3 ms·
> (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
by 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 agoI 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 agoAs 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/