MIT Tech Review: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies

[No Excuses]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

Wasn't there a report or huge amounts of human allergic reactions to CRISPR?

 

Not an issue when you make genetic changes in the zygote (single cell). 

[bearrock]

So according to the article lack of CCR5 is associated with higher risk of death from flu.  Considering that you are way more likely to get the flu than HIV, I'm not sure that's a great tradeoff.  Also, doesn't that indicate how much we still don't know about the interplay between genes?  

[Elessar78]

Does t also make the assumption that this mutation hasn’t been “tested” by evolution already

[China]

 

[Bacon]

Can't wait for the caste system that will develop where 1% of the population is indestructible and everyone else is dying on the outside looking in. 

[LD0506]

9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I personally look forward to CRISPR babies.  Those SOGGY babies are far less palatable. They are quite similar to lettuce.

 

ehh, I still prefer the original recipe.....

[Llevron]

6 hours ago, Bacon said:

Can't wait for the caste system that will develop where 1% of the population is indestructible and everyone else is dying on the outside looking in. 

 

That's absolutely what's going to happen 

[No Excuses]

I don’t agree with the hand-waving over ethics. If the parents understood what is going on, this squarely becomes an issue of parental choice over their offspring. 

 

I would much rather parents be given the choice over the nature of their offspring than government bodies and academics dictating reproductive choices that are deeply personal. 

 

And from a broader perspective, “super babies” won’t necessarily come from CRISPR. Traits like height, IQ and the level of education you are capable of achieving are polymorphic (i.e. controlled by thousands of genetic variants). Pre-implantation screening of embryos to pick the ones with the best polygenic scores for certain characteristics is more in line with the idea of super humans than germline editing. And as of now, there really aren’t any regulations against PGID screening for traits. A few startups are actually entering this space. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

One step closer to the Halo Spartan program. 

 

John 117, save us. 

[Dan T.]

3 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

ehh, I still prefer the original recipe.....

 

The real technological breakthrough would be for KFC to create original recipe chicken with the extra crispy crunch.  Get on it, science.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

I don’t agree with the hand-waving over ethics. If the parents understood what is going on, this squarely becomes an issue of parental choice over their offspring. 

 

We’re going to put the control of decoding susceptibility to flu over hiv in the control of parents?

 

 

 

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

We’re going to put the control of decoding susceptibility to flu over hiv in the control of parents?

 

 

 

 

We don’t let governments or medical bodies dictate the traits we find desirable in the sexual partners we procreate with.

 

We now have technology that allows us to make more precise choices. Yes, this should ultimately be a choice made by parents in consultation with experts at reproductive care clinics.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

I don’t agree with the hand-waving over ethics. If the parents understood what is going on, this squarely becomes an issue of parental choice over their offspring. 

 

I would much rather parents be given the choice over the nature of their offspring than government bodies and academics dictating reproductive choices that are deeply personal. 

 

And from a broader perspective, “super babies” won’t necessarily come from CRISPR. Traits like height, IQ and the level of education you are capable of achieving are polymorphic (i.e. controlled by thousands of genetic variants). Pre-implantation screening of embryos to pick the ones with the best polygenic scores for certain characteristics is more in line with the idea of super humans than germline editing. And as of now, there really aren’t any regulations against PGID screening for traits. A few startups are actually entering this space. 

 

I'd generally agree that I don't want academics and government making decisions, but:

 

Let's be honest, parents aren't going to understand.  Companies that are based on sales purposely don't tell the truth and even when there are good information sources out there, they work really hard to obfuscate the truth.  We see it with pharma and people taking drugs that don't need and in some cases really really shouldn't be taking.  The FDA constantly has to go after the pharma industry for off label marketing, and they keep doing it, even for cases where kids are involved.  History clearly tells us to simply say, well, if the parents understand only creates lots of bad situations.

 

From there, yes these things won't come from current CRISPR technology, but that's where things are headed and to say well we shouldn't do anything because we aren't there yet is short sighted.  Now is the time to have that conversation (and realistically, 2 years ago was the time to have that conversation).\

 

And when you have these sorts of issues today government (larger society does step in).  Look at what is happening with corporal punishment.  Adrian Peterson plead guilty to reckless assault.

 

**EDIT**
Taken more broadly, this is an argument to eliminate the FDA with respect to drug approval for minors.

[Springfield]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

We’re going to put the control of decoding susceptibility to flu over hiv in the control of parents?

 

 

 

 

Clearly, those parents want their kids to be dirty sluts.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

14 hours ago, PeterMP said:

There appear to be very little advantages historically in being the first to develop a new technology

Not if it can be used to kill your enemies.

[tshile]

3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

We don’t let governments or medical bodies dictate the traits we find desirable in the sexual partners we procreate with.

 

We now have technology that allows us to make more precise choices. Yes, this should ultimately be a choice made by parents in consultation with experts at reproductive care clinics.

 

Right - we don’t have the government deciding for us the traits we like when picking who we procreate with. 

 

And you want the parents to be able to decide the traits of the child. Because, to you, that’s the parents right. 

 

To decide the child’s traits. 

 

Edit: although I like PeterMP’s look better. 

 

Seems like you just wrote the defense of anti vaxers. And we all know how terrible that is. 

[No Excuses]

41 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Right - we don’t have the government deciding for us the traits we like when picking who we procreate with. 

 

And you want the parents to be able to decide the traits of the child. Because, to you, that’s the parents right. 

 

To decide the child’s traits. 

 

Two people birthing their offspring absolutely have the right to decide their child’s traits. This happens already in clinics around the world when parents screen for things like Down Syndrome. It seems illogical and misguided to be afraid of a technological advance within this space that further increases parental autonomy on offspring trait selection. 

 

I’m failing to see how there is a vaccination parallel here. This is ultimately a question about reproductive freedom. I don’t want the state making the choice over peoples reproductive choices; whether it is forcing people into making a choice or restricting their ability to make one.

[tshile]

Not afraid of it. 

 

I just find the absolutest argument that parents have the right to decide their childs traits... interesting. 

 

Its interesting that, to you, a persons traits are the reproductive rights of said person’s parents. 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

Two people birthing their offspring absolutely have the right to decide their child’s traits. This happens already in clinics around the world when parents screen for things like Down Syndrome. It seems illogical and misguided to be afraid of a technological advance within this space that further increases parental autonomy on offspring trait selection. 

 

I’m failing to see how there is a vaccination parallel here. This is ultimately a question about reproductive freedom. I don’t want the state making the choice over peoples reproductive choices; whether it is forcing people into making a choice or restricting their ability to make one.

 

Realistically so is vaccinations.  The state is currently telling you that if you don't want to have your child vaccinated or you want to use extreme forms of corporal punishment not to have a child.

 

All sorts of things associated with the state factor into people's decision making when having children.

 

Why don't people have the right to decide to treat their babies teething pain with oxycontin?

[No Excuses]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Realistically so is vaccinations.  The state is currently telling you that if you don't want to have your child vaccinated or you want to use extreme forms of corporal punishment not to have a child.

 

This is a massive leap in logic. For instance, parents can choose not to vaccinate and then homeschool their kids and structure their life around their decision. Consequently, the state has no right to take these children away or euthanize these parents from further reproducing. 

 

Regardless, we already allow parents to screen their offsprings for certain traits. And like I said, there are currently no regulations on the books for more sophisticated forms of PGID that will develop in coming years.

 

There is a logical inconsistency in allowing screening for the best possible combinations between mates but arbitrarily preventing them from making germline edits for other kinds of traits. We already allow the former, the latter is essentially the same but done using a different technology.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

There is a logical inconsistency in allowing screening for the best possible combinations between mates but arbitrarily preventing them from making germline edits for other kinds of traits. We already allow the former, the latter is essentially the same but done using a different technology.

 

I don’t think so. Unless you frame it that way. 

 

You recognize theres a difference between selecting from that which is already there and making something that wasn’t there. 

 

You can recognize a difference between seeing if something exists and making it exist. 

 

You can recognize a difference in a aborting a pregnancy because a screening flagged something serious like a debilitating disease and... say... changing someone’s height. 

 

They’re only arbitrary if you if you want them to be. There’s only a logical inconsistency if you’re interested in making one. 

[PeterMP]

12 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

This is a massive leap in logic. For instance, parents can choose not to vaccinate and the. homeschool their kids and structure their life around their decision. Consequently, the state has no right to take these children away or euthanize these parents from further reproducing. 

 

Regardless, we already allow parents to screen their offsprings for certain traits. And like I said, there are currently no regulations on the books for more sophisticated forms of PGID that will develop in coming years.

 

There is a logical inconsistency in allowing screening for the best possible combinations between mates but arbitrarily preventing them from making germline edits for other kinds of traits. We already allow the former, the latter is essentially the same but done using a different technology.

 

I know I edited, but I'm pretty sure the part about corporeal punishment was in there before the edit that you completely ignored.  The state tells you can't do all sorts of things with infants.  You can't treat an infants teething with oxycontin.  The state makes all sorts of decisions that affect reproductive decisions.

 

Economic decisions made by the state affect birth rates (https://www.fatherly.com/news/american-birth-rate-great-recession/).

 

The technology isn't essentially the same because it requires a completely new and different technology, and you know that.  The 2nd one allows you to potentially create new traits.  The first one does not.

 

And just because there are no laws in the book doesn't mean there shouldn't be ones.  Just because there are currently no laws on the books doesn't mean that allowing people to do it is smart (before the advent of nuclear weapons there were no laws on the books preventing people from having them, but to argue that we should allow individuals to own nuclear weapons once it became clear it was possible to make them would be a stupid argument for allowing individuals to own nuclear weapons).

[PeterMP]

CRISPR is already being used to put genes that are not naturally found in complex mammals (e.g. cows) into embroys and then those animals being raised to adulthood (through IVF, birthing, etc.).

 

Selecting an embryo from a collection of embryos created from the germlines of two people is not the same as the editing it is possible to do with CRISPR.  Even here, (to my knowledge), by completely eliminating the gene, they've introduced a trait into humans that did not exist before.

 

@No Excuses

 

Would you be okay if two parents decided to have a child in which the Maoa gene has been deleted?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/

 

Would that be okay with you?  Is that their choice?

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I know I edited, but I'm pretty sure the part about corporeal punishment was in there before the edit that you completely ignored.  The state tells you can't do all sorts of things with infants.  You can't treat an infants teething with oxycontin.  The state makes all sorts of decisions that affect reproductive decisions.

 

I ignored this point because it attempts to reframe the discussion to a point that I am not arguing. My argument has never been that the parents are the ultimate authority on child care and the state should impose no restrictions or rules. Reproductive freedom and the choice to select your offsprings traits is distinct from this issue so I see no point in examining how extreme corporal punishment relates to this issue or the argument I am raising.

 

As far as my point about PGID (I'll address both you and @tshile here), the analogy is one of artificial selection of traits. We accept that parents are artificially selecting for certain traits: i.e. against Downs Syndrome, against heritable diseases, with all the insights coming from GWAS research, soon this will extend to height, IQ and other physical traits without any laws on the books to prevent companies from offering this. With CRISPR and germline editing, you have the choice to make another form of artificial trait selection by modifying things that either cannot be screened and selected against in-vitro, or for the purposes of introducing a trait that does not exist in the parents themselves. It is still a form of artificial selection of traits. We've already determined that one form of artificial selection is socially permissible. I don't see a good argument as to why CRISPR-based artificial selection is wrong but PGID is fine.

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

@No Excuses

 

Would you be okay if two parents decided to have a child in which the Maoa gene has been deleted?

  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/

  

Would that be okay with you?  Is that their choice?

 

Realistically, this question should be framed as one of editing and not deletion (I am fairly certain you can't have healthy or viable offspring without MAOA).

 

But yes, I would be ok with parents choosing to edit the MAOA gene in their offspring to select against the MAOA-L variant that predisposes individuals for violent behavior. 

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I ignored this point because it attempts to reframe the discussion to a point that I am not arguing. My argument has never been that the parents are the ultimate authority on child care and the state should impose no restrictions or rules. Reproductive freedom and the choice to select your offsprings traits is distinct from this issue so I see no point in examining how extreme corporal punishment relates to this issue or the argument I am raising.

 

As far as my point about PGID (I'll address both you and @tshile here), the analogy is one of artificial selection of traits. We accept that parents are artificially selecting for certain traits: i.e. against Downs Syndrome, against heritable diseases, with all the insights coming from GWAS research, soon this will extend to height, IQ and other physical traits without any laws on the books to prevent companies from offering this. With CRISPR and germline editing, you have the choice to make another form of artificial trait selection by modifying things that either cannot be screened and selected against in-vitro, or for the purposes of introducing a trait that does not exist in the parents themselves. It is still a form of artificial selection of traits. We've already determined that one form of artificial selection is socially permissible. I don't see a good argument as to why CRISPR-based artificial selection is wrong but PGID is fine.

 

 

Realistically, this question should be framed as one of editing and not deletion (I am fairly certain you can't have healthy or viable offspring without MAOA).

 

But yes, I would be ok with parents choosing to edit the MAOA gene in their offspring to select against the MAOA-L variant that predisposes individuals for violent behavior. 

 

I'm not sure that all PGID should be legal or is ethical, but again right off the bat, they are different in terms of the technology involved and the idea of selecting existing traits vs. being able to introduce new ones.

 

The question was properly phrased.  People without the MAOA gene aren't healthy.  As described in the link they have Brunner's syndrome.

 

"Brunner syndrome is a rare genetic disorder associated with a mutation in the MAOA gene. It is characterized by lower than average IQ (typically about 85), problematic impulsive behavior (such as arson, hypersexuality and violence), sleep disorders and mood swings."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunner_syndrome

 

What happens if my wife and I decide to have a child with Brunner's syndrome?  What happens if we take a male embryo and go in and specifically delete the MAOA gene to create an embryo that will give rise to a child with Brunner's syndrome?

 

Should the government be able to stop us?