6 ms·

I suppose a downside (depending on your perspective) of this is that it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect. That's

by Teever 1y ago

I suppose a downside (depending on your perspective) of this is that it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect. That's good if your goals are to detect genetic modification which may be considered cheating in competitive sports. That's bad if your goals are to detect genetically modified people and discriminate against them. I see a near future where the kind of people who loathe things like vaccines and genuinely believe that vaccines can spread illness to the non-vaccinated feel the same way about other things like genetic modification and use legal mechanisms to discriminate and persecute people who are genetically modified.

ale42 1y ago
> it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect. I'm not totally sure. If I understand it correctly, the mRNA contains pseudouridine, and it makes the protein that will edit the DNA. The edited DNA should look like a normal one.
- Teever 1y ago
  Ah. That makes sense. My mistake.
LawrenceKerr 1y ago
If you're going to make the comparison with vaccines, and if history is any indication, the more realistic worry would be the other way around (since that's where the money is): that genetic modifications will be mandated, and that those who object will be discriminated against. [And no, I am not anti-vax, nor anti-gene-editing.]
- khazhoux 1y ago
  “What do you mean you haven’t modified your chromosome 7 CFTR gene? And you’re planning to have children???”
  - kulahan 1y ago
    It wouldn’t be crazy if I teleported 50 years in the future and heard someone tell me that not doing this is akin to child abuse. Obviously all suffering is relative, etc. etc., but it’s just interesting to imagine a world where the societal pressure to make a perfect child is high.
  - _whiteCaps_ 1y ago
    I don't know anything about gene editing, but my grandmother was a carrier of the BRCA mutation. It would have saved a lot of heartbreak in my family if that could have been detected and repaired. My aunt, mom, and brother (age 4) all died of cancer. I'm just glad that my mom didn't know she had the mutation and passed it on to her child.
sfink 1y ago
Careful with qualifiers there. I genuinely believe that vaccines can spread illness to the non-vaccinated, since it has happened many times and is well-documented. For example, it's why only the inactivated (aka "dead" virus) polio vaccine has been used in the US since 2000. I'm not arguing about whether the risks of the attenuated virus outweigh the benefits. I think the data are very clear there. (Heh -- and I'm sure the vast majority of people will agree with that statement, even if they disagree on what the clear answer is....) It's just that one shouldn't mock a belief without including the necessary qualifiers, as otherwise you're setting up an argument that can be invalidated by being shown to be factually incorrect. As for genetic modification of humans, IMO there are a lot of very good reasons to be wary, most of them social. Fatal hereditary conditions are obviously an easy call. What about autism (not saying there's a genetic link there to use, just a what if)? Or other neurodivergence? Like being a troublemaker in class? Or voting for the party that doesn't control the medical incentive structure? Heck, let's stick with the fatal hereditary conditions, and say the editing does not affect germ cells. Is it ok if the human race gradually becomes dependent on gene editing to produce viable offspring? Or let's say it does extend to germ cells. The population with resources becomes genetically superior (eg in the sense of natural lifespan and lower medical costs) to those without, creating a solid scientific rationale for eugenics. Think of it as redlining carved into our blood. I don't think discrimination against the genetically modified is the only potential problem here. As humans, we'll deal with these problems the way we've dealt with everything else transformational. Namely: very, very badly.
- catigula 1y ago
  I mean, I feel like autism is a terrible example here, it's not just some quirky personality trait, it's a reality people live with that runs the gamut from difficult to completely debilitating. Even the more mild forms of autism cause extreme difficulty in many aspects of life. If that was curable or preventable, that'd be great. If it turns out some pathogen or chemical made me autistic, regardless of whether or not I could be cured as an adult, I'd have certainly preferred to live the reality where I had been as a child.
  - sfink 1y ago
emseetech 1y ago
I'm less interested in detecting genetic modification for the purposes of discrimination than making sure it's available to everyone. Assuming requisite safety of course.
- ddq 1y ago
  I'm more concerned about the possible negative unintended consequences of making it available to everyone first. Genetic modification is well-explored Pandora's Box in science fiction and present humanity seems so ill-equipped in collective philosophy and reason to handle a paradigm shift of that magnitude.
jillyboel 1y ago
Don't be silly, the rich will want their babies to be perfect so gene editing will be legal and considered OK.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Can you explain why this is a bad thing, or is it just “”the rich” bad”?
  - jhickok 1y ago
    Not OP, but presumably it's because it could cement a permanent divide between classes. We still have quite a bit of upward mobility in the US, but health is a tremendous predictor of future outcomes, so gating that to the rich is dangerous to the stability of society in that way.
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      This seems like more of an issue with accessibility of the treatment than the treatment itself If we could make most children smart, productive, ambitious, courteous, civil, conscientious, honorable, strong... the value to society is probably high enough to justify covering it for almost anyone.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - boroboro4 1y ago
        The society already can invest a lot (through public education) to “make most children smart, productive, ambitious …”. Somehow society (or indeed parts of it) decided to use it as a tool of further segregation rather than overall prosperity. I’m afraid same might apply to this.
        _bin_ 1y ago
        We "invest" more than almost anyone. 38% higher than the OECD average. I don't find discussions about throwing more money at the problem to be constructive so much as a way to ignore other issues at play. I don't really see how this affects e.g. what I do for my children. I will absolutely be turning them into the closest to superhuman the current state of treatments lets me, traveling internationally if I need to. If someone else decides to segregate access to treatment, that is a separate, wrong act that will not hold me back from giving my children every advantage possible. (Yes, I understand this is a positional arms race, but 1. that doesn't change the individually-optimal outcome, and 2. that doesn't change that society net benefits from it.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
junon 1y ago
RNA is a byproduct, not a "source of truth" in technical terms. The DNA is. DNA is converted to RNA and then executed and then discarded, per my understanding. The DNA is still AGCT.

by Teever 1y ago

ale42 1y ago

> it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect. I'm not totally sure. If I understand it correctly, the mRNA contains pseudouridine, and it makes the protein that will edit the DNA. The edited DNA should look like a normal one.

Teever 1y ago
Ah. That makes sense. My mistake.

LawrenceKerr 1y ago

If you're going to make the comparison with vaccines, and if history is any indication, the more realistic worry would be the other way around (since that's where the money is): that genetic modifications will be mandated, and that those who object will be discriminated against. [And no, I am not anti-vax, nor anti-gene-editing.]

khazhoux 1y ago
“What do you mean you haven’t modified your chromosome 7 CFTR gene? And you’re planning to have children???”
- kulahan 1y ago
  It wouldn’t be crazy if I teleported 50 years in the future and heard someone tell me that not doing this is akin to child abuse. Obviously all suffering is relative, etc. etc., but it’s just interesting to imagine a world where the societal pressure to make a perfect child is high.
- _whiteCaps_ 1y ago
  I don't know anything about gene editing, but my grandmother was a carrier of the BRCA mutation. It would have saved a lot of heartbreak in my family if that could have been detected and repaired. My aunt, mom, and brother (age 4) all died of cancer. I'm just glad that my mom didn't know she had the mutation and passed it on to her child.

sfink 1y ago

Careful with qualifiers there. I genuinely believe that vaccines can spread illness to the non-vaccinated, since it has happened many times and is well-documented. For example, it's why only the inactivated (aka "dead" virus) polio vaccine has been used in the US since 2000. I'm not arguing about whether the risks of the attenuated virus outweigh the benefits. I think the data are very clear there. (Heh -- and I'm sure the vast majority of people will agree with that statement, even if they disagree on what the clear answer is....) It's just that one shouldn't mock a belief without including the necessary qualifiers, as otherwise you're setting up an argument that can be invalidated by being shown to be factually incorrect. As for genetic modification of humans, IMO there are a lot of very good reasons to be wary, most of them social. Fatal hereditary conditions are obviously an easy call. What about autism (not saying there's a genetic link there to use, just a what if)? Or other neurodivergence? Like being a troublemaker in class? Or voting for the party that doesn't control the medical incentive structure? Heck, let's stick with the fatal hereditary conditions, and say the editing does not affect germ cells. Is it ok if the human race gradually becomes dependent on gene editing to produce viable offspring? Or let's say it does extend to germ cells. The population with resources becomes genetically superior (eg in the sense of natural lifespan and lower medical costs) to those without, creating a solid scientific rationale for eugenics. Think of it as redlining carved into our blood. I don't think discrimination against the genetically modified is the only potential problem here. As humans, we'll deal with these problems the way we've dealt with everything else transformational. Namely: very, very badly.

catigula 1y ago
I mean, I feel like autism is a terrible example here, it's not just some quirky personality trait, it's a reality people live with that runs the gamut from difficult to completely debilitating. Even the more mild forms of autism cause extreme difficulty in many aspects of life. If that was curable or preventable, that'd be great. If it turns out some pathogen or chemical made me autistic, regardless of whether or not I could be cured as an adult, I'd have certainly preferred to live the reality where I had been as a child.
- sfink 1y ago

emseetech 1y ago

I'm less interested in detecting genetic modification for the purposes of discrimination than making sure it's available to everyone. Assuming requisite safety of course.

ddq 1y ago
I'm more concerned about the possible negative unintended consequences of making it available to everyone first. Genetic modification is well-explored Pandora's Box in science fiction and present humanity seems so ill-equipped in collective philosophy and reason to handle a paradigm shift of that magnitude.

jillyboel 1y ago

Don't be silly, the rich will want their babies to be perfect so gene editing will be legal and considered OK.

_bin_ 1y ago
Can you explain why this is a bad thing, or is it just “”the rich” bad”?
- jhickok 1y ago
  Not OP, but presumably it's because it could cement a permanent divide between classes. We still have quite a bit of upward mobility in the US, but health is a tremendous predictor of future outcomes, so gating that to the rich is dangerous to the stability of society in that way.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    This seems like more of an issue with accessibility of the treatment than the treatment itself If we could make most children smart, productive, ambitious, courteous, civil, conscientious, honorable, strong... the value to society is probably high enough to justify covering it for almost anyone.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - boroboro4 1y ago
      The society already can invest a lot (through public education) to “make most children smart, productive, ambitious …”. Somehow society (or indeed parts of it) decided to use it as a tool of further segregation rather than overall prosperity. I’m afraid same might apply to this.
      - _bin_ 1y ago
        We "invest" more than almost anyone. 38% higher than the OECD average. I don't find discussions about throwing more money at the problem to be constructive so much as a way to ignore other issues at play. I don't really see how this affects e.g. what I do for my children. I will absolutely be turning them into the closest to superhuman the current state of treatments lets me, traveling internationally if I need to. If someone else decides to segregate access to treatment, that is a separate, wrong act that will not hold me back from giving my children every advantage possible. (Yes, I understand this is a positional arms race, but 1. that doesn't change the individually-optimal outcome, and 2. that doesn't change that society net benefits from it.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

junon 1y ago

RNA is a byproduct, not a "source of truth" in technical terms. The DNA is. DNA is converted to RNA and then executed and then discarded, per my understanding. The DNA is still AGCT.