3 ms·

$10M+ now and then in 20 years figure out that changing that gene sequence creates a dramatically higher likelihood for Alzheimer's or infertility. I personally

$10M+ now and then in 20 years figure out that changing that gene sequence creates a dramatically higher likelihood for Alzheimer's or infertility. I personally am not against the modification of humans in practice, I think it's an interesting opportunity for humans to take control over the evolutionary process and optimize ourselves for the world we live in now (and future ones), e.g., what if we could minimize the amount of sleep needed, or our tolerance to heat so climate effects were somewhat mitigated, or so our bodies were less affected with long periods in space? The tie-in of capitalism to it creates a weird dynamic but I'm not sure I see an obvious better solution unless we want to outlaw everything except for government approved research and let the ideas be at the whims of whatever bureaucrat or political appointee happens to be in charge at the time.

dekhn 4y ago
In the short term, a lot of gene therapy focuses on the set of diseases where the repair really does seem to be "change this one base" and there are no side effects due to complex, unknown gene interactions or other unexpected phenomena. m And nearly all of it (I haven't looked at the details in a while) is just treatment (IE, injections of a gene therapy in a post-birth individual), rather than preventive by germline manipulation, which IMHO It's likely that for the time being we'll only use gene therapy for things which are recognized as devastating diseases and the treatment is extremely reliable; germline modification for enhanced attributes in typical individuals is still a fairly out-there concept that would probably get panned in the media.
MontyCarloHall 4y ago
>$10M+ now and then in 20 years figure out that changing that gene sequence creates a dramatically higher likelihood for Alzheimer's or infertility Not only that, but any genes that are not selected against (e.g. your Alzheimer’s example, which occurs after reproductive age) are now permanently circulating in the population, with absolutely zero (humane) way of ever removing them.

dekhn 4y ago

In the short term, a lot of gene therapy focuses on the set of diseases where the repair really does seem to be "change this one base" and there are no side effects due to complex, unknown gene interactions or other unexpected phenomena. m And nearly all of it (I haven't looked at the details in a while) is just treatment (IE, injections of a gene therapy in a post-birth individual), rather than preventive by germline manipulation, which IMHO It's likely that for the time being we'll only use gene therapy for things which are recognized as devastating diseases and the treatment is extremely reliable; germline modification for enhanced attributes in typical individuals is still a fairly out-there concept that would probably get panned in the media.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago

>$10M+ now and then in 20 years figure out that changing that gene sequence creates a dramatically higher likelihood for Alzheimer's or infertility Not only that, but any genes that are not selected against (e.g. your Alzheimer’s example, which occurs after reproductive age) are now permanently circulating in the population, with absolutely zero (humane) way of ever removing them.