4 ms·

From the article I learned that there is "somatic gene editing, a therapeutic application of CRISPR administered by injection to consenting subjects", as well

From the article I learned that there is "somatic gene editing, a therapeutic application of CRISPR administered by injection to consenting subjects", as well as "germline editing, in which changes are made to the DNA of an embryo". The author is concerned by the latter and I think you describe the former.

ravi-delia 4y ago
What OP describes, at least to the extent that I agree with them, is both but mostly germline editing. Most genetic issues aren't really treatable after birth (though we are nowhere near the limit, so in the future who knows). Genes don't really code for traits so much after the embryo develops, most of the effect comes from the manual process of cells bumping against each other
- dekhn 4y ago
  this is far from the truth in multiple ways. There are a wide range of genetic issues (typically recessive mutations) where somatic engeering would work great. And genes continuous encode for "traits" (really, molecular phenotypes) after development (which ends long after the embryo is born).
acadapter 4y ago
I think I would be okay with germline editing too, in selected cases. It's not like a child is going to say "hey, thanks for not fixing my cancer-causing mutation when you had the chance, mum".
- UweSchmidt 4y ago
  Then you have less qualms about it than the author of the article, whose career would benefit a lot from a free-for-all. "The social and political implications of gene editing are also huge unknowns, and unfortunately there’s been scant debate among policy makers and the general public."
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Personally I think both are true. There are a lot of genetic defects we can engineer away. There’s a lot of other things that aren’t defects, but social pressure will make people want to engineer them away. For example, when I was a child, British tabloids were saying “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ finding”: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/30/gay-gene-newspapers-1993-daily-mail-ian-mckellen/ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/30/gay-gene-newspapers-19... (Bonus points as the gay gene didn’t really exist; but as I’m bi, people like that would’ve tried to eradicate me before I was born if they’d had a way to do so). As I expect my resistance to social pressure to be exactly average until shown otherwise, I sometimes find myself wondering what things I falsely believe to be real defects that would be moral to eradicate.

ravi-delia 4y ago

What OP describes, at least to the extent that I agree with them, is both but mostly germline editing. Most genetic issues aren't really treatable after birth (though we are nowhere near the limit, so in the future who knows). Genes don't really code for traits so much after the embryo develops, most of the effect comes from the manual process of cells bumping against each other

dekhn 4y ago
this is far from the truth in multiple ways. There are a wide range of genetic issues (typically recessive mutations) where somatic engeering would work great. And genes continuous encode for "traits" (really, molecular phenotypes) after development (which ends long after the embryo is born).

acadapter 4y ago

I think I would be okay with germline editing too, in selected cases. It's not like a child is going to say "hey, thanks for not fixing my cancer-causing mutation when you had the chance, mum".

UweSchmidt 4y ago
Then you have less qualms about it than the author of the article, whose career would benefit a lot from a free-for-all. "The social and political implications of gene editing are also huge unknowns, and unfortunately there’s been scant debate among policy makers and the general public."
- ben_w 4y ago
  Personally I think both are true. There are a lot of genetic defects we can engineer away. There’s a lot of other things that aren’t defects, but social pressure will make people want to engineer them away. For example, when I was a child, British tabloids were saying “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ finding”: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/30/gay-gene-newspapers-1993-daily-mail-ian-mckellen/ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/30/gay-gene-newspapers-19... (Bonus points as the gay gene didn’t really exist; but as I’m bi, people like that would’ve tried to eradicate me before I was born if they’d had a way to do so). As I expect my resistance to social pressure to be exactly average until shown otherwise, I sometimes find myself wondering what things I falsely believe to be real defects that would be moral to eradicate.