reasons beyond PC for caution. Keep in mind that eugenics, the "old school" version of genetic manipulation, is widely considered a failure, and has a nasty association with certain unsavory leaders that loom large in European/American history (the most notorious one being, um, Hitler). One can say that eugenics has that nasty issue of raw tribalism clouding any potential good judgement. Personally, I would consider the sordid history of eugenics to be a warning sign to everyone in regards to genetic engineering. The other angle to bring up regarding genetic manipulation of humans, is that genetic manipulation of animals and crops, whether through the old school "selective breeding" or more modern techniques, have not been without unexpected big problems. At the very least, specific health problems have popped up in certain purebreds, and certain bred crops are far more vulnerable to being wiped out by single parasites (eg: our "perfect bananas" have this nasty tendency to keep getting wiped out by the Panama disease). Biodiversity is also the reason that in-breeding of humans is widely looked down upon. The other ties with the former: it is not impossible for some unsavory leader to take some research, bastardize the science through blinders of tribal instinct, say "Ah! Gene X is the key to IQ!", and do some nasty tribal things "justified" by science. And in the end, get it quite wrong in the end due to lack of biodiversity.
- everheardofc 9y ago
  If by political correctness you mean the basic human rights of the constitution Of course we could add an exception to the constitution that excludes lab grown children. Well, unfortunately gene manipulation is eugenics unless you are willing to support your "defects" until they die of old age plus their offspring but then china is probably going to win again because they are disposing their defective subjects as soon as they notice the defect. It doesn't take much imagination to think of this scenario. Creating artifical super children that grow up inside a lab and get killed off when convenient is the most common staple in scifi books and movies involving gene editing. What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness?
  - cabalamat 9y ago
    > If by political correctness you mean the basic human rights of the constitution I think the US constitution is silent on the subject of genetic research. > What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness? If a nation is uncompetitive, it won't matter in the long term what it thinks about human rights, as that nation will will be out-competed by other natinos that are more competitive.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  I agree. Sometimes cowardice masquerades as ethics. Things will go wrong with genetic experiments. We should do them anyway.
- knowThySelfx 9y ago
  I doubt it will end well.
- marchenko 9y ago
  The BGI project referenced above was hindered by certain suboptimal methodological assumptions. It does not appear that the Chinese are any further than the West in the field, and the most notable replicable advances have occurred in the supposedly-stymied labs of the West. It is worth remembering that China is a highly ideological society with blinders and "PC" of its own, and is not entirely uninfluenced by Western priorities.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
memeCrasher 9y ago
Genetic arms race, or intentionally crippling your population to make them easier to control? I wonder which the various governments will go for? Are gene-modded babies going to have genetic compulsions that make them predisposed to propaganda and suggestion? Biological kill-switches? There's a lot of good and a lot of bad that is going to come out of these technologies.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Genetic arms race, or intentionally crippling your population to make them easier to control? I wonder which the various governments will go for? This hypothetical doesn't make sense in the face of robotics. If people are around, they are because they are useful.
  - newscracker 9y ago
    The GP's point is, to put it in your terms, whether the people are more useful for their friends, families and humankind or if they are more useful for governments to retain (and grow) their power. The activists today who are fighting their governments and government agencies are of the former kind, and there is a natural conflict between them and the governments in many areas (not saying all areas). Unless one sees all governments as benevolent agencies that are truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people", this is a distinction to be wary of.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
Nation states could already do this, but they've been remarkably uninterested. Yao Ming is the only example I know of. You don't need DNA tests, or even knowledge of the concept of DNA, to participate in a genetic arms race. DNA tests were not necessary to produce dogs that would rescue drowning humans or cows that would produce incredible amounts of milk. They also aren't necessary to produce "good genetic" humans.
- euyyn 9y ago
  And furthermore, even after producing / selecting those, we struggle to give them a good education in a repeatable way.
honestoHeminway 9y ago
We outdated Betas surely wont be the ones to make those decisions.. which is kind of relieving.

pjscott 9y ago

Insurance companies actually have strong incentives to price things in a way that reflects the expected value of the money they'll have to pay out, and they have people who are paid to do those calculations. If some genetic variant makes someone ten cents per month more expensive, on average, then an insurance company would have trouble charging much more than that.

andrewflnr 9y ago
That's not really the threat, though. We're worried about what happens when someone has an 80% chance of having a disease that requires expensive treatment for the sufferer's whole life. At that point, insurance is either too expensive to buy or amounts to giving money away.

i2shar 9y ago

Reminds me of GATTACA.

splintercell 9y ago
Which reminds me of GATTACA law which congress passed after the movie came out.

amelius 9y ago

> "Oh you can't code? Must not have gene A!" To which the response could be: "You can't perform logical reasoning? Must not have gene B!"

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sacado2 9y ago

Point 2 is not a problem per se, it can be solved with a national/mandatory health insurance system like the one we have in most european countries.

r00fus 9y ago
In the enlightened USA, The GOP-controlled congress is considering a rollback to the ACA rescission and pre-existing condition regulation that would allow insurance companies to not cover these folks.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

Coding is such a nice example to go with. Imagine if gene A showed a 3% higher chance of having some socially extremely taboo sexual attraction? Imagine how a child would be treated, growing up with everyone knowing this about them?