CRISPR, genetic advances, and all that comes with it...

[QuikSand]

This topic has made the news this week, and seems like fertile ground for some chat.

Modification of genes in human embryos could mark turning point in human evolution - The Globe and Mail

-It's undoubtedly an exciting breakthrough, and the pace of advancement here is a bit surprising (at least to me)

-Ethical, moral, and religious questions abound here

-The question of current/proper United States policy seems particularly interesting to me, too

Have at it. Let's see if FOFC can still deliver on a productive and interesting policy-loaded conversation without descending into a cesspool.

[Logan]

From a life-saving, disease-prevention standpoint (let's cross the "designer babies" bridge when we come to it), I certainly understand the concern or ethical dilemma of the use of this technology only being available to those who can afford it. But it seems just as unfair to say that a child and his or her family have to live with a disease when they have the resources to potentially remove that complication from their life.

[CrescentMoonie]

My concern is what it would do for empathy if we're eliminating things like milder forms of autism and down syndrome. We need those differences.

[QuikSand]

Once the technology eventually becomes more or less perfected, reliable, affordable, and widely accessible... there becomes a whole new wave of judgment calls. Would it be immoral for parents to opt to have a "natural" child without assistance (as surely many would)? Would we think of that in the same way we do with certain parents who deny effective medical treatment for ailing children?

[Easy Mac]

Doesn't that pre-suppose that we get no benefits from natural gene mutations? Obviously not every mutation is beneficial to that one particular person, but as a whole, who's to say that these individual mutations that appear negative in the moment aren't beneficial to humanity's development? Guided evolution isn't necessarily better when most of the time we can't even see months down the road.

[QuikSand]

All well and good in the hypothetical and philosophical realm, I suppose.

At some point, my daughter might have a doctor talk to her and inform her that by (metaphorically, but maybe even literally) checking a box, she can completely eliminate the chances of her child facing a long list of vexing, painful, and deadly diseases and even predispositions. At that point... doesn't it become a powerful parental reflex to essentially say "the hell with the flow of the mutation river, I don't want my child to suffer from a painful disease that would kill her by age seven, and I'll do the thing that prevents that, hooray science."

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

All well and good in the hypothetical and philosophical realm, I suppose.

At some point, my daughter might have a doctor talk to her and inform her that by (metaphorically, but maybe even literally) checking a box, she can completely eliminate the chances of her child facing a long list of vexing, painful, and deadly diseases and even predispositions. At that point... doesn't it become a powerful parental reflex to essentially say "the hell with the flow of the mutation river, I don't want my child to suffer from a painful disease that would kill her by age seven, and I'll do the thing that prevents that, hooray science."

Yes, Gattaca is coming.

You're spot on about the whole spectrum of moral and ethical questions that this will create. It's definitely not going to be easy, but we've also got to at least consider that some of the negatives are good to have.

[cuervo72]

Tangent - I thought this application for CRISPR was pretty cool.

Scientists Can Use CRISPR to Store Images and Movies in Bacteria - The Atlantic

Carry on.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

All well and good in the hypothetical and philosophical realm, I suppose.

At some point, my daughter might have a doctor talk to her and inform her that by (metaphorically, but maybe even literally) checking a box, she can completely eliminate the chances of her child facing a long list of vexing, painful, and deadly diseases and even predispositions. At that point... doesn't it become a powerful parental reflex to essentially say "the hell with the flow of the mutation river, I don't want my child to suffer from a painful disease that would kill her by age seven, and I'll do the thing that prevents that, hooray science."

In that sense, it's not really all that different from the climate change debate. Trying to make logical, personal decisions in the now without having the slightest idea how they could impact humanity in the distant future.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

All well and good in the hypothetical and philosophical realm, I suppose.

At some point, my daughter might have a doctor talk to her and inform her that by (metaphorically, but maybe even literally) checking a box, she can completely eliminate the chances of her child facing a long list of vexing, painful, and deadly diseases and even predispositions. At that point... doesn't it become a powerful parental reflex to essentially say "the hell with the flow of the mutation river, I don't want my child to suffer from a painful disease that would kill her by age seven, and I'll do the thing that prevents that, hooray science."

I have about as little trust in "science" (actually, science is fine by me, it's scientists I have little faith in) as anyone short of a luddite ... and what you said there makes perfect sense.

I've seen too many people who forced children through a lifetime of suffering in order to feed their own ego or selfishness or stupidity or whatever other bewildering motivation they had. Preventing that is more than just a little bit a-ok by me.

[Fidatelo]

Such an interesting topic. I've tried to write up my take on it now a couple times but I change my mind on things as I type. So much to account for. Quotes like:

If only poor people get Huntington disease, then the lobby to support Huntington disease research is greatly diminished. It’s kind of like a two-fold negative effect.

Are just so hard to wrap my mind around. As an individual of course I want that preventative treatment if I have the resources, but as a member of society the idea above is quite alarming. I think in a country like Canada it might be a small bit easier to navigate within our existing healthcare system but in a country like the US this would be a very real, very difficult problem (and probably still is in Canada, too).

Jenkies.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have about as little trust in "science" (actually, science is fine by me, it's scientists I have little faith in) as anyone short of a luddite ... and what you said there makes perfect sense.

I've seen too many people who forced children through a lifetime of suffering in order to feed their own ego or selfishness or stupidity or whatever other bewildering motivation they had. Preventing that is more than just a little bit a-ok by me.

I hate to say this, but define lifetime of suffering. Some of the happiest people I have met are those with Down's Syndrome. Don't get me wrong, I understand the struggles that the parents and siblings have in dealing with it, but for the actual child is it a lifetime of suffering? Add in the change you see in some of these parents, for the better, I sometimes wonder if it is necessarily bad in every case.

The gene for Sickle Cell Anemia is actually beneficial to the inhabitants of areas where malaria is rampant. The issue arises when a child is born with 2 sickle cell genes. Is this something we want to breed out of the population?

Additionally, as previously mentioned, what about diseases that will arise that yet undiscovered that are hampered by genes we have not figured out exactly what they do?

Heck, look at what we have done to dogs and other animals we have tamed, in the interest of preferred genes, we have hosed them in other ways, giving rise to more allergies, inbreeding, hip dysplasia, etc. Yet, we have the knowledge and wherewithal to avoid any issues with this?

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Doesn't that pre-suppose that we get no benefits from natural gene mutations? Obviously not every mutation is beneficial to that one particular person, but as a whole, who's to say that these individual mutations that appear negative in the moment aren't beneficial to humanity's development? Guided evolution isn't necessarily better when most of the time we can't even see months down the road.

Isn't this the same argument that anti-vaccine folks make? Preventing the diseases that way weakens the immune system?

Not trying to be inflammatory or accusatory. Just wondering about the parallels and where the proverbial "line" is.

[digamma]

Fertility treatments are accepted now and along with those fairly extensive genetic testing is pretty widely accepted. I realize the decision is different (right now it is continue with the process or not), but I'm wondering how much of a stretch this is on the ethics and morality scale from that practice.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Isn't this the same argument that anti-vaccine folks make? Preventing the diseases that way weakens the immune system?

Not trying to be inflammatory or accusatory. Just wondering about the parallels and where the proverbial "line" is.

Polio kills. Down Syndrome doesn't.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Isn't this the same argument that anti-vaccine folks make? Preventing the diseases that way weakens the immune system?

Not trying to be inflammatory or accusatory. Just wondering about the parallels and where the proverbial "line" is.

Just so people know, I'm fine with a free for all, just like everyone else I'm trying to figure out if there even could be a best policy or practices. It's like pretty much every other kind of technology. I can understand what it is and run through the good and bad, but I don't think I could ever understand how it actually works and how it could actually be used for good or bad.

I mean heck, 10 years ago, everyone seemed to think the internet could be this great unifier, turning the world into some kind democratizing utopia. But it turns out if there are enough well-placed "nefarious" actors, the exact opposite could happen.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Polio kills. Down Syndrome doesn't.

This.