UK scientists apply for licence to edit genes in human embryos

[Hamilcar]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

I'm not an athlete. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to edit my own genome if I wanted?

[Malthus]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

I'm not an athlete. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to edit my own genome if I wanted?

Hell, we don't allow people to prescribe themselves drugs, let alone edit their own genome. 

[crazy canuck]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

Althetes are not allowed to dope because it generally causes them harm.  If a procedure has a beneficial effect with no harm then what is the issue?

[Hamilcar]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

I'm not an athlete. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to edit my own genome if I wanted?

Hell, we don't allow people to prescribe themselves drugs, let alone edit their own genome. 

Fine , I have colleagues who are doctors. I get them to OK it. Happy?

[crazy canuck]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

I'm not an athlete. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to edit my own genome if I wanted?

Hell, we don't allow people to prescribe themselves drugs, let alone edit their own genome. 

Presumably he means with a doctor's note 

[Barrister]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Because you can't.  Not at present technology.

What you can maybe do is edit the genes of an embryo - presumably of your child.



In any event I was responding to Tonitrus who said "so what's the downside", so I gave him a few arguments against.  I'm not resolutely against human genetic alterations, but it is something to be very cautious about.

[Hamilcar]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Because you can't.  Not at present technology.

What you can maybe do is edit the genes of an embryo - presumably of your child.

We are much closer to being able to do this with CRISPR than you maybe think, even for adults. CRISPR is incredibly powerful, and dangerous.

[Malthus]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

I'm not an athlete. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to edit my own genome if I wanted?

Hell, we don't allow people to prescribe themselves drugs, let alone edit their own genome. 

Fine , I have colleagues who are doctors. I get them to OK it. Happy?

They will prescribe whatever you want, regardless of your medical condition? Can they get me some Oxy? 

The issue, of course, is that things like medical procedures, and drugs, have both risks and benefits, and it usually isn't ethical to prescribe either on a whim, just because someone wants it, if there are significant risks - purely cosmetic procedures inhabiting an odd sort of middle ground, creating all sorts of ethical issues - the risks ought to be reasonably minor where the benefits are to appearance and not health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890136/

[Eddie Teach]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

Fair play? 

[Barrister]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Because you can't.  Not at present technology.

What you can maybe do is edit the genes of an embryo - presumably of your child.

We are much closer to being able to do this with CRISPR than you maybe think, even for adults. CRISPR is incredibly powerful, and dangerous.

Reading up quickly on Crispr, I still don't see how that would work on an adult.  Crispr is an incredibly accurate means of altering DNA in single cells.  Obviously that's quite powerful when you're talking about a brand new embryo, which out of just a few cells will grow into a whole person.

But when dealing with an adult?  Which has (quickly checks google) 100 billion cells?  How does that work?

I stand to be corrected since this isn't my field, but that's my understanding.

[Hamilcar]

Reading up quickly on Crispr, I still don't see how that would work on an adult.  Crispr is an incredibly accurate means of altering DNA in single cells.  Obviously that's quite powerful when you're talking about a brand new embryo, which out of just a few cells will grow into a whole person.

But when dealing with an adult?  Which has (quickly checks google) 100 billion cells?  How does that work?

I stand to be corrected since this isn't my field, but that's my understanding.

Not my field either, but my understanding is that all you need is a vector to get it to most of the body, like a virus.

[The Brain]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

Fair play? 

[Malthus]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

I'm not an athlete. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to edit my own genome if I wanted?

Hell, we don't allow people to prescribe themselves drugs, let alone edit their own genome. 

Presumably he means with a doctor's note 

My answer was flippant, but my point was not. 

The reason why someone ought not to be able to" edit their own genome if they want" is that the impetus for serious and dangerous medical procedures ought, ethically, to come from the health care professionals with the agreement of the patient - after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen.

Ultimately, yes, such editing would be with the informed consent of the patient, but it should be in response to some sort of serious medical concern, not on a whim, and taken after fully reviewing all the options.

[The Brain]

People are free to risk their own lives and health. No one has to explore less dangerous means to get up a cliff than free climbing it.

[Hamilcar]

People are free to risk their own lives and health. No one has to explore less dangerous means to get up a cliff than free climbing it.

Reminds me of when the UK gov't drug advisor argued that horse riding is more dangerous than taking ecstasy.