4 ms·

100% — editing is trivial to argue against. Embryonic selection is much more difficult to mount clear, decisive arguments against. Let's make sure we don't end

100% — editing is trivial to argue against. Embryonic selection is much more difficult to mount clear, decisive arguments against. Let's make sure we don't end up with net skewed sex selection, and not screw up gene/phenotype correlation too badly when selecting. Random selection of an embryo without a specific gene defect seems ultra benign though. I know edited humans will exist at some point, but I hope that easier availability of selective technologies will act as a pressure relief valve for parents that are potential customers / commercial backers of embryonic editing.

Balgair 11mo ago
I guess it depends on what you mean by edited. Like, there are trials underway right now for organ specific editing for genetic diseases. In that, they just do some CRIPSR injection in the liver or the affected organ to regain lost function. The trick is what we decide 'lost function' means. So, for issues with lost enzymatic function or the like, sure, yeah, that's totally a disease, no worries. But what about Vitamin-C function? We could easily edit someone to produce that again, I mean, most mammals have this function. And, yadda yadda yadda, the slippery slope slips, and you get people that have gills or some such nonsense. I think most people's worry is in germ-line editing, where you 'rob' children of choices. Look, this is ethically difficult stuff. We don't have a lot of history to draw on here, and the actual implementation is technically difficult to do and to understand for most people (that would include these children, they would not really know what was done to them). Add in economic fears and issues with progeny really being your progeny (oh hey, a A2160F Thermo-Fisher gene editor is actually my father, when you think about it), and ignore all the Star Trek nonsense. This stuff is terribly fast and terribly unfair and terribly long lasting.

Balgair 11mo ago

I guess it depends on what you mean by edited. Like, there are trials underway right now for organ specific editing for genetic diseases. In that, they just do some CRIPSR injection in the liver or the affected organ to regain lost function. The trick is what we decide 'lost function' means. So, for issues with lost enzymatic function or the like, sure, yeah, that's totally a disease, no worries. But what about Vitamin-C function? We could easily edit someone to produce that again, I mean, most mammals have this function. And, yadda yadda yadda, the slippery slope slips, and you get people that have gills or some such nonsense. I think most people's worry is in germ-line editing, where you 'rob' children of choices. Look, this is ethically difficult stuff. We don't have a lot of history to draw on here, and the actual implementation is technically difficult to do and to understand for most people (that would include these children, they would not really know what was done to them). Add in economic fears and issues with progeny really being your progeny (oh hey, a A2160F Thermo-Fisher gene editor is actually my father, when you think about it), and ignore all the Star Trek nonsense. This stuff is terribly fast and terribly unfair and terribly long lasting.