4 ms·

It's an RNA that has no homology to any part of the human genome. What is the danger here?

by jryb 3y ago

astrodust 3y ago
Midgley didn't start out with tetraethyl lead, he had to work up to it!
- jryb 3y ago
  Would you have rejected antibiotics if you were around when they were invented? There's a cost to always being skeptical. RNAi was discovered in 1998 and is very well-studied. There's really no room for surprise here. It's hard to overstate the degree to which biologists can say with certainty that this isn't dangerous to humans in any way. My question wasn't rhetorical - can you think of a way that this could go wrong? Regular small-molecule pesticides do worry me because the risk there genuinely can't be assessed without experiments. RNA is exquisitely predictable in this case. I know the fundamental issue here is that you have no way of assessing my (or any scientist's) competence, honesty or degree of certainty (I'm assuming you don't have a biology background given your non-answer to my question, correct me if I'm wrong). And it's probably safer to lean on the side of caution, right? Just as I prefer organic foods, even though they probably have some small-molecule pesticides on them. I have no idea what those are doing to me, and no way of knowing. But what is a civilization to do when it genuinely solves a problem? Sometimes things do get better.
  - astrodust 3y ago
    I'm not against progress, I'm just against the breathless enthusiasm for the magic of science to solve all problems if only we put our blind faith in the Midgley's of the world who tell us that tetraethyl lead is safe, that chlorofluorocarbons are fine, that there's nothing to worry about! Arguably those things were effectively "safe" in a laboratory setting and when testing at small scales. It's not that I don't understand the technology, it's that these things get applied in ways we don't intend but could anticipate. Maybe today's RNAi solutions are provably safe, but what about some AI concocted future version which, at least according to the opaque AI model, is safe, too, yet, uh-oh, turns out maybe not? Nothing is truly safe without safeguards, and if there's any industry that shows it's singularly uninterested in giving even the slightest of fucks it's the pesticide industry.
    - jryb 3y ago
      > Maybe today's RNAi solutions are provably safe, but what about some AI concocted future version I'm actually finding it hard to imagine a scenario where you would accept any invention of any kind. Try to think of an invention that an AI (whatever you mean by this) couldn't make dangerous. I mean, literally any invention, past, present or even imagined. This is not rhetorical - you name something that seems obviously safe and I'll play the weaponizing AI. > Nothing is truly safe without safeguards What additional safeguards do you want, specifically? Again, not rhetorical. There's absolutely no way this could impact human health, so the only real concern is that it might affect organism other than the pest in question (though they'd need to be relatively closely related, and also eat the crops being sprayed or nearby plants - it can't go far because there are so many things that degrade RNA everywhere). Existing pesticides (that are being used right now) already have this problem and are often very broad-spectrum. > I'm just against the breathless enthusiasm for the magic of science to solve all problems if only we put our blind faith in the Midgley's of the world Not everyone is Thomas Midgley. Some (most?) people actually want to make the world better, and not adopting those improvements also has costs. And I'm here to make this less magical. I don't want you to need faith. I'm literally in this thread to demystify the technology just since it seems like a clear win over every other alternative that I know about, and there's clearly a lot of trepidation based on your responses and the responses of others.

It's an RNA that has no homology to any part of the human genome. What is the danger here?

by jryb 3y ago

It's an RNA that has no homology to any part of the human genome. What is the danger here?

astrodust 3y ago

Midgley didn't start out with tetraethyl lead, he had to work up to it!

jryb 3y ago
Would you have rejected antibiotics if you were around when they were invented? There's a cost to always being skeptical. RNAi was discovered in 1998 and is very well-studied. There's really no room for surprise here. It's hard to overstate the degree to which biologists can say with certainty that this isn't dangerous to humans in any way. My question wasn't rhetorical - can you think of a way that this could go wrong? Regular small-molecule pesticides do worry me because the risk there genuinely can't be assessed without experiments. RNA is exquisitely predictable in this case. I know the fundamental issue here is that you have no way of assessing my (or any scientist's) competence, honesty or degree of certainty (I'm assuming you don't have a biology background given your non-answer to my question, correct me if I'm wrong). And it's probably safer to lean on the side of caution, right? Just as I prefer organic foods, even though they probably have some small-molecule pesticides on them. I have no idea what those are doing to me, and no way of knowing. But what is a civilization to do when it genuinely solves a problem? Sometimes things do get better.
- astrodust 3y ago
  I'm not against progress, I'm just against the breathless enthusiasm for the magic of science to solve all problems if only we put our blind faith in the Midgley's of the world who tell us that tetraethyl lead is safe, that chlorofluorocarbons are fine, that there's nothing to worry about! Arguably those things were effectively "safe" in a laboratory setting and when testing at small scales. It's not that I don't understand the technology, it's that these things get applied in ways we don't intend but could anticipate. Maybe today's RNAi solutions are provably safe, but what about some AI concocted future version which, at least according to the opaque AI model, is safe, too, yet, uh-oh, turns out maybe not? Nothing is truly safe without safeguards, and if there's any industry that shows it's singularly uninterested in giving even the slightest of fucks it's the pesticide industry.
  - jryb 3y ago
    > Maybe today's RNAi solutions are provably safe, but what about some AI concocted future version I'm actually finding it hard to imagine a scenario where you would accept any invention of any kind. Try to think of an invention that an AI (whatever you mean by this) couldn't make dangerous. I mean, literally any invention, past, present or even imagined. This is not rhetorical - you name something that seems obviously safe and I'll play the weaponizing AI. > Nothing is truly safe without safeguards What additional safeguards do you want, specifically? Again, not rhetorical. There's absolutely no way this could impact human health, so the only real concern is that it might affect organism other than the pest in question (though they'd need to be relatively closely related, and also eat the crops being sprayed or nearby plants - it can't go far because there are so many things that degrade RNA everywhere). Existing pesticides (that are being used right now) already have this problem and are often very broad-spectrum. > I'm just against the breathless enthusiasm for the magic of science to solve all problems if only we put our blind faith in the Midgley's of the world Not everyone is Thomas Midgley. Some (most?) people actually want to make the world better, and not adopting those improvements also has costs. And I'm here to make this less magical. I don't want you to need faith. I'm literally in this thread to demystify the technology just since it seems like a clear win over every other alternative that I know about, and there's clearly a lot of trepidation based on your responses and the responses of others.