Scientists Edited Human Embryo Genes. But Questions Remain (msn.com) 35
"A DNA-editing feat involving editing the genes of early stage embryos was announced this week," reports the Wall Street Journal.
They describe the feat as "a far cry from designer babies, but nevertheless a step in that direction." The research was published online Monday on a preprint server.
They describe the feat as "a far cry from designer babies, but nevertheless a step in that direction." The research was published online Monday on a preprint server.
Forget the dangers of AI! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I must be getting paranoid - or smart. I think I know who you are.
Re: Yes AI is crap because it's going to get all o (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Religious fanatics and rightwingnuts (another class of religion) don't need either data or facts, they just KNOW that they're correct and that ends it. After all, wasn't "my opinions are equally valid as your facts" enshrined by various recent presidents?
Re: (Score:2)
A large segment of the population is unable to read much at all, and relies on consensus to determine what is true and what is not. So when there's a question, they ask all their friends, their therapist, their husband, people around them, and get people on their side.
The people in the second group are VERY confused about life, but they are too large a segment of the population to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
They tend to rely overly on authority figures, since they can't understand the world on their own. Unfortunately their authority figures tend to rely overly on questionable, or outright corrupt, sources of information like the MSM and political leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Rely on facts. That's the scientific way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cusco's only job is to destabilize the West and promote evil.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about, all the AI bros are talking about AI goal is to be trans
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
But then, maybe you could (Score:3)
How will it work out?
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wanted a prehensile tail, it would be handy when working on the car sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wanted a prehensile tail, it would be handy when working on the car sometimes.
Not to mention operating a mouse [omega.com].
Probably old news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original "criminal" has served his sentence now, and says he'll do it again without hesitation using the better tools available now.
What is this idiotic headline? (Score:2)
Questions always remain. That is perfectly normal. The interesting thing is which questions have been answered and which ones have not.
Caution, not fear (Score:4, Interesting)
We should be cautious about germline genetic engineering, mostly because of the potential for causing harm to the individual, but also a broader fear of creating a larger divide between the haves and have-nots.
The idea that such caution should result in an absolute ban on such things is due to fear, and it's stupid and those fears should be discounted. If they aren't, the fears will result in what they are trying to prevent as the work continues in private.
If I were planning on having a child, and I had the money, nothing would stop me from having my offspring's DNA tailored as far as known genetics would allow to optimize their heath.
Re: (Score:2)
Outlaw it in the US and people will just go to Paraguay or Vanuatu on "vacation" and come back pregnant with designer babies. Cloning will go the same way.
Something that is generally overlooked is how the tech associated with genetics is advancing exponentially while getting exponentially cheaper. In the '90s it cost billions and took thousands of researchers most of a decade to decode the genes of one person. Today you FedEx your cheek swab, the tech puts it in the machine and emails you the results for
Re: (Score:2)
Define genetic disease (Score:2)
One of the major issues is what counts as 'a disease we should edit'.
If it is something immediately deadly, definitely a disease. If it is a major, significant inconveince, such as MS? Probably.
But what about things like deafness - where some deaf people do not even consider it to be a disability. (https://www.reddit.com/r/audiology/comments/1d3ehkz/gene_therapies_for_deafness_dredge_up_an_old/)
Then there is something like color blindness. Is that a 'disease'? If you say yes, then:
If the inability to di
Re: (Score:2)
But, it is without a doubt a disability. I won’t insult your intelligence by giving trivial examples of why this condition is a disability.
The unique nature of this particular disability gave rise to a language that deaf people use. When groups of people use a shared language, they naturally develop a unique culture and a sense of identity, and then a sense of pride in their identity. I suspect this feeling of identity is probably what leads some people to be pro
Deafness = lower useful function (Score:2)
That some deaf people are emotionally attached to a MEASURABLE FUNCTIONAL DISADVANTAGE due to craving affirmation does not make deafness useful. Modern society is simply better able to cater to the hearing-impaired as it is the blind, the lame and the halt.
What a stupid gimmick (Score:2)
"(Genetic based) IQ test are not very accurate" the company says. No kidding?! You aren't able to measure the IQ of an unborn person? What a shock.
Rich people would love this (Score:2)
All that would happen is that rich people would ensure that their sons were 7'4" athletes and girls were super-petite and ultra-beautiful. That's the only thing that anyone would end up caring about, since those 2 things predict 90% of how your life is going to turn out.
Re: (Score:2)
That "gulf" would last about five years, when the exponentially dropping price of gene editing makes it available to the masses. See my post above:
https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]
Fear of misused science is legitimate, but... (Score:2)
That doesn't make functional improvements intrinsically wrong.
As human labor becomes worthless there will be no need for an underclass thus no incentive for less capable humans to reproduce for economic reasons.
Bringing new life into the world to exploit its labor is common and cruel. Unwanted life, often females for economic reasons, is often sold into de-facto slavery, prostitution etc. Who does not exist does not suffer.
Free humanity of economic incentives to spew out defectives then humans can make info