3 ms·

> This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. It will also mean a massive rise in the ava

> This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. It will also mean a massive rise in the availability of human eggs for turning into embryos, which in turn will mean the ability to be much more selective about which embryos to to implant during IVF. Currently egg harvesting is such an arduous process that embryos can only realistically be selected for viability and a handful of generally fatal diseases. When you are choosing 1 out of 7-10 embryos, you can't be all that picky. But between having access to hundreds of eggs, sperm obviously not being an issue, the ever decreasing cost of genomic sequencing, and the ever increasing knowledge of how specific genes relate to traits, parents undergoing IFV could start to apply many selection criteria. That wouldn't be genetic engineering in the classic sense, nothing would be available that wasn't in one of the parent's DNA, but it would get a lot of the way there. Edit: If I was going to be beaten to the punch by anyone on this subject, I'm happy it was gwern.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jcadam 9y ago
And one day soon children conceived the 'natural' way will be at a disadvantage. Reminds me of Gattaca...
- zerostar07 9y ago
  it's happening already
  - aldoushuxley001 9y ago
    No it's not. I don't know of any non-naturally born people who have an advantage. Currently, people born via IVF are more likely to be born prematurely and with increased risks of mental and physical problems. We may be there soon, but we're definitely not there yet.
    - gwern 9y ago
      > Currently, people born via IVF are more likely to be born prematurely and with increased risks of mental and physical problems. Cite? The research I found on this indicated that IVF children were exactly average, and IVF with use of sperm donors actually had considerably lower risk of birth defects.
      - murukesh_s 9y ago
        I can second this from a non-statistical point of view. IVF is pretty common in my relative circle and I do not find the kids to have any sort of mental/physical issues
      - Alex3917 9y ago
        The research is still uncertain, and it may also depend on whether or not you do ICSI. When you do IVF though you need notarized signatures from both partners next to a dozen or so possible categories of birth defects where the child may have an increased risk, e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29164811 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29164811 If you're curious you can probably just stop by your local teaching hospital and ask for a copy of the 50+ page contract with all the informed consent details.
        gwern 9y ago
        If things like congenital heart defects are a real risk (especially a doubling), it should show up very easily in mortality and other hard endpoints. As it is, that just sounds like another anomaly from observational data. (Reading that one in particular, none of the studies use any kind of strong controlling for parental factors, to mention the most obvious problem with trying to infer causation of harm in IVF.) > If you're curious you can probably just stop by your local teaching hospital and ask for a copy of the 50+ page contract with all the informed consent details. What a contract says is of little scientific value, unless one is studying tort law and the finer details of butt-covering.
        Alex3917 9y ago
- avz 9y ago
  Parents' primary responsibility is to ensure that the environment in which their kids grow up, the food they eat etc promote healthy development. For many practical purposes, the kids' protein-building machinery including the nucleic acids, can be treated the same way as the environment, the food etc - another critical input to a developing human life. In this view, it is scarcely surprising that parents would want to give their kids viable genetic information just like they want to give their kids a good home, healthy food and challenging education. This desire to ensure the good of the kids is a strong force pushing humanity forward and I see no reason to object. Unequal access to shelter, food, education or genetic techniques is a different matter. But our failure to ensure universal access to the spoils of a new invention does not imply that there is something wrong with the invention. The real problem is more like the lack of compassion for other folks... So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jcadam 9y ago

And one day soon children conceived the 'natural' way will be at a disadvantage. Reminds me of Gattaca...

zerostar07 9y ago
it's happening already
- aldoushuxley001 9y ago
  No it's not. I don't know of any non-naturally born people who have an advantage. Currently, people born via IVF are more likely to be born prematurely and with increased risks of mental and physical problems. We may be there soon, but we're definitely not there yet.
  - gwern 9y ago
    > Currently, people born via IVF are more likely to be born prematurely and with increased risks of mental and physical problems. Cite? The research I found on this indicated that IVF children were exactly average, and IVF with use of sperm donors actually had considerably lower risk of birth defects.
    - murukesh_s 9y ago
      I can second this from a non-statistical point of view. IVF is pretty common in my relative circle and I do not find the kids to have any sort of mental/physical issues
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      The research is still uncertain, and it may also depend on whether or not you do ICSI. When you do IVF though you need notarized signatures from both partners next to a dozen or so possible categories of birth defects where the child may have an increased risk, e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29164811 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29164811 If you're curious you can probably just stop by your local teaching hospital and ask for a copy of the 50+ page contract with all the informed consent details.
      - gwern 9y ago
        If things like congenital heart defects are a real risk (especially a doubling), it should show up very easily in mortality and other hard endpoints. As it is, that just sounds like another anomaly from observational data. (Reading that one in particular, none of the studies use any kind of strong controlling for parental factors, to mention the most obvious problem with trying to infer causation of harm in IVF.) > If you're curious you can probably just stop by your local teaching hospital and ask for a copy of the 50+ page contract with all the informed consent details. What a contract says is of little scientific value, unless one is studying tort law and the finer details of butt-covering.
        Alex3917 9y ago
avz 9y ago
Parents' primary responsibility is to ensure that the environment in which their kids grow up, the food they eat etc promote healthy development. For many practical purposes, the kids' protein-building machinery including the nucleic acids, can be treated the same way as the environment, the food etc - another critical input to a developing human life. In this view, it is scarcely surprising that parents would want to give their kids viable genetic information just like they want to give their kids a good home, healthy food and challenging education. This desire to ensure the good of the kids is a strong force pushing humanity forward and I see no reason to object. Unequal access to shelter, food, education or genetic techniques is a different matter. But our failure to ensure universal access to the spoils of a new invention does not imply that there is something wrong with the invention. The real problem is more like the lack of compassion for other folks... So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.