3 ms·
As we are now living in a "reality show" world, maybe. But if such decision is based on scientific, ethical, and clinical rational, that is very unlikely. The d
by vibrio 7y ago
As we are now living in a "reality show" world, maybe. But if such decision is based on scientific, ethical, and clinical rational, that is very unlikely. The details of his work were sloppy and unethical including, (not exhaustive): He generated mutations in CCR5 that are uncharacterized. That is he didn't even use the 'delta 32' mutation observed in the gene pool). Beyond that, there is not solid rational that the kids are at risk for HIV transmission sufficiently to justify any procedure, let alone an unconsented, germ-line genetic modification.
The physicians that ran the Tuskegee Studies thought they would be lauded. That hasn't happened and won't.
- bufferoverflow 7y agoYou're confusing a work of one scientist and the whole field. Gene edited babies are inevitable, as soon as we start seeing massive benefits (lack of genetic disease, increases IQ, increased speed, increased muscle mass, improved cardiovascular and immune systems). Parents already spend ridiculous money for the tiniest benefits for their kids. Genetic editing will be huge.
- 3JPLW 7y agoI saw the parent's comment more countering the grandparent's assertion that He Jiankui will be lauded. He will not. He may go down in history, but he will appear in the ethics chapter alongside Dr. Rascher and will not be lauded.
- vibrio 7y agoBiology is complicated and there are always unintended consequences even with simple drugs or other procedures. you've listed outcomes, but not how to get there. do we increase muscle mass by overexposing growth hormone? in which exact cells and how do we time it? Do we increase IQ by increasing Nerve growth factor or some synaptic channels? What if the wrong cells are expressing them at the wrong time? We barely understand what many of these factors do on a cell to cell level. chasing the things you list WILL come with toxicities and/or a failure rates. Perhaps in 'patients' whom we will have to look in the eyes and explain why we did what we did. Maybe we will get where you suggest but it won't be a straight road there.
- bufferoverflow 7y agoYou're asking specifics of how it will be done, and we don't know it yet. It will be done, because we do know these variations do exist. I don't see how a targeted genetic alteration is any worse than the millions of random ones that you get though regular fertilization. As for looking in the eyes, well, progress always has victims. If you don't want to do it, then don't do it. Some other parents will.