6 ms·

New U.S. Experiments Aim to Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos

55 points by bcaulfield 8y ago

jostmey 8y ago
Recombinant genetic engineering was invented almost 5 decades ago, and only recently has it been used on a human embryo. I think humanity has been remarkably patient pursuing this technology. It has a bad rap today, but centuries from now how many people will carry genetic modifications/enhancements from their descendants? How will these people look back and judge the scientist today? Might they view scientist like He Jiankui (the chinese scientist responsible for the first genetically engineered embryo brought to term) as the Copernicus(es) of our time?
- djohnston 8y ago
  several centuries from now, after the successful quelling of the final rebellion of natural born poor people, the wealthy genetic adonis's that inhabit the earth will indeed look upon these developments positively.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    There would more likely be factional genetic warfare than natural born poor people or wealthy genetic adonises. If you're thinking in terms of poor and rich, then you haven't really thought through all the implications of continuous improvement in genetic engineering. You wouldn't have poor natural born and wealthy genetically engineered. You would have old "obsoletes" trying to hold off supremely ambitious and young "moderns". And it would all be along an age spectrum so that different cohorts with different abilities would group together due to tribalism. Think of a dystopia where you might have something like groups of 20 to 30 year olds out hunting the 5 to 15 year old children of the 40 to 50 year olds. (Because the kids are light years ahead of them in terms of abilities and they saw what happened to the cohorts before them.) Maybe not exactly that, but that's more along the lines of the genetic factionalism that would arise with genetically engineered humans. The great hero of mankind would be the guy who finally figured out how to genetically engineer out the tribalism in humans. Finally allowing us all to live in peace together even if we're out of date in terms of our genetic engineering. (Which almost everyone would be by the time they were 10 or 15.)
    - jostmey 8y ago
      You're assuming that genetic engineering is expensive and that only the rich will be able to afford it. I think it more likely that genetic engineering will be cheap and easy to perform, for better or worse
      - djohnston 8y ago
        i'm not sure he is. the point of each generation being successively more advanced would also allow for the rich to receive the most cutting edge tech ahead of everyone else. even if everyone has access, i don't think it would be a level playing field. especially because costs may be covered for things like disease prevention, but probably not for things like intelligence, strength, etc.
  - Datenstrom 8y ago
    Under the wealthy genetic adonis's will be a caste system of people engineered for specific job roles also of course. If this sounds like an interesting novel I would recommend Red Rising by Pierce Brown. It explores some of these issues.
    - westmeal 8y ago
      Sounds like a brave new world
ethbro 8y ago
Good. Because, pardon the colorful language, fuck those bioethicist Luddites. From a moral standpoint it's inconceivable that we aren't proceeding at full speed to solve inherited diseases. There's no ethical hand wringing over this. (In many cases) We know what the mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is. We're on the cusp of being able to change the former into the latter. Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really disturbing"? There's a counterpoint about genetic diversity and the dangers of monoculture, but that isn't what's being brought up. It's always 'This is new and scary, and so we should spend more time studying the implications before doing it.'
- mateo1 8y ago
  That's right. Bring on those radioactive underwear. We cannot solve your insecurities using gene editing, but we can definitely destroy the lives on millions. Those "Luddites" made sure that your current genes aren't edited by a dumb PhD student in the 80s, and you're not permanently crippled as a result of that. Gene editing should stay exactly where it is, in the dystopic dreams of uneducated eugenics supporters.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    And what say you to the millions whose lives are being destroyed by hereditary ailments? 'We could have helped you, but we weren't comfortable doing so. Sorry.'? Eugenics is a strawman, and we're both clear designer babies aren't what we're talking about here.
- smmmday1 8y ago
  How long will it take until we have secret labs with hundreds of genetically engineered children forced to stay there like cattle? Also "Fuck those Luddites" describes them pretty well. The way the goverment solved the issue wasn't by giving them jobs or attempting to help them, instead the goverment simply arrested or killed them. The Luddites have always been the victims.
- WhiteSage 8y ago
  The biggest issue is that gene editing techniques are not perfect yet, and the danger of introducing bad mutations at other places in the genome is real. Once the gene editing techniques work 100% of the time with no side effects this will be of no concern.
biophysboy 8y ago
Grad student who studies DNA here: CRISPR is just a cool pair of scissors. What makes it cool is its flexibility. Different target? Pick a different guide RNA. But think about it. Many of the challenges of using that pair of scissors still exist. How do we get the scissors to the target? How do we repair the target after the cut? How often do the scissors work? Can the scissors cut exactly where we want them too (is there a PAM site nearby)? Of course, scientists know all these challenges, and they're clever. I would take a peek at this CRISPR guide (https://www.addgene.org/crispr/guide/)if https://www.addgene.org/crispr/guide/)if you want to know how people actually use it. Another thing that I'm thinking about: DNA is more than a 1D string of code. It is a semiflexible polymer wrapped around proteins, constantly changing in space and time. It bends, folds, and interacts with itself. Every cell does this organization differently. And I haven't even mentioned epigenetics. I'm not morally opposed to gene editing in the future. But I'm not so sure we're there yet. Then again, if I were blind, and CRISPR promised a cure...

55 points by bcaulfield 8y ago

Recombinant genetic engineering was invented almost 5 decades ago, and only recently has it been used on a human embryo. I think humanity has been remarkably patient pursuing this technology. It has a bad rap today, but centuries from now how many people will carry genetic modifications/enhancements from their descendants? How will these people look back and judge the scientist today? Might they view scientist like He Jiankui (the chinese scientist responsible for the first genetically engineered embryo brought to term) as the Copernicus(es) of our time?

djohnston 8y ago
several centuries from now, after the successful quelling of the final rebellion of natural born poor people, the wealthy genetic adonis's that inhabit the earth will indeed look upon these developments positively.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  There would more likely be factional genetic warfare than natural born poor people or wealthy genetic adonises. If you're thinking in terms of poor and rich, then you haven't really thought through all the implications of continuous improvement in genetic engineering. You wouldn't have poor natural born and wealthy genetically engineered. You would have old "obsoletes" trying to hold off supremely ambitious and young "moderns". And it would all be along an age spectrum so that different cohorts with different abilities would group together due to tribalism. Think of a dystopia where you might have something like groups of 20 to 30 year olds out hunting the 5 to 15 year old children of the 40 to 50 year olds. (Because the kids are light years ahead of them in terms of abilities and they saw what happened to the cohorts before them.) Maybe not exactly that, but that's more along the lines of the genetic factionalism that would arise with genetically engineered humans. The great hero of mankind would be the guy who finally figured out how to genetically engineer out the tribalism in humans. Finally allowing us all to live in peace together even if we're out of date in terms of our genetic engineering. (Which almost everyone would be by the time they were 10 or 15.)
  - jostmey 8y ago
    You're assuming that genetic engineering is expensive and that only the rich will be able to afford it. I think it more likely that genetic engineering will be cheap and easy to perform, for better or worse
    - djohnston 8y ago
      i'm not sure he is. the point of each generation being successively more advanced would also allow for the rich to receive the most cutting edge tech ahead of everyone else. even if everyone has access, i don't think it would be a level playing field. especially because costs may be covered for things like disease prevention, but probably not for things like intelligence, strength, etc.
- Datenstrom 8y ago
  Under the wealthy genetic adonis's will be a caste system of people engineered for specific job roles also of course. If this sounds like an interesting novel I would recommend Red Rising by Pierce Brown. It explores some of these issues.
  - westmeal 8y ago
    Sounds like a brave new world

ethbro 8y ago

Good. Because, pardon the colorful language, fuck those bioethicist Luddites. From a moral standpoint it's inconceivable that we aren't proceeding at full speed to solve inherited diseases. There's no ethical hand wringing over this. (In many cases) We know what the mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is. We're on the cusp of being able to change the former into the latter. Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really disturbing"? There's a counterpoint about genetic diversity and the dangers of monoculture, but that isn't what's being brought up. It's always 'This is new and scary, and so we should spend more time studying the implications before doing it.'

mateo1 8y ago
That's right. Bring on those radioactive underwear. We cannot solve your insecurities using gene editing, but we can definitely destroy the lives on millions. Those "Luddites" made sure that your current genes aren't edited by a dumb PhD student in the 80s, and you're not permanently crippled as a result of that. Gene editing should stay exactly where it is, in the dystopic dreams of uneducated eugenics supporters.
- ethbro 8y ago
  And what say you to the millions whose lives are being destroyed by hereditary ailments? 'We could have helped you, but we weren't comfortable doing so. Sorry.'? Eugenics is a strawman, and we're both clear designer babies aren't what we're talking about here.
smmmday1 8y ago
How long will it take until we have secret labs with hundreds of genetically engineered children forced to stay there like cattle? Also "Fuck those Luddites" describes them pretty well. The way the goverment solved the issue wasn't by giving them jobs or attempting to help them, instead the goverment simply arrested or killed them. The Luddites have always been the victims.
WhiteSage 8y ago
The biggest issue is that gene editing techniques are not perfect yet, and the danger of introducing bad mutations at other places in the genome is real. Once the gene editing techniques work 100% of the time with no side effects this will be of no concern.

biophysboy 8y ago

Grad student who studies DNA here: CRISPR is just a cool pair of scissors. What makes it cool is its flexibility. Different target? Pick a different guide RNA. But think about it. Many of the challenges of using that pair of scissors still exist. How do we get the scissors to the target? How do we repair the target after the cut? How often do the scissors work? Can the scissors cut exactly where we want them too (is there a PAM site nearby)? Of course, scientists know all these challenges, and they're clever. I would take a peek at this CRISPR guide (https://www.addgene.org/crispr/guide/)if https://www.addgene.org/crispr/guide/)if you want to know how people actually use it. Another thing that I'm thinking about: DNA is more than a 1D string of code. It is a semiflexible polymer wrapped around proteins, constantly changing in space and time. It bends, folds, and interacts with itself. Every cell does this organization differently. And I haven't even mentioned epigenetics. I'm not morally opposed to gene editing in the future. But I'm not so sure we're there yet. Then again, if I were blind, and CRISPR promised a cure...