3 ms·
This paragraph rings hollow: "Other examples of human variability, such as intelligence, would be even harder to change with current editing techniques. We can’
by fwip 8y ago
This paragraph rings hollow:
"Other examples of human variability, such as intelligence, would be even harder to change with current editing techniques. We can’t even produce a consistent definition of intelligence, much less identify its genetic determinants."
Even if we can't tell for sure what effect a particular genetic edit will have, telling customers "Yes this should make your baby smarter" is enough to convince a lot of people.
Also, the risks of off-target editing is massively understated - the FDA is reluctant to allow clinical trials for CRISPR-based therapy in consenting adults, requiring thorough evidence that you've catalogued and proved safe all off-target effects.
Here is a better article from actual scientists: https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/gene-editing-embryo-crispr/ https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/gene-editing-embryo-cris...
- devoply 8y agoHuman beings become like nature, get ready for potential failures similar to hereditary defects affecting millions of people. Biology is a kluge, and humans trying to mess with biology is a much bigger kluge as we are like hackers messing with a very complicated machine by screwing with a few of its transistors to affect how the code that runs on it functions. We don't know wtf we are doing.
- analog31 8y agoLikewise "yes this investment should beat the market." My guess is that, given the ability for quacks and hucksters to outnumber legitimate practitioners, the results of gene editing will suffer a signal-to-noise problem for years if not decades to come. Even if some particular treatment is proven, it will be set aside if someone else offers a better but unproven treatment.