10 ms·
>I'm squeamish about genetic research And I'm sad about millions upon millions of mostly well-meaning people, who died of ultimately preventable causes - if on
by sinenomine 4y ago
>I'm squeamish about genetic research
And I'm sad about millions upon millions of mostly well-meaning people, who died of ultimately preventable causes - if only we could push the research from the lab to clinic faster.
Everybody is prone to ageing, and very soon it will be our turn.
- lettergram 4y agoThe challenge with genetics research is it could also result in the death of every human on the planet. It’s an amazing power for good and bad.
- sinenomine 4y agoYou don't need to ban, say, clinical trials of gene therapy (especially with inert lipid nanoparticle carriers which do not replicate), to ban a quite narrow and not really clinically useful subfield called "gain of function research". Why can't our legal system deter the obvious high-level publicly visible perpetrators of the recent "gain-of-function" fiasco is really some food for thought.
- shadowgovt 4y agoAs a general rule, we don't arrest people for things that aren't illegal. ... Unless by "deter" you just meant "make it illegal," in which case, agreed.
- lettergram 4y agoIt’s more than broad weaponization of viruses that are a danger though. Take for instance what we’re doing with plants. We make designer plants that provide food, and are immune from particular pesticides. We then spray the fields and all the other plants and bugs die (besides the immune plants). What happens when it turns out some genetic inserts in the corn creates something like mad cow disease (but in humans) 3-5 years later? Turns out some protein the corn produced we thought was harmless caused massive issues. Genetics has massive implications even if well meaning. I think the ability to eliminate disease is massively powerful and a net good. That said, I’m concerned about the long term tail end risks of such work. I don’t think you can ban it, because someone will do the work. And those that do the work will get a competitive advantage (eventually letting them “win”). I think it’s about mitigating risks by reducing / limiting mass adoption of genetic based technology without a very long window of analysis.
- filoeleven 4y ago> I think the ability to eliminate disease is massively powerful and a net good. One real-world example of this is genetically modifying the American Chestnut by splicing in genes of the Japanese Chestnut, which is resistant to the blight since it co-evolved with it. The resistance comes from how Japanese Chestnut trees respond to oxalis acid by walling it off, preventing the fungus from spreading. > That said, I’m concerned about the long term tail end risks of such work. One bleak science fiction novel that takes place in this kind of future, specifically an amped-up version of the corporate GMO food crop meddling you referenced, is The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi.
- Jenda_ 4y ago> What happens when it turns out some genetic inserts in the corn creates something like mad cow disease (but in humans) 3-5 years later? Turns out some protein the corn produced we thought was harmless caused massive issues. Do you require similar safeguards with plants created by "classic" genetic engineering and random mutations occurring all the time? Such methods usually involve making tons of random mutations, which nobody tests for anything, until we manage to also get the one that we want. Of course you rarely make a completely new protein by random mutations (different story with naturally evolving viruses), however, current genetic engineering of plants and animals for food is AFAIK not about completely new proteins too -- it's about turning off existing pathways, or about transferring existing proteins from one species to another.
- BurningFrog 4y agoHow could genetics research kill all humans? Asking for a friend.
- PicassoCTs 4y agoEh, life forms can have a exponential growth curve, so virologist and bacterial genetic research can easily kill a large part of the population. But then we are well on the way for that, so who cares?
- BurningFrog 4y agoDeveloping a virus that kills a certain ethnic group seems like it could be possible.
- shadowgovt 4y agoProbably not. Genetics isn't nearly as clean a people imagine it to be. Much easier to target one individual (and their whole host of genetic factors) than to target one genetic factor that can be associated with an ethnic group and pray that it doesn't either also express itself in an undiscovered way in other ethnic groups or have knock-on effects or the potential to mutate. We aren't as genetically different as people imagine, and this sort of approach would be absolutely playing with fire.
- PicassoCTs 4y agoOne could even craft a virus that is targeting a certain behavioral anomaly like sociopathy, if its genetically clearly identify-able. All one would need is a proof-able potent carrier virus and once could reign in the destructive potential of humanity. "No more bad boy behavior, or the bad boys vanish from the surface of the earth." behavioral deterrence via a biologic weapon. What a fascinating nash equilibrium, the unsocial monsters, forced to be social, including applying gentle pressure, so they do not become history like there victims of the past. What a concept.. Then it mutates and kills us all..
- 4y ago
- epgui 4y agoThat’s wildly over-apocalyptic for such a general statement. (biochemist)
- hoseja 4y agoNonono that would be lovely, finally some evolutionary pressure. What's the real threat is breeding obligately obedient citizenry and immortal leaders. Which is the first thing practical genetic engineering will probably be used for.
- lettergram 4y ago“Will probably” Has
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- balex 4y agoI find the notion of stopping aging, and by proxy "natural death", a bad one. I welcome our turn.
- krageon 4y agoThis is suicidal thinking - you essentially want to die, but you wish it on some future you (certainly not the you of today, whose turn it probably isn't yet). I cannot see a world in which this could be deemed healthy.
- rpwverheij 4y agoInstead you want to avoid/deny eventual natural death for ever? Fight it? To be at peace with the process of aging and the thought of eventually dying is not the same as suicidal thinking. > I cannot see a world in which this could be deemed healthy. I cannot see a world in which fighting and avoiding natural death can take healthy forms. All matter decays. All things recycle. We have material bodies, hence we are part of the cycle of life. The old giving way to the new is a necessity for growth & evolution. I would even say it's beautiful. And healthy.
- krageon 4y agoI think we will never agree. I see a death cult, you see acceptance of the natural order of things. It is a fundamental difference in viewpoint.