4 ms·

I'm not sure how well incentivized these organizations are to correctly use the GWAS data vs just appear to do something and then take your money. Assortive ma

by Vecr 2y ago

I'm not sure how well incentivized these organizations are to correctly use the GWAS data vs just appear to do something and then take your money. Assortive mating and then maybe screening for stuff like Tay-Sachs and autism would for sure be cheaper (assuming there's not backlash against those screenings too...)

squigz 2y ago
There absolutely is backlash against screening for autism, as absurd as that is.
- chownie 2y ago
  It's not absurd, once you remember that autistic people are human beings with feelings. Edit: Sort of shocked that I am having to spell this out to all the "but embryos..." posters, but the backlash is coming from autistic human people with feelings. I was not insinuating some anti abortion sentiment.
  - Vecr 2y ago
    Yes, but practically speaking if you constrain to the set of people who would go through with assortive mating in today's society, AND are high IQ (and don't think it's a fluke, i.e. they think it's heritable), AND have no relatives that are autistic, AND aren't related to certain Jewish populations, how many candidates are you going to have left? And I'm not talking about diagnosed autism either, e.g. do you have/did you have a weird uncle? Edit: uh, the Jewish part's for Tay-Sachs and some other traits, that should have been obvious from the "certain Jewish populations" part.
  - weregiraffe 2y ago
    Sure, but embryos are not.
  - 123yawaworht456 2y ago
    so are people with any other mental or physical abnormalities. embryos and fetuses are not people, however - they're just bundles of cells ;) policing human reproduction at embryo stage is absurd in the world where abortion is legal and acceptable for any reason or no reason at all.
  - squigz 2y ago
    Well I'm autistic myself, so...
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    I am a diabetic. It doesn't make me a worse person, but it does make my life more difficult. If I had the ability to screen for diabetes for my child, I would do so. Because the fewer things that make my child's life harder, the better. Same thing.
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      Being a woman is objectively harder in America than being a man is. Would you screen for that?
      - Vecr 2y ago
        That's disputable, but it would be a really bad idea for obvious reasons either way. Think the incel problem is bad now?
      - RHSeeger 2y ago
        You're making an argument just to make an argument. Being a woman has both positives and negatives; there's tradeoffs. The same is not true of being a diabetic. My guess would be that most people believe there are very few benefits to being autistic to offset the negatives.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  The danish eugenicized nearly 100% of downs folks with these methods (which state requires testing wise).
- science4sail 2y ago
  I wonder if it's similar to the deaf community's outcry against cochlear implants? People love their subcultures; seeing new medical technology wipe out their culture probably feels like genocide[0] to them (even if the majority population perceives it as a good thing). [0] One of the UN-recognized forms is "preventing births within a population"
  - AAAAaccountAAAA 2y ago
    That and the fact that in many cases, the symptoms are very mild, and the problem could be reasonably seen to actually lie in the society's sometimes really far-reaching demands for homogenity. And extreme homogenity is bad for innovation. It might very well be that a double-digit percentage of the population has a some sort of neurodevelopmental disorder[1], and the extermination of such a lot of unborn people is going to be a considerable burden for industrialized countries already struggling with low birthrates, and being totally unprecented, may lead into all kinds of unintended consequences. 1) https://dceg.cancer.gov/about/diversity-inclusion/inclusivity-minute/2022/neurodiversity https://dceg.cancer.gov/about/diversity-inclusion/inclusivit...
    - Vecr 2y ago
      No it's not, even with only 4 embryos to select you'd generally expect at least one to be fine.
- ls612 2y ago
  What business is it of the government what parents choose to screen for? Even more pointedly, how can one support elective abortion and not support genetic screening for whatever the parents want to screen for?
  - tzs 2y ago
    Note: The following is for a world where genetic screen is cheap and can screen for basically anything that is influenced by genetics. That's way more than we can do now, so if your question is about whether it should be the government's business now then never mind. :-) It's not clear that it makes sense to compare abortion policy and genetic screening policy. People consider abortion to control the number of children they produce or the timing of their production of children, whereas they would use genetic screening to control the types of children they produce. As for why the government might have an interest in what people can screen for, consider what happens if people start screening for aesthetic reasons. That could be strongly influence by fashion. You could get a generation where most children were selected for some specific body properties because that's what some big star had. Often bodily features favored by fashion aren't actually good for the person who has them. For example suppose there we have a few years where extremely thin people became the fashion rage, and people who want children during that time start screening for babies that will be prone to anorexia or other eating disorders. I can see the government having a legitimate interest in shutting that down.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > As for why the government might have an interest in what people can screen for, consider what happens if people start screening for aesthetic reasons. That could be strongly influence by fashion. I don't think the government should have much say in people's fashion or aesthetic choices either. I'm sure that eventually designer babies will be a thing and when it happens parents will follow fads, but fads will come and go. A generation or two of more skinny people isn't going to be a problem as long as those people can continue to reproduce and odds are good that we're going to get even better at helping people have children when it's hard for them too. The vast majority of parents will always favor having healthy and beautiful children no matter how fashionable sickly looking people becomes.
lacker 2y ago
Ideally the data would just be openly shared with the parents, and they could see the provided analysis, do a separate analysis themselves, use open source tools, or have a separate company do the analysis. Then it's just up to the parents to select the DNA they want.

by Vecr 2y ago

squigz 2y ago

There absolutely is backlash against screening for autism, as absurd as that is.

chownie 2y ago
It's not absurd, once you remember that autistic people are human beings with feelings. Edit: Sort of shocked that I am having to spell this out to all the "but embryos..." posters, but the backlash is coming from autistic human people with feelings. I was not insinuating some anti abortion sentiment.
- Vecr 2y ago
  Yes, but practically speaking if you constrain to the set of people who would go through with assortive mating in today's society, AND are high IQ (and don't think it's a fluke, i.e. they think it's heritable), AND have no relatives that are autistic, AND aren't related to certain Jewish populations, how many candidates are you going to have left? And I'm not talking about diagnosed autism either, e.g. do you have/did you have a weird uncle? Edit: uh, the Jewish part's for Tay-Sachs and some other traits, that should have been obvious from the "certain Jewish populations" part.
- weregiraffe 2y ago
  Sure, but embryos are not.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  so are people with any other mental or physical abnormalities. embryos and fetuses are not people, however - they're just bundles of cells ;) policing human reproduction at embryo stage is absurd in the world where abortion is legal and acceptable for any reason or no reason at all.
- squigz 2y ago
  Well I'm autistic myself, so...
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  I am a diabetic. It doesn't make me a worse person, but it does make my life more difficult. If I had the ability to screen for diabetes for my child, I would do so. Because the fewer things that make my child's life harder, the better. Same thing.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    Being a woman is objectively harder in America than being a man is. Would you screen for that?
    - Vecr 2y ago
      That's disputable, but it would be a really bad idea for obvious reasons either way. Think the incel problem is bad now?
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      You're making an argument just to make an argument. Being a woman has both positives and negatives; there's tradeoffs. The same is not true of being a diabetic. My guess would be that most people believe there are very few benefits to being autistic to offset the negatives.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
The danish eugenicized nearly 100% of downs folks with these methods (which state requires testing wise).
science4sail 2y ago
I wonder if it's similar to the deaf community's outcry against cochlear implants? People love their subcultures; seeing new medical technology wipe out their culture probably feels like genocide[0] to them (even if the majority population perceives it as a good thing). [0] One of the UN-recognized forms is "preventing births within a population"
- AAAAaccountAAAA 2y ago
  That and the fact that in many cases, the symptoms are very mild, and the problem could be reasonably seen to actually lie in the society's sometimes really far-reaching demands for homogenity. And extreme homogenity is bad for innovation. It might very well be that a double-digit percentage of the population has a some sort of neurodevelopmental disorder[1], and the extermination of such a lot of unborn people is going to be a considerable burden for industrialized countries already struggling with low birthrates, and being totally unprecented, may lead into all kinds of unintended consequences. 1) https://dceg.cancer.gov/about/diversity-inclusion/inclusivity-minute/2022/neurodiversity https://dceg.cancer.gov/about/diversity-inclusion/inclusivit...
  - Vecr 2y ago
    No it's not, even with only 4 embryos to select you'd generally expect at least one to be fine.
ls612 2y ago
What business is it of the government what parents choose to screen for? Even more pointedly, how can one support elective abortion and not support genetic screening for whatever the parents want to screen for?
- tzs 2y ago
  Note: The following is for a world where genetic screen is cheap and can screen for basically anything that is influenced by genetics. That's way more than we can do now, so if your question is about whether it should be the government's business now then never mind. :-) It's not clear that it makes sense to compare abortion policy and genetic screening policy. People consider abortion to control the number of children they produce or the timing of their production of children, whereas they would use genetic screening to control the types of children they produce. As for why the government might have an interest in what people can screen for, consider what happens if people start screening for aesthetic reasons. That could be strongly influence by fashion. You could get a generation where most children were selected for some specific body properties because that's what some big star had. Often bodily features favored by fashion aren't actually good for the person who has them. For example suppose there we have a few years where extremely thin people became the fashion rage, and people who want children during that time start screening for babies that will be prone to anorexia or other eating disorders. I can see the government having a legitimate interest in shutting that down.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > As for why the government might have an interest in what people can screen for, consider what happens if people start screening for aesthetic reasons. That could be strongly influence by fashion. I don't think the government should have much say in people's fashion or aesthetic choices either. I'm sure that eventually designer babies will be a thing and when it happens parents will follow fads, but fads will come and go. A generation or two of more skinny people isn't going to be a problem as long as those people can continue to reproduce and odds are good that we're going to get even better at helping people have children when it's hard for them too. The vast majority of parents will always favor having healthy and beautiful children no matter how fashionable sickly looking people becomes.

lacker 2y ago

Ideally the data would just be openly shared with the parents, and they could see the provided analysis, do a separate analysis themselves, use open source tools, or have a separate company do the analysis. Then it's just up to the parents to select the DNA they want.