8 ms·

the 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 happen

the 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 ago
  Edit: misread
  - NamTaf 8y ago
    No, 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 ago
    which part is unethical though? it was voluntary
    - DennisAleynikov 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. 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 ago
        should parents be liable for any kind of genetic defect they pass to their children?
        NamTaf 8y ago
        Intent 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.
        buboard 8y ago
        of course it is not the same. but i think the argument was on the unborn baby 's rights being violated because of the genetic procedure. Also this is not a case of arbitrary experimentation, the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue, which is something that so far has been ethically acceptable so far, for embryo selection.
        onetimemanytime 8y ago
        >>the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...
        8y ago
  - diegoperini 8y ago
    I read that as "not even grey". It actually achieved its purpose.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    If it works it won’t be unethical within a couple of generations. If it’s highly effective our descendants will think we were barbarians for ever questioning its use.
    - DennisAleynikov 8y ago
      I agree it will change - actually if this becomes medically responsible nothing needs to change. we just need to stop experimenting on humans. once the science is sound it becomes healing humans with gene therapy
      - landryraccoon 8y ago
        Drug testing is always experimentation on humans. Drugs have to have human trials for safety before we are certain they are safe. Testing on animals reduces the risk but does not eliminate it. And if the treatment is only effective on infants or children then there's no way to get informed consent. Your options are to experiment the best you can and accept the risk or forgo the opportunity (or more likely let China do it and accept both the risks and the rewards, as they seem willing to do).
coldtea 8y ago
>the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. Did the future kids consent?
- buboard 8y ago
  the cells were asked to move towards the green consent button, and they did
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  Did 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 ago
    They consent on the astral plane!

dqpb 8y ago

> It's ethically black What does that mean?

elcomet 8y ago
Edit: misread
- NamTaf 8y ago
  No, 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 ago
  which part is unethical though? it was voluntary
  - DennisAleynikov 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. 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 ago
      should parents be liable for any kind of genetic defect they pass to their children?
      - NamTaf 8y ago
        Intent 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.
        buboard 8y ago
        of course it is not the same. but i think the argument was on the unborn baby 's rights being violated because of the genetic procedure. Also this is not a case of arbitrary experimentation, the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue, which is something that so far has been ethically acceptable so far, for embryo selection.
        onetimemanytime 8y ago
        >>the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...
        8y ago
- diegoperini 8y ago
  I read that as "not even grey". It actually achieved its purpose.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  If it works it won’t be unethical within a couple of generations. If it’s highly effective our descendants will think we were barbarians for ever questioning its use.
  - DennisAleynikov 8y ago
    I agree it will change - actually if this becomes medically responsible nothing needs to change. we just need to stop experimenting on humans. once the science is sound it becomes healing humans with gene therapy
    - landryraccoon 8y ago
      Drug testing is always experimentation on humans. Drugs have to have human trials for safety before we are certain they are safe. Testing on animals reduces the risk but does not eliminate it. And if the treatment is only effective on infants or children then there's no way to get informed consent. Your options are to experiment the best you can and accept the risk or forgo the opportunity (or more likely let China do it and accept both the risks and the rewards, as they seem willing to do).

coldtea 8y ago

>the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants. Did the future kids consent?

buboard 8y ago
the cells were asked to move towards the green consent button, and they did
throwaway8879 8y ago
Did 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 ago
  They consent on the astral plane!