3 ms·

You 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 v

by wahern 7y ago

You 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.

vannevar 7y ago
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. Gene editing is special and distinct, in the sense that the genome is a complex and nonlinear system, where small errors can be amplified into large consequences, not only local, biological consequences but social as well. In cases where technology offers such potentially extreme leverage, it is scientifically justifiable to tread cautiously to avoid great harm.
- wahern 7y ago
  The same debate occurred regarding innoculation nearly 250 years ago. In fact, it's still occurring. Moreover, we're still stumbling--just last week I think someone posted an article to HN regarding how the use of live polio (IIRC?) vaccines has led us to paint ourselves into a corner, perpetually unable to extinguish the last remaining reservoirs. So the original concerns about what we'd now characterize as "complex" and "nonlinear" have been validated. It was the conclusions that were drawn from those concerns that were invalid--in short, that it was too dangerous to be introduced and managed by humans. The benefits outweighed the harms, even though many of the parade of horribles exclaimed by the skeptics did in fact come to pass. Those horribles ended up being buffered and moderated, because that's how complex, nonlinear systems also tend to behave. In Complexity Theory, one of the defining behaviors of "complexity", in addition to nonlinearity, is a tendency to return to a quasi-equilibrium state even though it can never reach, let alone stay, at an actual equilibrium. Absent the dual (dueling?) tendencies of spontaneous change and regression, you have by definition either chaos or stasis.
  - vannevar 7y ago
    It was not the same debate, because innoculation doesn't have as much capacity for far-reaching consequences. With regard to the notion of relying on the stability of a complex system, they tend to return to a quasi-equilibrium state, not necessarily the state they were in before being 'kicked'. And rate of change matters. Gene editing has the capacity to vastly accelerate the rate of mutation---indeed, that's it's purpose. And even if the overall nature of the genomic system remained recognizably mathematically the same, our experience of it in this accelerated state might be quite different.
    - wahern 7y ago
      1) Inoculation resulted in known historical outbreaks that killed many people. 2) Vaccinations, not to mention treatments like antibiotics, have resulted in accelerated mutation of disease. It's a serious concern and a growing problem in ways both predicted and unpredicted. And, yes, these have occurred together. We can argue in circles all day, unless you can point out some novel effect, even hypothetical, that hasn't already been reported in the literature or debated to death. Arguing that it's "too dangerous" is fair. You just can't argue that reasonable people can't disagree on that score.

by wahern 7y ago

vannevar 7y ago

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. Gene editing is special and distinct, in the sense that the genome is a complex and nonlinear system, where small errors can be amplified into large consequences, not only local, biological consequences but social as well. In cases where technology offers such potentially extreme leverage, it is scientifically justifiable to tread cautiously to avoid great harm.

wahern 7y ago
The same debate occurred regarding innoculation nearly 250 years ago. In fact, it's still occurring. Moreover, we're still stumbling--just last week I think someone posted an article to HN regarding how the use of live polio (IIRC?) vaccines has led us to paint ourselves into a corner, perpetually unable to extinguish the last remaining reservoirs. So the original concerns about what we'd now characterize as "complex" and "nonlinear" have been validated. It was the conclusions that were drawn from those concerns that were invalid--in short, that it was too dangerous to be introduced and managed by humans. The benefits outweighed the harms, even though many of the parade of horribles exclaimed by the skeptics did in fact come to pass. Those horribles ended up being buffered and moderated, because that's how complex, nonlinear systems also tend to behave. In Complexity Theory, one of the defining behaviors of "complexity", in addition to nonlinearity, is a tendency to return to a quasi-equilibrium state even though it can never reach, let alone stay, at an actual equilibrium. Absent the dual (dueling?) tendencies of spontaneous change and regression, you have by definition either chaos or stasis.
- vannevar 7y ago
  It was not the same debate, because innoculation doesn't have as much capacity for far-reaching consequences. With regard to the notion of relying on the stability of a complex system, they tend to return to a quasi-equilibrium state, not necessarily the state they were in before being 'kicked'. And rate of change matters. Gene editing has the capacity to vastly accelerate the rate of mutation---indeed, that's it's purpose. And even if the overall nature of the genomic system remained recognizably mathematically the same, our experience of it in this accelerated state might be quite different.
  - wahern 7y ago
    1) Inoculation resulted in known historical outbreaks that killed many people. 2) Vaccinations, not to mention treatments like antibiotics, have resulted in accelerated mutation of disease. It's a serious concern and a growing problem in ways both predicted and unpredicted. And, yes, these have occurred together. We can argue in circles all day, unless you can point out some novel effect, even hypothetical, that hasn't already been reported in the literature or debated to death. Arguing that it's "too dangerous" is fair. You just can't argue that reasonable people can't disagree on that score.