7 ms·
The edited gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function, but is the entry point for HIV. So editing for prophylaxis. This was probably done bec
by skosuri 8y ago
The edited gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function, but is the entry point for HIV. So editing for prophylaxis. This was probably done because if there aren’t a ton of loss of function beneficial traits, and probably with the main desire to be first. Except, if the reports are true, this is not just an experiment but a person (or people). I guess the main desire is to normalize editing. Brave new world I guess, whether we like it or not.
- DennisAleynikov 8y agothe edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. It's ethically black as far as I am concerned but it has already happened so we must see where this takes us. IVF born edited zygotes might have serious complications but ideally its a healthy human being. (for everyone's sake)
- dqpb 8y ago> It's ethically black What does that mean?
- elcomet 8y agoEdit: misread
- NamTaf 8y agoNo, they mean that ethically it's black in the same way that we describe blackhat vs whitehat hackers.
- DennisAleynikov 8y ago"unethical" would probably have worked better. sorry for the confusion
- buboard 8y agowhich part is unethical though? it was voluntary
- DennisAleynikov 8y agowell, its just unethical based on USA rules against human experimentation. obviously moral and ethical codes can evolve to accommodate advances in science eventually. this is not a medical procedure, which is what makes it unethical to perform. its an experiment with unknown outcome which is why current ethics dictates it is not okay to do this.
- coldtea 8y ago>well, its just unethical based on USA rules against human experimentation. obviously moral and ethical codes can evolve to accommodate advances in science eventually. Well, if they "evolve to accommodate advances in science" either they weren't that moral or ethical based in the first place, or moral and ethics gave in for what's technologically possible.
- jlebar 8y ago> it was voluntary Do you think parents can consent to this sort of experiment on behalf of an unborn child?
- buboard 8y agoshould parents be liable for any kind of genetic defect they pass to their children?
- NamTaf 8y agoIntent and premeditation are strong in western law, hence differences between murder and manslaughter. Consenting to a genetic experiment which then has ramifications on offspring therefore stands apart from the natural inheritance of uncontrolled genetic issues, as well as from the obverse situation where a parent does not undertake medical treatment that could possibly result in preventing inherited genetic issues. In other words, taking action to make changes is a crucial difference when compared to inaction, even if the outcomes are similar.
- coldtea 8y ago>the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. Did the future kids consent?
- buboard 8y agothe cells were asked to move towards the green consent button, and they did
- throwaway8879 8y agoDid the future kids even consent to being born in the first place? Birth itself is a violation if we're going to be really technical and strict here.
- creep 8y agoThey consent on the astral plane!
- noobermin 8y agoI guess time will tell if it leads to any adverse effects. I'm not a biologist which is probably why I'm more wary of this, but if there is some unforeseen circumstances then we'll find out I suppose.
- skosuri 8y agoThere are many people that are CCR5 null (largely in Africa due to positive selection for HIV resistance), so it's unlikely to have much effect, but still... edit: I'll also amend the statement, as the gene is implicated in responses to other viruses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs
- wonderwonder 8y agoI think the question is not so much the effect of a lack of CCR5 but rather the accuracy of the genetic procedure and whether or not anything else was unintentionally affected. If it was accurate and only desired change was implemented, we have opened pandora's box.
- wycs 8y agoIn the short term I think the risks are overstated. Vastly increased health and intelligence looks like it will be possible to select and/or edit for, as well as the elimination of Mendelian disease. The scale of this good is so large it overwhelms most scruples.
- skosuri 8y ago"Vastly increased health and intelligence"... again, you keep making assertions without any reference.
- preommr 8y agoThe source is idealism. I've noticed a lot of tech people tend to hand wave away implementation details and talk about things as a theoretical exercise on a very wide time frame. So eventually, at some point, this technology will be able to do all the sci-fi stuff of dreams. Probably right around when we achieve singularity.
- edwardhusarcik 8y agoHomozygous CCR5 mutations cause "immunity" against HIV and heterozygous causes a slower disease course. I do not think this applies to all strains of HIV. Unsure.
- adrr 8y agoPretty sure hiv can infect on other pathways besides CCR5. It’s just not as common. Some of the antivirals block the CCR5 pathways and HIV can mutate to render them ineffective.
- xtrapolate 8y ago> "gene is for CCR5, which currently doesn’t have known function" It's in the article: > "Even if editing worked perfectly, people without normal CCR5 genes face higher risks of getting certain other viruses, such as West Nile, and of dying from the flu. Since there are many ways to prevent HIV infection and it's very treatable if it occurs, those other medical risks are a concern, Musunuru said."
- skosuri 8y agoYeah, sorry; I was mostly going off my own past knowledge when less was known; There's a nice summary here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#Potential_costs
- a_imho 8y agoit's very treatable if it occurs Surely it is a bit of a stretch.
- dillonisacunt 8y agoWhat? HIV has been considered very treatable for a few years now
- cbg0 8y agoCompared to a few decades ago, you can live a much longer life thanks to the medication available nowadays.
- buboard 8y agooh wow. CCR5 has been found to have a role in memory recently. Knockout mice have better learning[1] and pronounced increase in spine formation/turnover[2]. These babies are going to have super-memory: 1. https://elifesciences.org/articles/20985 https://elifesciences.org/articles/20985 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29379017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29379017
- xenadu02 8y agoAlmost certainly not; improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. Most mouse models don't replicate in other animals either.
- buboard 8y agoHIV related dementia is a thing. This method might be able to alleviate it https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/breakthrough-discovery-in-aids-related-dementia https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/breakthrough-discovery-in... I agree, super memory is not necessarily a good thing
- carlmr 8y ago>improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. What if it makes people more scared, because they can remember past experiences better. This could lead to less procreation and thus inverse selection pressure. Only because a trait is superficially good it doesn't mean nature would select for it.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y agoWhy would a memory enhancing drug only increase rememberance of negative memories and not the positive and loving ones? Such people could become more active, motivated and procreating more because life seemed more motivating for them because they remembered all the good from the past also?
- 8y ago