7 ms·
It seems like a dead certainty that gene editing creates unintended mutations, since to do otherwise would require the technique to be 100% controllable and ver
by vannevar 7y ago
It seems like a dead certainty that gene editing creates unintended mutations, since to do otherwise would require the technique to be 100% controllable and verifiable, and it is neither. So the only question is whether those unintended mutations are harmful or not, either to the immediate generation or subsequent ones. Because there is so much uncertainty around that question, these kinds of experiments are ethically, and in many cases, legally, prohibited.
- im3w1l 7y agoRandom harmful mutations have happened all day every day as long as life has existed. We are basically designed for dealing with it. But worst case, we can eliminate harmful mutations from being passed on to subsequent generations through screening. I wouldn't worry about the long term problems of that, it's fairly easy to solve. What I would worry about is: a) Short term suffering from failed experiments. b) Reduced genetic diversity as everyone scrambles to get "the best" genes.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago> we can eliminate harmful mutations from being passed on to subsequent generations through screening. And the truly bad mutations should self-correct before passing to subsequent generations.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago> And the truly bad mutations should self-correct before passing to subsequent generations. That's an awfully euphemistic way to say "The kids'll die before they grow up."
- Fjolsvith 7y agoI didn't want to say, "Survival of the fittest."
- roenxi 7y agoWe live in a world where kids die before they grow up. Gene editing technologies will almost surely reduce the number of children who die before they grow up and lead to higher quality of life for everyone else. I'm not necessarily for gene editing. I think it is probably a long-term certainty and a net good, but it makes me uneasy because it is one of the maybe-this-one-ends-humanity style technologies. That being said, the suffering that a gene edited baby and its parents go through is meaningful - we learn from it, we improve. At the moment if a baby is born with random congenital problems there is similar suffering and it is completely pointless; we don't really learn anything or change anything. When both paths lead through suffering, anyone who knowingly chooses the path of greater long term suffering is a monster. Even if they want to claim they are acting for some sort of moral reason. We can't get hung up if a few children die when dealing with technologies of this consequence. There are just more important issues to work through.
- imtringued 7y agoWhy would it end humanity? It may cause greater suffering than any war in history but it is not a serious threat to humanity.
- roenxi 7y agoMight create something better. It depends what we define as human and how quickly the technology develops.
- smallgovt 7y ago> But worst case, we can eliminate harmful mutations from being passed on to subsequent generations through screening Are you suggesting that we should prohibit these babies from reproducing when they reach adulthood? If not, how do you suggest we prevent harmful mutations from being passed on with "screening"?
- mytailorisrich 7y ago> Are you suggesting that we should prohibit these babies from reproducing when they reach adulthood? That's currently the only reasonable thing to do.
- xvedejas 7y agoAdults only pass on half of their genes during reproduction. I imagine at least in the case of in vitro fertilization there's a fair amount you can do to make sure the harmful genes aren't the ones passed along, so long as the parent doesn't have two copies of an autosomal dominant harmful mutation. I wouldn't be surprised if more advanced methods exist either; as a carrier for a rare genetic disease maybe I should figure this out.
- wahern 7y agoYou can't argue with the "but what if" line of reasoning because there's always another hypothetical that could lead to the destruction of humanity or, at the very least, one more mutant baby than anticipated. And that's the problem here: these arguments boil down to "too dangerous", but that's not a characteristic amenable to empirically grounded, reasoned debate. We can only have a scientifically constructive discussion within the context of a concrete, particularized therapy--disease, editing vector, gene, etc. Even then it's difficult, but at least you can reach a point at which you can agree to disagree on an actual, concrete scientific question. Everything else is philosophy and politics. I think what people are trying to justify is an a priori assumption that gene editing (or germline editing if they're a little less cautious) is special and distinct. But I don't think you can scientifically justify that distinction from a harm avoidance perspective. Just because the technique is medically and scientifically distinguishable doesn't mean it's analytically distinguishable. And of course one of the principal drivers of these therapies, at least initially, is stopping the types of mutations that are feared but which already exist in nature. So it's simply a belief that you hold; full stop. It's a legitimate belief, and may even be strongly informed by science, but it's like believing in God or aliens or the utility of Mars colonization--we might as well just put labels on our foreheads so we know where the argument will end up without actually having to argue. Knowing the other person's starting point, and assuming the best versions of their likely arguments, most of us here can arrive at the other person's conclusions independently.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago> Short term suffering from failed experiments. By "short term" you mean "only until the kids die of their mutations"?
- im3w1l 7y agoWell I was thinking more along the lines of disabilities, weakness and abnormalities, but I guess death too.
- neuronic 7y agoYou guess harming a human baby to the point of death might be a problem?
- imtringued 7y agoThe goal of gene therapies isn't to kill their patients but it wouldn't surprise me if introducing a lesser disease in exchange for curing a serious disease would be considered an acceptable outcome even if it means that people who have not been seriously ill will now suffer from the lesser disease more frequently.
- neuronic 7y agoBut the problem with all of this aren't these strategic questions about eradicating disease and improving the human condition. It's that all of this is happening within a frame of ignorance with regards to the insane, elusive complexity that is genetics. Somehow the idea that changing genes at will can be predictable isn't dying off.
- adrianN 7y agoI wouldn't worry so much about reduced diversity. Once we're good enough at creating genetically manipulated babies we can recover any diversity we want in one generation.
- everdev 7y agoWe'll still need adults to raise this next generation. So, if we realize we swung the pendulum too far towards uniformity, it'll take 16+ years for the next "diverse" generation to mature and become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, diseases typically run their course much faster than that meaning it would be possible for a disease to devastate a genetically homogenous population before they can raise the next generation and maintain population levels.
- dbtx 7y agoWill that be genuine or superficial? Will 'verifying the integrity of that DNA after these edits' become the new cryptomining? Here's a hard problem: 'integrity' and 'verfiy' and "good enough at creating" are ill-defined at best. It almost reminds me of ...me. "I don't need to study and get good at studying, I just need to get good at self-hypnosis and instruct my brain to absorb things faster and remember things better." Want to know how that turned out? It didn't.
- imtringued 7y agoThat doesn't make any sense. Right now every single human is a gene designer and each of them is using a benchmark that is specific to their environment. There is no way you can replicate that without building a parallel society of gene designers.
- IanSanders 7y agoI'd be more worried about subtle long-term mutations which won't have obviously observable effects at first but will severely disadvantage us in the long run. Or only become enabled in combination with some future mutations. If a gene increases chances of a disease by 5%, how soon do you identify that? Once a gene is widespread enough, good luck preventing gene carriers from reproducing. Most people won't care enough to screen potential partners, or even worse, it could create social tension.
- IanSanders 7y agoAlso, why this is worse than a similar mutation in the wild, is because it will be coupled with "branded" genotype, which will be treated specially. People will potentially want to pursue certain genotype (with tall height, blue eyes etc), not caring about health implications, which I can almost guarantee won't be properly disclosed, even if known. Just like dog breeding. And you can judge how much people care about appearances by the success of plastic surgery business.
- Gatsky 7y agoThis isn't really it. It's not like this sort of thing would have been OK if editing was 10 or 100 times less likely to cause off target effects. The way the whole thing happened was stupid. It was the wrong population of patients (healthy children), who had other options for avoiding HIV infection (antiretroviral suppression in parents, surrogacy, etc etc). And the fool decided this was the right population in which to employ highly experimental and underdeveloped gene technology? Any scientist with a modicum of integrity or common sense would never have done this. It's just bad science.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tremon 7y agoI don't agree that uncertainty is a valid objection in ethical discussions. That reasoning leads to circular denial: we can't study something because we don't know enough about it, and we don't know enough about it because we can't study it. Rather, I would suggest that the ethical discussion focuses on intended and unintended side-effects of a specific direction of study, and whether the long-term effects can be aligned with healthy societal progress. Personally, I think that pregestational gene editing doesn't have many secondary benefits, and that the technology, once available, will have a huge negative effect on society (both on the gene pool and on equality). So I would argue against this line of research should be prohibited based on that, not based on the limits of our knowledge.
- contravariant 7y agoNo, uncertainty very much is a valid objection when you're manipulating the genome of a human being. Even from a purely utilitarian point of view you should at least be able to rule out the terrible consequences such an experiment could have. Besides even if a particular experiment cannot be done because the outcome is uncertain and we can't have certainty without the experiment then that is circular but not circular reasoning. We cannot simply declare something to be ethical purely because declaring it unethical would not allow us to do something.
- phissk 7y agoMedical ethics focus on the patient, not society. An edit that was to the advantage of the baby, with zero disadvantages, but so much so that such edits could give an unfair advantage in society would be ethical. In fact you could argue that not doing it if the means were available would be unethical.
- vinniejames 7y agoYou essentially disregard one weak argument, and replace it with a worse one: "negative effect on society...both on the gene pool and on equality". First you contradict your original dismissal, any negative effects on the gene pool most likely can be solved by more research. Asserting a negative effect on equality is an equally damaging and incorrect opinion. A similar analogy here would be arguing vaccines should be avoided and prevented because not everyone has access to them, thereby having negative effects on equality