4 ms·

You didn't argue for anything! Assuming science had the ability to cleanly edit that variant (which is not the case today), the ethical choice is to remove that

You didn't argue for anything! Assuming science had the ability to cleanly edit that variant (which is not the case today), the ethical choice is to remove that small risk factor. That variant of the COMT gene have a mountain of evidence against it and no evidence showing any benefit whatsoever. The fact that the COMT enzyme is also implicated in estrogen metabolism is not an argument for or against editing out the known defective variant of the COMT gene. There is an argument to be made that we should wait until medical science has the means to cleanly and reliably do a single gene edit but I don't buy the argument that removing a gene variant from the humans genes pool is eugenics therefore it's bad and should be forever forbidden.

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
> That variant of the COMT gene have a mountain of evidence against it and no evidence showing any benefit whatsoever When you look at a single gene, you can see there’s no benefit. But when you look at the gene in contacts of the whole genome, there could certainly be a benefit to having a slower COMT enzyme. For example, in someone with higher homocysteine, this would be an advantage. So you see the problem, you see the gene is bad because of looking at the gene as an individual, but I see it as probably beneficial when I look at the whole genome. And this is why I am against gene editing. Unless you take the gene, you wanna edit in the full context of the whole genome you don’t see the bad effects it might have in the long run. And who is doing that? nobody.