5 ms·

Biotech/genomics and AI/ML are following very interesting parallel trajectories over the last ~10 years. In biotech, we have developed incredible tools: DNA ed

by axg11 4y ago

Biotech/genomics and AI/ML are following very interesting parallel trajectories over the last ~10 years. In biotech, we have developed incredible tools: DNA editing (CRISPR), synthesis, and sequencing. We have a lot of tools but we haven't cracked systems level understanding yet. In AI/ML, we have developed algorithms that can ace tasks thought impossible just 15 years ago. We have a hunch of how and why they work, but we lack deep understanding.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Perhaps we need a few gene edits to improve human cognition, maybe ML could help identify those.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  ML methods and statistics are routinely used in genomics research. Luckily, the experimentation with the human genome is largely forbidden. The consequences of unbridled changes in genetic sequences include truly disastrous scenarios. I thought COVID would be a clear illustration that everyone gets but apparently this is not the case.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    >Luckily, the experimentation with the human genome is largely forbidden. That taboo will certainly never be broken!
    - 331c8c71 4y ago
      Let's start doing irresponsible things because we assume "the bad guys" will be doing them anyway?
    - 331c8c71 4y ago
      On a more constructive note, I think non-germline targeted gene editing is OK-ish if 1) the goal is to cure or alleviate some really serious diseases, 2) the mechanism of the disease and the prospective treatment are widely believed to be well understood. Stepping out to do experimental genome changes based on outputs from some black-box "AI" is a recipe for a disaster if you ask me. Especially so if the goal is to find "enhancements" for perfectly normal human beings.
  - ajuc 4y ago
    > Luckily, the experimentation with the human genome is largely forbidden. That just means singularity starts in some isolated dictatorship.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    I find the ban on experimentation with the human genome rather hypocritical. We already produce and consume a vast array of synthetic chemicals that have effects on our genome. We also expose ourselves to higher than normal levels of radiation for a variety of reasons ranging from medical treatment and diagnosis to air travel. We do try to mitigate these sources of mutation but we don't ban them. I don't think genetic experimentation on human cell lines should be completely unregulated but I also don't think it should be completely banned. We're going to have to do it at some point if we want to eliminate hereditary disease or go even further and prevent a lot of the misery caused by our blind evolutionary search history.
  - krageon 4y ago
    COVID doesn't illustrate anything about human experimentation, because it has nothing to do with it.
    - 331c8c71 4y ago
      Given the state of the science the humanity is not able to foresee the consequences of deliberate genetic changes in existing life forms. Covid just illustrates that such changes can have disastrous consequences independent of what triggered them.
      - 331c8c71 4y ago
        Not all changes are equal. One thing is to, say, patch a known disease-causing mutation (being sure no other changes take place). Inserting a new sequence or patching an existing sequence in a way not seen before is clearly different. Another important dimension is whether the introduced changes are heritable and would be passed to offsprings.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    I agree. We really desperately need to have experimental research in improving humanities genes. The next disease might not be so weak as COVID and could wipe almost everyone out.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Gene editing doesn't seem likely to make you immune to all diseases. They get to evolve faster than you.
      - rowanG077 4y ago
        Not all diseases most likely. But if we can easily rewrite our genes it's easy to stay ahead. You can easily imagine changing your genes so much there is no path for an existing disease to evolve towards it.
        astrange 4y ago
        Gene editing doesn't imply being able to rewrite all your own genes either! Isn't mostly about embryos? If you wanted to edit yourself you'd have the problems of reaching all your own cells, mistakes caused by edits, and what the editing process would do if it encountered a mutation in one of your cells, which of course are everywhere.
        rowanG077 4y ago
        Currently, yes, it's only really feasable for embryos. But there are instances of biohackers using gene therapy to do interesting things. For example a guy cured his lactose intolerancy temporarily by gene therapy: https://hackaday.com/2018/02/14/biohacking-lactose-intolerance/ https://hackaday.com/2018/02/14/biohacking-lactose-intoleran.... Basically what I'm trying to say is that you don't need to reach all cells to cure something. You only need to reach the relevant cells.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    > I thought COVID would be a clear illustration that everyone gets but apparently this is not the case. I thought my sarcasm was obvious but I suppose that Poe's law is at play here. I was making a bad joke about the two fields using each other to make progress. I am under the impression that as a species we may be reaching the limits of our capacity to solve complex tasks and understand the consequences of our actions.
- sinenomine 4y ago
  You don't even need modern ML to find a set of candidate SNPs for introduction, GWAS studies of educational attainment[1] give you these SNPs with weights as parameters of the statistical polygenic risk score (PRS/PGS). The problem is, intelligence is a massively polygenic trait which necessitates introduction of many SNPs (into the embryo, mind you, because most of these are likely active only during the early stages of development) to achieve life-changing effect for the person in question. Given this knowledge, the realistic way to improve human cognition would be widely available (perhaps state-sponsored) voluntary embryo selection[2] for intelligence. Embryo selection via PGS is already being applied[3][4][5] as an optional procedure in IVF, so there is no technical risk, the only impediment for now is simply social inertia, politics and lack of large-scale investment. Compared to this possibility cognitive enhancement in healthy adult individuals is a much harder problem: no solution is known as of now. Still, it would be interesting to speculate about realistic procedure of such type. It is unlikely that with sufficient effort we couldn't find some way to toggle[6] the correct genes and developmental processes in an adult, and deliver it via a gene therapy. Or maybe a cell therapy[7] could impart necessary neural progenitors into the mature tissue. Given such problems at the frontiers of the known science, it is natural to think that strong ML systems operating over large -omics datasets could offer human scientists valuable help, but the progress here looks more funding-limited than technology-limited right now. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104 2. https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection 3. https://www.ivfbabble.com/on-the-40th-anniversary-of-the-first-ivf-in-the-usa-the-first-baby-elizabeth-jordan-carr-looks-at-how-science-today-has-produced-a-new-world-first-baby-aurea/ https://www.ivfbabble.com/on-the-40th-anniversary-of-the-fir... 4. https://www.orchidhealth.com/ https://www.orchidhealth.com/ 5. https://www.lifeview.com/ https://www.lifeview.com/ 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2018.00460/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2018.0046... 7. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0808488105 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0808488105
  - 331c8c71 4y ago
    > Given this knowledge, the realistic way to improve human cognition would be widely available (perhaps state-sponsored) voluntary embryo selection[2] for intelligence. Embryo selection via PGS is already being applied[3][4][5] as an optional procedure in IVF, so there is no technical risk, the only impediment for now is simply social inertia, politics.... The statement that a nation-wide state-sponsored embryo selection based on polygenic risk scoring for intelligence carries no risk is patently false. Suggesting that the only impediment is "social inertia" and "politics" is intentional misinformation. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00787-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00787-z

by axg11 4y ago

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

Perhaps we need a few gene edits to improve human cognition, maybe ML could help identify those.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
331c8c71 4y ago
ML methods and statistics are routinely used in genomics research. Luckily, the experimentation with the human genome is largely forbidden. The consequences of unbridled changes in genetic sequences include truly disastrous scenarios. I thought COVID would be a clear illustration that everyone gets but apparently this is not the case.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  >Luckily, the experimentation with the human genome is largely forbidden. That taboo will certainly never be broken!
  - 331c8c71 4y ago
    Let's start doing irresponsible things because we assume "the bad guys" will be doing them anyway?
  - 331c8c71 4y ago
    On a more constructive note, I think non-germline targeted gene editing is OK-ish if 1) the goal is to cure or alleviate some really serious diseases, 2) the mechanism of the disease and the prospective treatment are widely believed to be well understood. Stepping out to do experimental genome changes based on outputs from some black-box "AI" is a recipe for a disaster if you ask me. Especially so if the goal is to find "enhancements" for perfectly normal human beings.
- ajuc 4y ago
  > Luckily, the experimentation with the human genome is largely forbidden. That just means singularity starts in some isolated dictatorship.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  I find the ban on experimentation with the human genome rather hypocritical. We already produce and consume a vast array of synthetic chemicals that have effects on our genome. We also expose ourselves to higher than normal levels of radiation for a variety of reasons ranging from medical treatment and diagnosis to air travel. We do try to mitigate these sources of mutation but we don't ban them. I don't think genetic experimentation on human cell lines should be completely unregulated but I also don't think it should be completely banned. We're going to have to do it at some point if we want to eliminate hereditary disease or go even further and prevent a lot of the misery caused by our blind evolutionary search history.
- krageon 4y ago
  COVID doesn't illustrate anything about human experimentation, because it has nothing to do with it.
  - 331c8c71 4y ago
    Given the state of the science the humanity is not able to foresee the consequences of deliberate genetic changes in existing life forms. Covid just illustrates that such changes can have disastrous consequences independent of what triggered them.
    - 331c8c71 4y ago
      Not all changes are equal. One thing is to, say, patch a known disease-causing mutation (being sure no other changes take place). Inserting a new sequence or patching an existing sequence in a way not seen before is clearly different. Another important dimension is whether the introduced changes are heritable and would be passed to offsprings.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  I agree. We really desperately need to have experimental research in improving humanities genes. The next disease might not be so weak as COVID and could wipe almost everyone out.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Gene editing doesn't seem likely to make you immune to all diseases. They get to evolve faster than you.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      Not all diseases most likely. But if we can easily rewrite our genes it's easy to stay ahead. You can easily imagine changing your genes so much there is no path for an existing disease to evolve towards it.
      - astrange 4y ago
        Gene editing doesn't imply being able to rewrite all your own genes either! Isn't mostly about embryos? If you wanted to edit yourself you'd have the problems of reaching all your own cells, mistakes caused by edits, and what the editing process would do if it encountered a mutation in one of your cells, which of course are everywhere.
        rowanG077 4y ago
        Currently, yes, it's only really feasable for embryos. But there are instances of biohackers using gene therapy to do interesting things. For example a guy cured his lactose intolerancy temporarily by gene therapy: https://hackaday.com/2018/02/14/biohacking-lactose-intolerance/ https://hackaday.com/2018/02/14/biohacking-lactose-intoleran.... Basically what I'm trying to say is that you don't need to reach all cells to cure something. You only need to reach the relevant cells.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > I thought COVID would be a clear illustration that everyone gets but apparently this is not the case. I thought my sarcasm was obvious but I suppose that Poe's law is at play here. I was making a bad joke about the two fields using each other to make progress. I am under the impression that as a species we may be reaching the limits of our capacity to solve complex tasks and understand the consequences of our actions.
sinenomine 4y ago
You don't even need modern ML to find a set of candidate SNPs for introduction, GWAS studies of educational attainment[1] give you these SNPs with weights as parameters of the statistical polygenic risk score (PRS/PGS). The problem is, intelligence is a massively polygenic trait which necessitates introduction of many SNPs (into the embryo, mind you, because most of these are likely active only during the early stages of development) to achieve life-changing effect for the person in question. Given this knowledge, the realistic way to improve human cognition would be widely available (perhaps state-sponsored) voluntary embryo selection[2] for intelligence. Embryo selection via PGS is already being applied[3][4][5] as an optional procedure in IVF, so there is no technical risk, the only impediment for now is simply social inertia, politics and lack of large-scale investment. Compared to this possibility cognitive enhancement in healthy adult individuals is a much harder problem: no solution is known as of now. Still, it would be interesting to speculate about realistic procedure of such type. It is unlikely that with sufficient effort we couldn't find some way to toggle[6] the correct genes and developmental processes in an adult, and deliver it via a gene therapy. Or maybe a cell therapy[7] could impart necessary neural progenitors into the mature tissue. Given such problems at the frontiers of the known science, it is natural to think that strong ML systems operating over large -omics datasets could offer human scientists valuable help, but the progress here looks more funding-limited than technology-limited right now. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104 2. https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection 3. https://www.ivfbabble.com/on-the-40th-anniversary-of-the-first-ivf-in-the-usa-the-first-baby-elizabeth-jordan-carr-looks-at-how-science-today-has-produced-a-new-world-first-baby-aurea/ https://www.ivfbabble.com/on-the-40th-anniversary-of-the-fir... 4. https://www.orchidhealth.com/ https://www.orchidhealth.com/ 5. https://www.lifeview.com/ https://www.lifeview.com/ 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2018.00460/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2018.0046... 7. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0808488105 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0808488105
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  > Given this knowledge, the realistic way to improve human cognition would be widely available (perhaps state-sponsored) voluntary embryo selection[2] for intelligence. Embryo selection via PGS is already being applied[3][4][5] as an optional procedure in IVF, so there is no technical risk, the only impediment for now is simply social inertia, politics.... The statement that a nation-wide state-sponsored embryo selection based on polygenic risk scoring for intelligence carries no risk is patently false. Suggesting that the only impediment is "social inertia" and "politics" is intentional misinformation. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00787-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00787-z