http://www.nature.com/news/uk-scientists-apply-for-licence-to-edit-genes-in-human-embryos-1.18394
UK scientists apply for licence to edit genes in human embryos
Team from London's Francis Crick Institute wants permit to use CRISPR/Cas9 technology in basic research.
Daniel Cressey, Alison Abbott& Heidi Ledford
18 September 2015 Updated: 18 September 2015
Kathy Niakan, a researcher affiliated with the Francis Crick Institute, London's new £700-million (US$1.1-billion) biomedical-research centre, said on 18 September that she is proposing to use gene editing to provide "fundamental insights into early human development". In a statement released through the Crick, Niakan said that her team wanted to use technology based on the CRISPR/Cas9 system — a recently developed technique for precisely editing genomes that has become hugely popular in the biology community. Her application was first reported by The Guardian newspaper.
Editing the genomes of human embryos for a therapeutic use — for example, to eradicate a genetic disease — is illegal in the United Kingdom, but research work is possible under licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The body, which regulates fertility treatment and embryo research, has confirmed that it has received its first application for a gene-editing licence using CRISPR/Cas9. "It will be considered in due course," the HFEA said.
Nature special: CRISPR — the good, the bad and the unknown
In April this year, Nature revealed that a Chinese team had, for the first time, reported using the CRISPR/Cas9 technique to edit the genomes of human embryos. The work, led by Junjiu Huang, a gene-function researcher at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, involved attempts to modify the gene underlying the blood disorder β-thalassaemia. The research used non-viable embryos that could not result in a live birth, but nonetheless caused huge controversy.
Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist at the Francis Crick Institute, emphasized to Nature that whereas Huang and colleague's paper explored the correction of a genetic defect that would lead to disease, Niakan's work proposes asking more basic questions about human-embryo development. "Kathy has no intention of making changes to the genome for clinical application," he says.
Lovell-Badge says that China has guidelines on gene-editing work in embryos, "but these are not quite laws, and there would only have been local ethics committee approval". By contrast, if Niakan's application were given a license, it would mark "the first approval by a national regulator," he says.
Regulatory debate
Huang's team's April report spawned a flurry of scientific and policy meetings and statements as governments and policy experts wrestled with how or whether to draw the line on gene editing in human embryos.
Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos
Shortly after the work was published, the US National Institutes of Health reaffirmed its ban on funding gene-editing research in human embryos — a ban that would likely also apply to non-viable embryos, it said.
But on 2 September, five UK research organizations — including the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council — issued a statement urging the continued use of CRISPR/Cas9 in research, even in human embryos when ethically justifiable and legal.
A week later, a network of stem-cell researchers, bioethicists and policy experts called the Hinxton Group, said that after meetings in Manchester, UK, they had concluded that research involving genome editing in human embryos has "tremendous value to basic research".
And on 14 September, Britain's Royal Society and the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced that they would join forces with the US National Academy of Sciences and the US National Academy of Medicine to host a summit in December on germline editing (genetic changes to embryos, sperm and eggs).
Closely watched
The HFEA application is likely to be closely watched by researchers around the world, because the regulator has a global reputation for careful but progressive regulation of human-embryo work.
Sarah Chan, a bioethics researcher at the University of Edinburgh, UK, says there is confusion around what is permitted in different parts of the world regarding human-genome editing. Good regulation, she says, can help to make clear to scientists what they can and cannot do. "Because of its history of successful regulation, the UK could serve as a model for other countries," she says.
"While I am certain that people in other countries will be paying close attention to both how the HFEA handle this licence application and, if it is granted, how the research progresses, it does not really warrant this attention," says Lovell-Badge. "The use of genome-editing techniques in this context is really the same as using any other method on an embryo that is not going to be implanted into a woman, and which will be destroyed after a few days of culture".
Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18394
And so it begins.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi78.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj107%2Flukestyer%2FPhotomanips%2FKhanManofYear.png&hash=0ff2d4a4aec10c36c0a4e735de751c07cbd85e94)
Finally
Quote from: Syt on September 21, 2015, 02:14:06 AM
And so it begins.
No.
More like, less of this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ljplus.ru%2Fimg4%2Fa%2Fn%2Fanna_egorova%2FIMGP1693.JPG&hash=519822fb743e94b98e91e95d019ae98c90727fa4)
(Child with cystic fibrosis)
Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering? Humans will become "too good"? Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?
If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad? Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 21, 2015, 06:11:42 PM
Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering? Humans will become "too good"? Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?
If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad? Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.
Realistically, the problem may be simple ignorance of the long-term effects of genetic engineering. Eliminating genetic diseases is an unambiguous good - but the repairs may, in turn, have unanticipated long-term effects that are not so good.
Same as any treatment, really. The issue will be the proper weighing of risks and benefits. The difficulty is that no-one can be sure about the risks until it is actually done, on humans.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 21, 2015, 06:11:42 PM
Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering? Humans will become "too good"? Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?
If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad? Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.
Because it's difficult to determine what is a "disease" that should be fixed.
The classic case is sickle cell anemia. It is caused by having both parents being carriers of a single recessive gene, and the child inheriting the gene from both parents. The problem is that being a carrier of only the single gene actually has some health benefits - carriers have greater resistance to malaria.
Or take downs syndrome (which now that I have twin DS nephews I'm learning more about). It's a genetic disease, but it's quite different from something like sickle cell. Sickle cell is caused by a specific defective gene. Downs syndrome however is caused by having a duplicate chromosone. It's not an inheritable gene - rather it's an error in early cell division. As such there's no way to cure downs syndrome, either by today's or any readily forseeable future technology. Instead the only way to "prevent" downs syndrome is to abort any pregnancy that tests positive for downs.
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?
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
Where do you draw the line?
The line is drawn in all research by the process of ethics approval which is required before any research is started.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 10:24:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
Where do you draw the line?
The line is drawn in all research by the process of ethics approval which is required before any research is started.
Which to date has not approved any alteration to human genomes.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 10:24:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
Where do you draw the line?
The line is drawn in all research by the process of ethics approval which is required before any research is started.
Which to date has not approved any alteration to human genomes.
But may. Like our scientific knowledge, ethics approval is not static.
That is the main point of the article - carefully moving toward approval of research where ethically justified and legal.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 21, 2015, 06:11:42 PM
Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering? Humans will become "too good"? Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?
If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad? Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.
You can't eliminate future cases of Down syndrome with genetic engineering. You can abort a fetus with Down syndrome or prevent a fertilized egg with Down syndrome from being implanted via pre-implantation genetic screening with IVF. But once the egg is fertilized/implanted and you decide to bring it term, the Down syndrome would be irreverisble.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
Because it's difficult to determine what is a "disease" that should be fixed.
The classic case is sickle cell anemia. It is caused by having both parents being carriers of a single recessive gene, and the child inheriting the gene from both parents. The problem is that being a carrier of only the single gene actually has some health benefits - carriers have greater resistance to malaria.
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?
We have treatments for malaria and are going to eventually eliminate it from the world. Sickle cell anemia is a horrible disease and it would be an unambiguously good thing for the world if we could elminiate it with genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering at the level we're talking about can't make short people tall or ugly people beautiful. It's going to be useful in curing single gene mutation genetic disorders. Things like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, Tay-Sachs, hemochromatosis. Traits like height, skin color, etc. are controlled by multiple genes which will not be amenable to simple engineering like a single point mutation would be.
Quote from: Fate on September 22, 2015, 12:02:44 PM
Genetic engineering at the level we're talking about can't make short people tall or ugly people beautiful. It's going to be useful in curing single gene mutation genetic disorders. Things like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, Tay-Sachs, hemochromatosis. Traits like height, skin color, etc. are controlled by multiple genes which will not be amenable to simple engineering like a single point mutation would be.
Sounds like a pretty strong argument in favour of approval. :)
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 10:24:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
Where do you draw the line?
The line is drawn in all research by the process of ethics approval which is required before any research is started.
Which to date has not approved any alteration to human genomes.
There are two big categories of genetic engineering - germ cell line (heritable) and somatic (which are the non-reproductive cells and not heritable to the next generation.) Somatic genetic engineering has been approved for quite a while and is an active area of therapy in certain genetic disorders. Germ cell line genetic editting is where there's still an ethical question.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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?
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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?
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 12:49:57 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 12:49:57 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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 :P
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 12:49:57 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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? :D
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/
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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? :huh:
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:53:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 01:00:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2015, 01:00:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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? :huh:
:hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 12:51:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 12:49:57 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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 :P
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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2015, 01:12:38 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2015, 01:12:38 PM
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.
The difference, of course, is that your doctor typically isn't helping you up that cliff.
Medical professionals are bound by professional ethics, and for one, I prefer them to be. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 01:20:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2015, 01:12:38 PM
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.
The difference, of course, is that your doctor typically isn't helping you up that cliff.
Medical professionals are bound by professional ethics, and for one, I prefer them to be. :hmm:
Why would you need a doctor to change your genes?
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 01:08:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 12:51:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 12:49:57 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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 :P
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.
So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures? I suspect that horse has already left the barn ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures? I suspect that horse has already left the barn ;)
Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 01:37:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures? I suspect that horse has already left the barn ;)
Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... :hmm:
No, I did. I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 01:37:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures? I suspect that horse has already left the barn ;)
Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... :hmm:
No, I did. I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.
Seems simple enough to me - professional ethics requires that the physician undertaking the plan to intervene medically weighs potential benefits against risks. Where the benefits are (say) "potentially saving your life", greater risks are ethically acceptable; where the potential benefits are "I think this body modification would look cool", there is less tolerance for risk.
While ultimately any decision must be approved by a patient with full informed consent, this weighing exercise is contrary to a more libertarian approach of 'my body, my decision', in which the doctor merely rubber-stamps his or her patient's decision to (say) edit their genes as they please, for whatever reason they want.
What's the difficulty or inconsistency with that?
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 01:37:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures? I suspect that horse has already left the barn ;)
Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... :hmm:
No, I did. I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.
Seems simple enough to me - professional ethics requires that the physician undertaking the plan to intervene medically weighs potential benefits against risks. Where the benefits are (say) "potentially saving your life", greater risks are ethically acceptable; where the potential benefits are "I think this body modification would look cool", there is less tolerance for risk.
While ultimately any decision must be approved by a patient with full informed consent, this weighing exercise is contrary to a more libertarian approach of 'my body, my decision', in which the doctor merely rubber-stamps his or her patient's decision to (say) edit their genes as they please, for whatever reason they want.
What's the difficulty or inconsistency with that?
I don't disagree with that restatement.
But I think you will agree that is different from your early assertion that no medical procedure should be performed until "after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen."
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 04:03:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 01:37:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures? I suspect that horse has already left the barn ;)
Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... :hmm:
No, I did. I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.
Seems simple enough to me - professional ethics requires that the physician undertaking the plan to intervene medically weighs potential benefits against risks. Where the benefits are (say) "potentially saving your life", greater risks are ethically acceptable; where the potential benefits are "I think this body modification would look cool", there is less tolerance for risk.
While ultimately any decision must be approved by a patient with full informed consent, this weighing exercise is contrary to a more libertarian approach of 'my body, my decision', in which the doctor merely rubber-stamps his or her patient's decision to (say) edit their genes as they please, for whatever reason they want.
What's the difficulty or inconsistency with that?
I don't disagree with that restatement.
But I think you will agree that is different from your early assertion that no medical procedure should be performed until "after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen."
Its part of the same process of care. A physician is supposed to at least consider various alternatives to getting to the same place - a healthy patient - and suggest various alternatives with the most benefit versus harm ratio favoured. The problem of course is that, in this age of specialists, docs just like everyone else suffer from the "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem.
Not really. There are a number of specialists who do mainly cosmetic surgery. If your test of only performing procedures after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen, then very few of those procedures would actually take place. Very few people need artificial boobs etc. for their health. The greatest benefit with the least risk in many of those cases is to do nothing since all surgery has risk and the only reward is superficial at best (personally I think a lot of people that get face work end up looking far worse).
Well this is thrilling,
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 21, 2015, 06:11:42 PM
Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering? Humans will become "too good"? Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?
If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad? Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.
In a vaccum it reduces genetic diversity, which leaves the population vulnerable to new diseases and other enviornmental changes. However, an advanced transhumanist society should have the capability to engineer the genome to deal with any such problems that come up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2015, 12:50:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 22, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
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?
Athletes would still be barred from using a performance enhancing drug that caused no harm. The aim of sports regulating bodies is to maintain a level and natural competitive playing field. (Does HGH cause any harm? I thought it was principally used to heal from injury faster).
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 21, 2015, 06:11:42 PM
Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering? Humans will become "too good"? Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?
If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad? Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.
Because it's difficult to determine what is a "disease" that should be fixed.
The classic case is sickle cell anemia. It is caused by having both parents being carriers of a single recessive gene, and the child inheriting the gene from both parents. The problem is that being a carrier of only the single gene actually has some health benefits - carriers have greater resistance to malaria.
So?
QuoteOr take downs syndrome (which now that I have twin DS nephews I'm learning more about). It's a genetic disease, but it's quite different from something like sickle cell. Sickle cell is caused by a specific defective gene. Downs syndrome however is caused by having a duplicate chromosone. It's not an inheritable gene - rather it's an error in early cell division. As such there's no way to cure downs syndrome, either by today's or any readily forseeable future technology. Instead the only way to "prevent" downs syndrome is to abort any pregnancy that tests positive for downs.
Yeah, and it "prevents" the hell out of it. Anyway, my position on this is known.
Honestly, most humans probably ought to have been aborted. Hopefully, in the future, most of them will, and be replaced by better versions of themselves.
QuoteAnd 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?
The line is where the parents ask for something that harms the child based on a rationally-arrived at set of criteria. There's a very good case that individuals should not be allowed to make gene editing decisions. That doesn't mean that once the technology's arrived, its incredible benefits should be ignored.
(Height is a category that would probably need to be heavily regulated to prevent a feedback loop. Humans value height, but this is something civilization's moved beyond even if our primate instincts haven't, since smaller people would consume fewer resources and larger people are no longer needed in war. The best practice would be to establish a narrow range of acceptable heights for all people. This probably wouldn't be feasible for a long time, but we're assuming godlike powers here.)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 23, 2015, 12:16:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 09:56:15 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 21, 2015, 06:11:42 PM
Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering? Humans will become "too good"? Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?
If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad? Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.
Because it's difficult to determine what is a "disease" that should be fixed.
The classic case is sickle cell anemia. It is caused by having both parents being carriers of a single recessive gene, and the child inheriting the gene from both parents. The problem is that being a carrier of only the single gene actually has some health benefits - carriers have greater resistance to malaria.
So?
QuoteOr take downs syndrome (which now that I have twin DS nephews I'm learning more about). It's a genetic disease, but it's quite different from something like sickle cell. Sickle cell is caused by a specific defective gene. Downs syndrome however is caused by having a duplicate chromosone. It's not an inheritable gene - rather it's an error in early cell division. As such there's no way to cure downs syndrome, either by today's or any readily forseeable future technology. Instead the only way to "prevent" downs syndrome is to abort any pregnancy that tests positive for downs.
Yeah, and it "prevents" the hell out of it. Anyway, my position on this is known.
Yes - and your willingness to murder my nephews Isaac and Eli (who are both cute as hell at 3 months old) is noted. :ultra:
Don't make it personal, Beeb. You know it ain't personal.
For the record, I don't want to kill your nephews and, since the relevant decision have already been made, your family has my sympathies and I wish the two absolutely nothing but the best.
On the plus side, you live in Canada, which doesn't exist in the same hell dimension Americans do.
Anyway, as a proponent of liberal democracy, being based on the preposterous fiction that all people are created equal, you should welcome the possibility that we could make that a reality.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 23, 2015, 12:33:23 AM
Don't make it personal, Beeb. You know it ain't personal.
For the record, I don't want to kill your nephews and, since the relevant decision have already been made, your family has my sympathies and I wish the two absolutely nothing but the best.
On the plus side, you live in Canada, which doesn't exist in the same hell dimension Americans do.
Ideo, but it is personal.
Isaac and Eli and real, live human beings. They're tiny, to be sure. But they're real. You have made it quite clear you don't think they deserve to live. That's a real hard position to just accept when you've held them in your arms.
Your good wishes are hereby noted for them. :hug:
That mischaracterizes my argument. It has nothing to do with deserving--every homo sapiens born on this planet has the moral right to live and to some degree thrive, which ought to be guaranteed by the State through both protection (which we inadequately provide) and subsidization (which we don't even try to provide) unless they do something to forfeit that right.
My concern for children with serious disabilities is just that, a concern for children with serious disabilities. In a competitive, cruel society--such as our society--they will face severe disadvantages which sometimes even the most loving parents--and I don't doubt for a minute your family is a loving one--cannot overcome. Will they be able to get good jobs? Find love? Experience happiness, or even contentment? I hope so.
But plenty of people we describe as "abled"--a misnomer, I suppose, since "abled" means purely "able to do menial labor"--can't do those things. Everyone born deserves to live, but most people do not get much of a chance to. The more of us there are, the less there is to spread around to our weakest and most vulnerable, while we ravage a finite planet. Making new humans is certainly not a moral imperative, and human life involves far too much potential for suffering to take its creation lightly.
This thread has made me want to watch Gattaca again.
In the doping athletes topic: I would love to see the dopehead olympics; allow athletes to pump themselves full of any and all drugs. You know how awesome it would be to watch a bunch of meth heads sprint across the finish line and at least half the field drop dead instantly when their hearts blow up? (the other half of the field drop dead before the finish line).
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2015, 12:43:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 23, 2015, 12:33:23 AM
Don't make it personal, Beeb. You know it ain't personal.
For the record, I don't want to kill your nephews and, since the relevant decision have already been made, your family has my sympathies and I wish the two absolutely nothing but the best.
On the plus side, you live in Canada, which doesn't exist in the same hell dimension Americans do.
Ideo, but it is personal.
Isaac and Eli and real, live human beings. They're tiny, to be sure. But they're real. You have made it quite clear you don't think they deserve to live. That's a real hard position to just accept when you've held them in your arms.
Your good wishes are hereby noted for them. :hug:
Yes they have not been born. You appear to be objecting to abortions rather than the topic at hand.
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 23, 2015, 09:25:57 AM
This thread has made me want to watch Gattaca again.
In the doping athletes topic: I would love to see the dopehead olympics;
The next one will be in Rio
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 23, 2015, 09:25:57 AM
This thread has made me want to watch Gattaca again.
In the doping athletes topic: I would love to see the dopehead olympics; allow athletes to pump themselves full of any and all drugs. You know how awesome it would be to watch a bunch of meth heads sprint across the finish line and at least half the field drop dead instantly when their hearts blow up? (the other half of the field drop dead before the finish line).
Bicycle! Biiicycle!
I mean, allow and encourage performance enhancing drugs. I want to see some carnage. And make sure we have a meth head division, for those not sponsored by the drug companies. :)
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 23, 2015, 10:20:39 AM
I mean, allow and encourage performance enhancing drugs. I want to see some carnage. And make sure we have a meth head division, for those not sponsored by the drug companies. :)
There was some debate in the IOC to allow performance enhancing drugs to be out in the open so as to increase the safety of the athletes*. But instead they wish to continue to believe that the games are clean and that current drug testing protocols are working.
*No discussions about meth as far as I recall.
They are still amateurs, right?
Quote from: The Brain on September 23, 2015, 10:31:11 AM
They are still amateurs, right?
Not since at least the 92 Olympics.
Absolutely incredible and indepth articles on this topic in the New Yorker and the New York Times. It makes me feel like we're finally living in the future.
These are far too long to post here, but here's just two examples, one positive and one negative.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-gene-hackers
QuoteThe promise of CRISPR research becomes more evident almost every month. Recently, Church reported that he had edited sixty-two genes simultaneously in a pig cell. The technique, if it proves accurate and easy to repeat, could help alleviate the constant shortage of organ donors in the U.S. For years, scientists have tried to find a way to use pig organs for transplants, but a pig's DNA is filled with retroviruses that have been shown in labs to infect human cells. Church and his colleagues discovered that those viruses share a common genetic sequence. He deployed CRISPR to their exact locations and snipped them out of the genome. In the most successful of the experiments, the CRISPR system deleted all sixty-two of the retroviruses embedded in the pig's DNA. Church then mixed those edited cells with human cells in the laboratory, and none became infected.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/magazine/the-crispr-quandary.html?_r=0
QuoteThat morning, Doudna was just back from testifying before a Senate committee that had been convened to grapple with Crispr's implications — as well as its potential for misuse. A postdoctoral student described a process for making mice that had a mutation associated with human lung cancer, by using Crisprs packed into a virus that could be inhaled. Highly accurate mouse models of lung cancer could be made much faster, radically accelerating the pace of research. This was exciting but also alarming. As Doudna has said, a minor mistake in the design of the guide RNA could result in a virus that introduced the same cancer-causing mutations into human lungs. ''It seemed incredibly scary that you might have students who were working with such a thing,'' Doudna said in an interview with the journal Nature. ''It's important for people to appreciate what this technology can do.'' While Crispr has opened the door to a huge number of experiments that were previously impossible, it has also enabled almost anyone to try them.