4 ms·

Good. Because, pardon the colorful language, fuck those bioethicist Luddites. From a moral standpoint it's inconceivable that we aren't proceeding at full spee

by 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.
- thefounder 8y ago
  There is no such thing as 100% with no side effects and will never be.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    The larger concern is that we'll never make progress towards limiting side effects until we truly choose to pursue this research. I'm all for IRBs, ethics boards, whatever is necessary to bound the risk. As long as we're not shying from scientific progress solely out of fear.
ericb 8y ago
I would argue that we have no choice and have to master our own genome. Consider that we have entirely removed many of the selective forces that ensured we had a healthy gene pool. Take, as a simple example, the selective pressure on any disease that would have killed someone 1000 years ago. Now whatever susceptibility lead to that is not drained from the gene pool, the person is cured at great expense and reproduces furthering the presence of the gene. Don't get me wrong, evolution runs off of death and murder. Replacing it can be amazing, but we almost have no choice.
rubidium 8y ago
Your comment reveals a massive naivety about the medical, scientific and ethical conversations in the field. But you also don’t seem too interested in learning about it...
hrktb 8y ago
> (In many cases) We know what the mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is. Do we? Do we really ? The best argument I’ve seen until now pro gene editing is that we foundamentally lack understanding of what the genes really do relative to each other and the whole body, and the best way to see unintended consequences is to “jut do it” In the last discussion about the rogue chinese researcher I didn’t see sources arguing it’s the right time to do that, is it your hunchbor do you see signs pointing at the contrary ?
- biophysboy 8y ago
  I mean, we do know that there are single gene disorders, caused by a single mutation with a known sequence. That said, you are right, most diseases involve many genes and the environment...
- ethbro 8y ago
  As the other commenter pointed out, there are a number of diseases that have been pinpointed down to single gene mutations. There's a list of monogenetic disorders on the genome.gov page [1]. If this needed to be regulated in the same way as abortion to appease some folks, fine. Legal only to apply if you have one of these listed mutations. Eugenics gets brought up a lot as a strawman (see comment a few above), but the scientific and ethical reality is there's a huge difference between treating someone with... (a) a defective huntingtin gene (b) a gene we believe to be associated with a disease (c) a gene we believe to be associated with a superior outcome (e.g. intelligence) Conflating the three to the preclusion of addressing (a) is ethically criminal. [1] https://www.genome.gov/19016930/faq-about-genetic-disorders/ https://www.genome.gov/19016930/faq-about-genetic-disorders/
cat199 8y ago
> pardon the colorful language, fuck those bioethicist Luddites. oopsies.. Looks like someone forgot to edit out the naughty langauge gene in this one, and we all know that's an unhealthy one..
jake_the_third 8y ago
> Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really disturbing"? Because it is. Who will be responsible for the suffrage that gene-edited people will inevitably go through when someone screws up (and make no mistake, someone WILL screw up). Who will pay their medical bills? That's only addressing one small issue from an unfathomable pile of issues and unintended consequences. I for one am glad those "luddites" have more say in issues like this than people like you.
- tossaccount123 8y ago
  you could make a case that millions of people currently suffer genetic diseases they are born with that have the potential to be cured using this technology if it's developed
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Billions, I'd argue.
- nathias 8y ago
  think for a second if your 'reasons' can be applied to any invention in general and reflect on that for a while
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  One could easily rewrite your comment to lament the invention of the automobile: Who will be responsible for the suffrage [sic] that accident victims will inevitably go through when an automobile driver screws up (and make no mistake, automobile drivers WILL screw up). The answer is: yes, a few suffer, the vast majority benefits, and life goes on. Your comment insists on a notion of perfect safety that exists nowhere in the real world.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    My larger concern is who is paying for us not making the genetic effort: afflicted individuals and the social costs of trying to give them at least an approximately normal life. Weighing any risk against that cost? I can't make a pursuasive argument that we shouldn't proceed. Or as John Donne quipped in 1623, "... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
nathias 8y ago
the truly disturbing thing is that there exists a group of people that think they can make ethical decisions for others and that people think that has any merit whatsoever

by ethbro 8y ago

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.

thefounder 8y ago
There is no such thing as 100% with no side effects and will never be.
- ethbro 8y ago
  The larger concern is that we'll never make progress towards limiting side effects until we truly choose to pursue this research. I'm all for IRBs, ethics boards, whatever is necessary to bound the risk. As long as we're not shying from scientific progress solely out of fear.

ericb 8y ago

I would argue that we have no choice and have to master our own genome. Consider that we have entirely removed many of the selective forces that ensured we had a healthy gene pool. Take, as a simple example, the selective pressure on any disease that would have killed someone 1000 years ago. Now whatever susceptibility lead to that is not drained from the gene pool, the person is cured at great expense and reproduces furthering the presence of the gene. Don't get me wrong, evolution runs off of death and murder. Replacing it can be amazing, but we almost have no choice.

rubidium 8y ago

Your comment reveals a massive naivety about the medical, scientific and ethical conversations in the field. But you also don’t seem too interested in learning about it...

hrktb 8y ago

> (In many cases) We know what the mutation is. We know what a healthy gene is. Do we? Do we really ? The best argument I’ve seen until now pro gene editing is that we foundamentally lack understanding of what the genes really do relative to each other and the whole body, and the best way to see unintended consequences is to “jut do it” In the last discussion about the rogue chinese researcher I didn’t see sources arguing it’s the right time to do that, is it your hunchbor do you see signs pointing at the contrary ?

biophysboy 8y ago
I mean, we do know that there are single gene disorders, caused by a single mutation with a known sequence. That said, you are right, most diseases involve many genes and the environment...
ethbro 8y ago
As the other commenter pointed out, there are a number of diseases that have been pinpointed down to single gene mutations. There's a list of monogenetic disorders on the genome.gov page [1]. If this needed to be regulated in the same way as abortion to appease some folks, fine. Legal only to apply if you have one of these listed mutations. Eugenics gets brought up a lot as a strawman (see comment a few above), but the scientific and ethical reality is there's a huge difference between treating someone with... (a) a defective huntingtin gene (b) a gene we believe to be associated with a disease (c) a gene we believe to be associated with a superior outcome (e.g. intelligence) Conflating the three to the preclusion of addressing (a) is ethically criminal. [1] https://www.genome.gov/19016930/faq-about-genetic-disorders/ https://www.genome.gov/19016930/faq-about-genetic-disorders/

cat199 8y ago

> pardon the colorful language, fuck those bioethicist Luddites. oopsies.. Looks like someone forgot to edit out the naughty langauge gene in this one, and we all know that's an unhealthy one..

jake_the_third 8y ago

> Why are we still giving column inches to people saying "This is really disturbing"? Because it is. Who will be responsible for the suffrage that gene-edited people will inevitably go through when someone screws up (and make no mistake, someone WILL screw up). Who will pay their medical bills? That's only addressing one small issue from an unfathomable pile of issues and unintended consequences. I for one am glad those "luddites" have more say in issues like this than people like you.

tossaccount123 8y ago
you could make a case that millions of people currently suffer genetic diseases they are born with that have the potential to be cured using this technology if it's developed
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Billions, I'd argue.
nathias 8y ago
think for a second if your 'reasons' can be applied to any invention in general and reflect on that for a while
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
One could easily rewrite your comment to lament the invention of the automobile: Who will be responsible for the suffrage [sic] that accident victims will inevitably go through when an automobile driver screws up (and make no mistake, automobile drivers WILL screw up). The answer is: yes, a few suffer, the vast majority benefits, and life goes on. Your comment insists on a notion of perfect safety that exists nowhere in the real world.
- ethbro 8y ago
  My larger concern is who is paying for us not making the genetic effort: afflicted individuals and the social costs of trying to give them at least an approximately normal life. Weighing any risk against that cost? I can't make a pursuasive argument that we shouldn't proceed. Or as John Donne quipped in 1623, "... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

nathias 8y ago

the truly disturbing thing is that there exists a group of people that think they can make ethical decisions for others and that people think that has any merit whatsoever