SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the the-best-made-plans-of-mice-and-men... dept.
The human embryo editing study first reported by MIT Technology Review last week has been published in Nature. Scientists led by the Oregon Health & Science University's Shoukhrat Mitalipov edited human embryos to remove the MYBPC3 mutation associated with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy:
The experiment corrected the defect in nearly two-thirds of several dozen embryos, without causing potentially dangerous mutations elsewhere in the DNA.
None of the embryos were used to try to create a baby. But if future experiments confirm the techniques are safe and effective, the scientists say the same approach could be used to prevent a long list of inheritable diseases. "Potentially, we're talking about thousands of genes and thousands of patients," says Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. She was a member of the scientific team from the U.S., China and South Korea.
[...] Amato and others stress that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people. And they note that much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way. But scientists hoping to continue the work in the U.S. face many regulatory obstacles. The National Institutes of Health will not fund any research involving human embryos (the new work was funded by Oregon Health & Science University). And the Food and Drug Administration is prohibited by Congress from considering any experiments that involve genetically modified human embryos.
Nevertheless, the researchers say they're hopeful about continuing the work, perhaps in Britain. The United Kingdom has permitted genetic experiments involving human embryos forbidden in the United States. "If other countries would be interested, we would be happy to work with their regulatory bodies," says Shoukhrat Mitalipov, director of the Oregon Health & Science University's Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy.
Also at NYT, MIT, BBC, Science Magazine, and Scientific American.
Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos (open, DOI: 10.1038/nature23305) (DX)
Previously: First Known Attempt at Genetically Modifying Human Embryos in the U.S. is an Apparent Success
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 04 2017, @03:26AM (11 children)
That argument won't work on parents. They want children and nobody can tell them no if they can get a hold of the cash or have the right health insurance policy.
Germline editing has much more use than just correcting a few diseases. It can also be used to make children "artificially" smarter, more attractive, or whatever. There are people who will pay 6-7 figures to produce one genetically enhanced kid.
As for side effects, they seem to have found a way around unwanted mutations. If there are other side effects, they will be apparent early in life or probably even before the baby is born. And that's why we need research in the first place, to figure out how this stuff works. You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.
Having a kid the normal way risks creating a suffering deformed mutant. If editing can be done in a way that routinely produces healthy offspring, it will be done. Banning it because "fulfilling their biological imperative" is an unworthy reason doesn't make sense. You might as well ban sex or have a One Child Policy or whatever. Oh, you don't want that? Then get out of the way.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 04 2017, @03:59AM (8 children)
Implement true genetic heritage policy? or make clinics strictly liable for genetic side effects?
On the societal scale. What happens when these super enhanced persons is supposed compete with others on "equal" terms seems like a blood bath in the queue.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 04 2017, @04:07AM (3 children)
I don't think it will be much different than the income inequality problem. If your parents are multi-millionaires or billionaires (maybe trillionaires in a few decades?) and if they don't live a humble lifestyle or withhold money from their kids like Warren Buffett does, then you have it made in life. You have probably interacted with some of these people. They have the opportunity to have better educations, get good jobs without needing to do work, can control industries to keep small businesses small, bribe cops and politicians, and get away with murder in some cases. Having kids that are 10% smarter or a bit more attractive could aid in preserving the dynasty and increase the wealth pile, but it's just adding a little insult to injury at that point. Super enhanced persons are not needed for a blood bath since that could already be coming if automation kills jobs but universal basic income is slow to follow.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 04 2017, @04:24AM (2 children)
Bloody riots can be quick. And if those are enhanced with smart middle class people that can turn nasty.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 04 2017, @04:45AM (1 child)
Income inequality and unemployment will be what sparks riots, not mere genetic enhancements.
IQ genetic enhancement is estimated to only have a modest impact of a few points (environmental factors also matter, which are already in favor of the rich) based on the "intelligence genes" that are currently known (or suspected). It won't create a middle class Sun Tzu tactical genius that leads the poor and downtrodden to victory (oh man, that's kind of like Code Geass hahah). I'm not sure if the poor would defeat the rich with sheer numbers or if the rich will stave off resistance with a combination of bread 'n' circuses, captive government, superior firepower, or creating distance between themselves and the riffraff (think of seasteads, the film Elysium, or just rich hoods and cities with police under their thumb and additional private security).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 04 2017, @11:41AM
The point is that sufficient inequality will spark riots. And automation, AI and genetic enhancement may be what pushes the inequality enough to have never before seen riots. And people that go hungry or have no hope will have too little to loose.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 04 2017, @04:17AM (1 child)
Heritage policy won't work. People will shop around and find a place to have their edited kids. China will be happy to take some of our rich people, and give them special privileges as well. Many countries will let clinics operate with impunity. Maybe you want to go overseas and come back to the U.S. with your edited kid. Who will prove that the kid is edited when the genomes of the parents are covered by genetic privacy laws. Not to mention that the rich people are likely to get their way in the first place, preventing any such inconvenient policies.
You keep coming back to this point of side effects. Once the technology is worked out, which is the point of research like this, side effects will be rare or non-existent. Baby designers may not even end up using the household name CRISPR/Cas9 if other enzymes or nanobots prove to be more efficient. But if it's just today's technology, this study shows that you can have a seemingly high success rate (we almost always have an Anonymous Coward throwing shade at every biology study) and you can select a correctly edited embryo from the pile of 50+ you created. Kind of like IVF but with an extra step.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @11:13AM
I have had the exact same issue with every crispr study since the first paper I read on the topic. My story has never changed. But in this case their error is particulary egregious since it isn't some small percent of initial cells that come "pre-edited", but 50%. The quality of these studies is getting worse and worse as the hype gets louder and louder.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday August 04 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
As a 9-year old asked me - "what happens when the (genetically enhanced) want to compete in the Olympics?"
Or compete for scholarships?
And what happens when their kids or grand-kids who are 'partially enhanced' want to compete?
This will be a big issue, and we will need to make rules to address it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:51AM
I have written [soylentnews.org] on this [soylentnews.org] topic before [soylentnews.org].
Athletics is already very lopsided and in some cases it is just a search for the best genes or the person who can get away with the best doping. Think of the individual sports where the winners and losers are separated by seconds or milliseconds.
There is no scheme that would allow you to deny gene therapy, microchip implants, anti-aging, etc. to athletes without it creating an "unprotected class" of athletes that you allow to suffer more harm than normal folks. Denying these technologies to people will be the equivalent of using them as gladiators, since you'll be allowing them to sustain brain and whole body cellular damage. I mention microchips because those could have a dual use of greatly enhancing personal intelligence while allowing the user to optimize their movements unnaturally. Imagine a computer implant doing physics calculations and using data from your eyes in order to let you automatically move on any surface with the least amount of effort, or use parkour moves, etc.
You could try to create a separate Olympics for these people. A Regular Olympics, the existing Paralympics for the disabled, and an Enhanced Olympics. Already you have the problem I mentioned of denying medical advances to the Regular Olympics athletes. We have seen controversial crossovers from one pile to another like Oscar Pistorius. He didn't win an olympic medal, but he did compete in the 2011 World Championships in Athletics against non-disabled people and won a medal then. You will have people with stealth advancements including "gene doping" competing in the Regular Olympics even if an Enhanced Olympics exists. We already have a blurring of the lines on gender divisions in these competitions with athletes accusing other athletes of being intersex with an unfair advantage. That will only get worse as technology allows even more control over hormone levels and muscle growth (to the point of hypertrophy).
Within an Enhanced Olympics, or regular Olympics, or any sort of sporting events, you will face the issue of genetic inequality, as you mentioned. The rich will be able to create designer offspring who are not only optimized for athletic prowess, but grow up to be sexy enough to put on the box of Wheaties with no hesitation whatsoever from General Mills.
I don't find this human germline editing unethical at all. But I do find it unethical to deny medicine or medical advances to athletes, harming their overall health and subjecting them to aging diseases in order to maintain the purity of competitive spirit or whatever bullshit the IOC and other orgs want to call it. This conflict could end sporting as we know it. And you know what? That might be a good thing. Once you break down all the doping, drug, and enhancement rules, and pull out a lot of the advertising money because people are jaded about superhuman freaks going to toe to toe with people who trained hard to compete, we could be left with something that better explores the competitive spirit and celebrates human achievement. Sure, it is easier to climb Mt. Everest than ever before, but people still do it and engage in supermarathons and other feats. Instead we currently have sob stories with slick editing from CBS/NBC/FOX, a very unequal playing field (can you afford personal trainers, the most optimized equipment, and supercomputer simulations of your body?), and a lot of people pretending that there is no doping (it just gets more sophisticated every time they are caught). Don't forget the NFL, which is pretty much proven to cause brain damage [soylentnews.org] the way the game is currently played since they hit each other more violently than they did decades ago and no amount of concussions is safe for the human brain. If regenerative medicine can cure that damage before it can destroy minds and lead people to suicide, it needs to be done, regardless of whether or not it leads to players competing in their 60s without retiring. Or if you can't accept that you need to go ahead and ban the sport.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @07:56PM (1 child)
How about they pay me 6 figures to fuck the wife? The child is likely to be smarter, more attractive etc. ;)
The child might grow up to be a smart-ass asshole like me but that's not a fatal genetic disease. Might even be advantageous in some scenarios...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 04 2017, @09:19PM
Unfortunately your paternal DNA will be targeted by DNA-scanning kill drones. They'll use XKeyscore to find out that you want privacy, and then collect your DNA from the trash and put you on the To-Do list for when martial law is implemented.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]