5 ms·

This will never go to human trial.

by wileydragonfly 1y ago

shadowgovt 1y ago
Probably not this specific method, no. Even the paper abstract notes that this is stepping-stone research.
donsupreme 1y ago
They definitely will in China or Russia
heavyset_go 1y ago
Willing to bet money that it will, there's a ton of investment right now in what I'd call blatant eugenics. There are companies right now making bank on embryo selection based on genetics, the next step is modifying genes instead of rolling a crap shoot and hoping to get what they want. Funnily enough, such companies are funded by and led by some HN subcultures' favorite people, I would know because I was recruited by one of them who went out of their way to not mention that their marketing material to parents says they intend to let parents pick embryos based on perceived intelligence based on genetics. Tldr: there are monied parties that want this and they literally cite Gattaca as their inspiration
- Marciplan 1y ago
  prediction markets are your friend
- 123yawaworht456 1y ago
  out of curiosity, what's your stance on abortion? :^)
  - wileydragonfly 1y ago
    Personally? Not a fan. But also not a fan of enforcing my opinion on others.
- chrisweekly 1y ago
  "went out of their way to not mention" This construct is a bit of a head-scratcher that takes away from the rest of your comment; "failed to mention" would've done the trick. As for Gattaca as a source of inspiration for future parents... yikes.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    When you're selling customers a big ticket item like that with one side of your mouth, and are failing to mention it to prospective hires, you have to go out of your way to dance around it. They emphasized certain genetic selections that sound good, but failed to mention that the leadership, investors, marketing and customers are actually really concerned with this one specific trait that sounds bad, that's selective omission.
- toast0 1y ago
  It'a already possible to test for trisomy in a fetus. There's a newish method (NIPT) that does analysis on maternal blood which has very low risk (it's named non-invasive, but drawing blood is routine but not risk free). Having a treatment, if it's feasible, might be more (or less) paletable than ending the pregnancy when diagnostics indicate likely trisomy.
  - tobinfricke 1y ago
    NIPT is non-invasive compared to amniocentesis
- renewiltord 1y ago
  IQ polygenic score companies do exist. Just look at the circle around Jonathan Anomaly and you likely will find them all. I know of a couple that are going to go full open this year. You have to be of the right genetic origin because of the source data, but the truth is it's very risky to do embryo editing. It's hard to tell which way things will land. For all we know, gametogenesis may arrive first. And if that happens, then selection will suffice.
  - im3w1l 1y ago
    > You have to be of the right genetic origin because of the source data Can you explain what this means? After thinking it over, the most plausible reading to me is that they think the results will not generalize to other origins than the ones they have data for?
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      You’ve got it right.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Does anybody believe IQ/EA PGS companies are a serious thing?
    - heavyset_go 1y ago
      They exist[1] and take themselves seriously even if the rest of the world doesn't. I met with Hsu before I realized who he was or what he was doing. A choice quote[2]: > Testing embryos, however, is hugely controversial, because of both the scientific limitations of such polygenic scores and the prospect of designer babies. Undeterred, a company called Genomic Prediction last year began to offer to test cells plucked from an IVF embryo for millions of DNA markers to produce risk scores for some common diseases and for "intellectual disability" or low IQ. Co-founder Stephen Hsu, a physicist at Michigan State University in East Lansing who has branched into genomics, says that for now, the company is not returning genetic scores predicting high IQ because "society is not ready for it." As for motivation: > In July 2012, Michigan State University named him vice president for research and graduate studies. At the time, Inside Higher Ed and Lansing State Journal described the appointment as controversial, due to Hsu's comments endorsing research into using genetic modification to increase human intelligence, and his blog posts describing human race categorization as biologically valid. And Hsu's cofounder[3]: > Laurent Tellier, the founder of startup Genomic Predictions, used the 1997 movie “Gattaca” as inspiration for a DNA screening method that scores embryos with risk estimates for diabetes, heart disease, and other illnesses – and gives a report card on their predicted height and intelligence. There's also Thiel investments in some people with questionable histories[4] when it comes to IQ PGS. If you look at who is pushing for this, a lot of them are LessWrong and IDW adjacent, and they're selling to their audiences who believe strongly in things like IQ, genetic determinism and race. They take it very seriously. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/what-is-genomic-prediction-and-can-embryos-really-be-screened-for-iq https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/what-is-geno... [2] https://www.science.org/content/article/screening-embryos-iq-and-other-complex-traits-premature-study-concludes https://www.science.org/content/article/screening-embryos-iq... [3] https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/genetic-test-aims-to-predict-an-embryos-intelligence-and-health/ https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/genetic-test-aims-to-predict-a... [4] https://undark.org/2023/10/27/consumer-genetic-testing-science/ https://undark.org/2023/10/27/consumer-genetic-testing-scien...
- nice_byte 1y ago
  preventing down syndrome is "eugenics"?
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    Technically no, but only in the technical sense that makes the idea a little useless. Technically, 99% of Down's cases aren't hereditary (it's a spontaneous mitotic change), so you don't "improve the gene pool" by excluding it; as far as we know, basically anybody can have a kid with Down's syndrome if the mitotic dice come up snake eyes. (But in the sense most people understand the term? Yes.)
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    Seems close enough to look like it if you squint a little. As it's more of a genetic error than an inerited trait, maybe not quite the same.
  - vtbassmatt 1y ago
    Yes.
  - throwaway342334 1y ago
    Yes, modifying genetics to select for "desirable" traits and remove "undesirable" ones is essentially modern liberal eugenics. Just because something is labeled "eugenics" doesn’t automatically make it bad or good—outcomes depend on how ideas are applied. Historically, eugenics didn’t have genetic tools, so efforts focused on social policies, like promoting abortion or family planning, to influence who could reproduce.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    Genetic conditions are how they make it palatable, meanwhile they're telling race realist parents that selecting for/modifying X, Y, and Z genes will let them raise ubermensch.

This will never go to human trial.

shadowgovt 1y ago

Probably not this specific method, no. Even the paper abstract notes that this is stepping-stone research.

donsupreme 1y ago

They definitely will in China or Russia

heavyset_go 1y ago

Willing to bet money that it will, there's a ton of investment right now in what I'd call blatant eugenics. There are companies right now making bank on embryo selection based on genetics, the next step is modifying genes instead of rolling a crap shoot and hoping to get what they want. Funnily enough, such companies are funded by and led by some HN subcultures' favorite people, I would know because I was recruited by one of them who went out of their way to not mention that their marketing material to parents says they intend to let parents pick embryos based on perceived intelligence based on genetics. Tldr: there are monied parties that want this and they literally cite Gattaca as their inspiration

Marciplan 1y ago
prediction markets are your friend
123yawaworht456 1y ago
out of curiosity, what's your stance on abortion? :^)
- wileydragonfly 1y ago
  Personally? Not a fan. But also not a fan of enforcing my opinion on others.
chrisweekly 1y ago
"went out of their way to not mention" This construct is a bit of a head-scratcher that takes away from the rest of your comment; "failed to mention" would've done the trick. As for Gattaca as a source of inspiration for future parents... yikes.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  When you're selling customers a big ticket item like that with one side of your mouth, and are failing to mention it to prospective hires, you have to go out of your way to dance around it. They emphasized certain genetic selections that sound good, but failed to mention that the leadership, investors, marketing and customers are actually really concerned with this one specific trait that sounds bad, that's selective omission.
toast0 1y ago
It'a already possible to test for trisomy in a fetus. There's a newish method (NIPT) that does analysis on maternal blood which has very low risk (it's named non-invasive, but drawing blood is routine but not risk free). Having a treatment, if it's feasible, might be more (or less) paletable than ending the pregnancy when diagnostics indicate likely trisomy.
- tobinfricke 1y ago
  NIPT is non-invasive compared to amniocentesis
renewiltord 1y ago
IQ polygenic score companies do exist. Just look at the circle around Jonathan Anomaly and you likely will find them all. I know of a couple that are going to go full open this year. You have to be of the right genetic origin because of the source data, but the truth is it's very risky to do embryo editing. It's hard to tell which way things will land. For all we know, gametogenesis may arrive first. And if that happens, then selection will suffice.
- im3w1l 1y ago
  > You have to be of the right genetic origin because of the source data Can you explain what this means? After thinking it over, the most plausible reading to me is that they think the results will not generalize to other origins than the ones they have data for?
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    You’ve got it right.
- tptacek 1y ago
  Does anybody believe IQ/EA PGS companies are a serious thing?
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    They exist[1] and take themselves seriously even if the rest of the world doesn't. I met with Hsu before I realized who he was or what he was doing. A choice quote[2]: > Testing embryos, however, is hugely controversial, because of both the scientific limitations of such polygenic scores and the prospect of designer babies. Undeterred, a company called Genomic Prediction last year began to offer to test cells plucked from an IVF embryo for millions of DNA markers to produce risk scores for some common diseases and for "intellectual disability" or low IQ. Co-founder Stephen Hsu, a physicist at Michigan State University in East Lansing who has branched into genomics, says that for now, the company is not returning genetic scores predicting high IQ because "society is not ready for it." As for motivation: > In July 2012, Michigan State University named him vice president for research and graduate studies. At the time, Inside Higher Ed and Lansing State Journal described the appointment as controversial, due to Hsu's comments endorsing research into using genetic modification to increase human intelligence, and his blog posts describing human race categorization as biologically valid. And Hsu's cofounder[3]: > Laurent Tellier, the founder of startup Genomic Predictions, used the 1997 movie “Gattaca” as inspiration for a DNA screening method that scores embryos with risk estimates for diabetes, heart disease, and other illnesses – and gives a report card on their predicted height and intelligence. There's also Thiel investments in some people with questionable histories[4] when it comes to IQ PGS. If you look at who is pushing for this, a lot of them are LessWrong and IDW adjacent, and they're selling to their audiences who believe strongly in things like IQ, genetic determinism and race. They take it very seriously. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/what-is-genomic-prediction-and-can-embryos-really-be-screened-for-iq https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/what-is-geno... [2] https://www.science.org/content/article/screening-embryos-iq-and-other-complex-traits-premature-study-concludes https://www.science.org/content/article/screening-embryos-iq... [3] https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/genetic-test-aims-to-predict-an-embryos-intelligence-and-health/ https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/genetic-test-aims-to-predict-a... [4] https://undark.org/2023/10/27/consumer-genetic-testing-science/ https://undark.org/2023/10/27/consumer-genetic-testing-scien...
nice_byte 1y ago
preventing down syndrome is "eugenics"?
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  Technically no, but only in the technical sense that makes the idea a little useless. Technically, 99% of Down's cases aren't hereditary (it's a spontaneous mitotic change), so you don't "improve the gene pool" by excluding it; as far as we know, basically anybody can have a kid with Down's syndrome if the mitotic dice come up snake eyes. (But in the sense most people understand the term? Yes.)
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Seems close enough to look like it if you squint a little. As it's more of a genetic error than an inerited trait, maybe not quite the same.
- vtbassmatt 1y ago
  Yes.
- throwaway342334 1y ago
  Yes, modifying genetics to select for "desirable" traits and remove "undesirable" ones is essentially modern liberal eugenics. Just because something is labeled "eugenics" doesn’t automatically make it bad or good—outcomes depend on how ideas are applied. Historically, eugenics didn’t have genetic tools, so efforts focused on social policies, like promoting abortion or family planning, to influence who could reproduce.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  Genetic conditions are how they make it palatable, meanwhile they're telling race realist parents that selecting for/modifying X, Y, and Z genes will let them raise ubermensch.