SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
George Church is one of the biologists who attended the International Summit on Human Gene Editing, held from December 1-3 in Washington D.C. He believes that human aging could be cured in the near future. From the Washington Post:
Church thinks that one of the ailments he can cure is aging. When I met him early this year, in his laboratory at Harvard Medical School, where he is professor of genetics, he expressed confidence that in just five or six years he will be able to reverse the aging process in human beings. "A scenario is, everyone takes gene therapy — not just curing rare diseases like cystic fibrosis, but diseases that everyone has, like aging," he said. He noted that mice die after 2.5 years but bowhead whales can live to be 180 or 200.
So on Tuesday, I asked him if he was still on track to reversing the aging process in the next five years or so. He said yes — and that it's already happening in mice in the laboratory. The best way to predict the future, he said, is to predict things that have already happened.
For most of us lay people, what's striking here is not the way that scientists fiddle with the code of life but the mere fact that they do it at all. Awed though we may be by the skills of the experimenters, we naturally question whether this is a good idea. That's the whole point of the gene-editing summit: To find a path forward that fosters innovation but avoids crossing into ethically dubious territory. Gene-editing could be a tool for eliminating heritable diseases. But it just as easily could be used for purely cosmetic enhancements, or for something smacking of eugenics. The gravest concern is that CRISPR enables germline edits that get passed on to future generations. You're permanently changing the human species when you do that. Who calls the shots here?
Contrast Church's position with that of another biotech heavyweight, Craig Venter. Venter is focused on a "higher-quality life span" and recently said that billionaires extending their own lifespans would be "socially irresponsible". FightAging has additional discussion of the Washington Post article.
[More after the break.]
Merlin Crossley, Dean of Science and Professor of Molecular Biology at UNSW Australia, says we can trust scientists with the power of gene editing:
Now that's it's so easy to meddle in human genes, why shouldn't we worry?
The new technology is a game-changer – but it's not a runaway phenomenon, like releasing cane toads, blackberries or rabbits into Australia. After 40 years, there have been few, if any problems, with genetically modified organisms. And the experiments - though much easier now - are still so elaborate and expensive that the technology will spread slowly.
We'll likely remain cautious about modifying human embryos and about any modification that may be passed on to the next generation. To date, consent is required for all treatments. And while patients may opt for experimental cancer therapy or surgery, we always try to think carefully when others, who cannot consent, will be affected.
Some people will even ask why it's wrong to correct a defect that could haunt future generations. Or, if we could introduce a gene variant that protects people from cancer – such as creating a duplication of the tumour suppressor gene p53 – why wouldn't we want that for our children?
Genetics is a branch of science that's ripe for discussions, and conversations on recombinant DNA, gene therapy, cloning and stem cells have all gone well. Guidelines have been sensible and researchers have largely complied with them.
The very fact that people from across the world are gathering to discuss the issues surrounding the latest breakthroughs in gene technology is a very strong sign that the science will be used responsibly. One hopes that the concurrent meeting on climate change in Paris is also a victory for science.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 05 2015, @02:40PM
Anti-aging = eternal youth, by design. Aging is treated as damage [sens.org], and the damage is fixed. We have basically reached the limit of lifespan increases that result from keeping the elderly healthy yet full of damage. 120 is about the limit of the "natural" human lifespan.
They would fight, but feebly. If parents are given the option to pick and choose embryos, along with editing of embryos, you will see a reduction in Down's syndrome, for example. They may feel guilty about it, but many of them will choose not to face years of stress and sadness dealing with an obviously genetically inferior child. What can the communities you mention do about it? They could try to torpedo the research or make it more difficult to engage in gene editing. But that will drive parents overseas to jurisdictions that don't care, like China.
As for the movement to stay deaf or blind (like Daredevil! [wikipedia.org]), if the disability happens after birth, or can be cured using gene therapy despite a child being born with the condition, then the individual can make an informed choice.
Success against blindness encourages gene therapy researchers [nature.com]
Genetics targeting the brain could come years or decades later than more straightforward alterations. In any case, you can develop mental illness after you are born without a genetic cause.
It's not problematic if it isn't infringing on the liberties of others (forced sterilization, concentration camps). And yes, I'm assigning low or zero liberty to the embryo/fetus.
Once your massively genetically altered embryo is born, then you can see to it that the child has an upbringing and rights.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:50PM
[quote]
It's not problematic if it isn't infringing on the liberties of others (forced sterilization, concentration camps). And yes, I'm assigning low or zero liberty to the embryo/fetus.
Once your massively genetically altered embryo is born, then you can see to it that the child has an upbringing and rights.
[/quote]
I was with you up to here. We've already seen with college degrees that choices that effect employability and ability to reproduce tend to force people to make decisions that they wouldn't normally make in order to keep up. I'd be very surprised if parents didn't apply the same kind of logic when making these decisions that they make when pressuring their children to get a degree.
Editing the gametes that become children isn't substantively any different from selective abortions. Humans have a very poor grasp of the consequences of the decisions we make in every day life, and you think it's a good idea for us to monkey around with evolutionary forces? Yes, we have largely managed to remove natural selection from our daily existence, but societies do fail and when that happens, removing the genetic diversity or focusing it on things that are useful in civilized society probably isn't going to seem as smart.