Genetic Engineering / Crispr/ Designer Babies

[Neonmoon 38127]

I was watching a documentary recently that discussed Crispr and it’s future potential. Of course the topic of Designed babies came up, and then eugenics. 

They interviews a woman with dwarfism. She worried that because of Crispr, that science would use it to eradicate her kind. They even showed a man with Down syndrome testifying before Congress about that scenario. 

And my thought, why is that a bad thing? Wouldn’t eradicating Down syndrome be a good thing? They mentioned that because of genetic screening that happens now, Iceland had basically eradicated Down syndrome from its population. 

I understand the fears of superhuman babies of the rich, but as Crispr lady explained, that technology isn’t here...yet. 

Another aspect, with studies indicating Transgender might be biological. Couldn’t that be screened for? And would that be wrong?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transracial-vs-transgender-whats-the-difference_us_58dd5f83e4b0fa4c09598748

[F250 28691]

First they came for the Dwarfs, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Dwarf.

Then they came for the Down Syndrome, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not Corky.

Then they came for the Trans Gender, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trans Gender.

Then they came for the Small Dicks, and I did not speak out—

Because I have a big one.

 

[F250 28691]

31 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

And my thought, why is that a bad thing?

Probably because this is eerily similar to previous eugenics programs. There are no executions or forced sterilizations just the eradication of certain types of people from the gene pool that society finds undesirable.

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

7 minutes ago, F250 said:

Probably because this is eerily similar to previous eugenics programs. There are no executions or forced sterilizations just the eradication of certain types of people from the gene pool that society finds undesirable.

 

This time it wouldn’t be forced.

And it’s already happening in IVF. They take out eggs and screen them. They say eggs 1&2 have a chance of Down syndrome. Eggs 3 has a chance of transgender. Egg 4 doesn’t have those genetic markers. What egg do you think people chose?

Some people check for Down syndrome when they get pregnant naturally. Some don’t carry those to term. Again, it’s all voluntary. 

[Incredulity 11555]

We prescreened with our second and got a higher than average result of her being Down’s than not.  So we opted for the additional test of embiotic fluid.  Which came back negative for Downs.  That was 2 of the longest weeks of my life.  I am pro-choice, but thank god I wasn’t forced to choose.

For me knowing preconception is really a whole different ballgame.

I am sure there will be unintended consequences if pre-selection is widespread.  Hybrid vigor applies to humans as well.

[F250 28691]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This time it wouldn’t be forced.

And it’s already happening in IVF. They take out eggs and screen them. They say eggs 1&2 have a chance of Down syndrome. Eggs 3 has a chance of transgender. Egg 4 doesn’t have those genetic markers. What egg do you think people chose?

Some people check for Down syndrome when they get pregnant naturally. Some don’t carry those to term. Again, it’s all voluntary. 

As I said, it isn't forced sterilization but it is about eradicating certain types of people from the gene pool. My concern with this is that we would be choosing to remove certain undesirables from the population without considering if they contribute to the goodness of our world. I am not specifically talking about Downs but any perceived undesirable. Short people, gays, people with asymmetric features, etc... We will soon be able to reshape our species but no one knows the unintended consequences of such a change.

It certainly is a complicated issue but as a society I think we need to really contemplate the moral dilemma that we will soon be facing.

 

[F250 28691]

11 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

We prescreened with our second and got a higher than average result of her being Down’s than not.  So we opted for the additional test of embiotic fluid.  Which came back negative for Downs.  That was 2 of the longest weeks of my life.  I am pro-choice, but thank god I wasn’t forced to choose.

For me knowing preconception is really a whole different ballgame.

I am sure there will be unintended consequences if pre-selection is widespread.  Hybrid vigor applies to humans as well.

I was just thinking about the ramifications of a genetic mono crop of humans which is a completely separate moral issue than deciding whether certain types of people deserve existence. Perhaps A.I. will decide all of this for us one day.

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

This time it wouldn’t be forced.

And it’s already happening in IVF. They take out eggs and screen them. They say eggs 1&2 have a chance of Down syndrome. Eggs 3 has a chance of transgender.

Can you cite a source for there being a genetic test for "transgender" and where anyone is screening for it?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I was watching a documentary recently that discussed Crispr and it’s future potential. Of course the topic of Designed babies came up, and then eugenics. 

They interviews a woman with dwarfism. She worried that because of Crispr, that science would use it to eradicate her kind. They even showed a man with Down syndrome testifying before Congress about that scenario. 

And my thought, why is that a bad thing? Wouldn’t eradicating Down syndrome be a good thing? They mentioned that because of genetic screening that happens now, Iceland had basically eradicated Down syndrome from its population. 

I understand the fears of superhuman babies of the rich, but as Crispr lady explained, that technology isn’t here...yet. 

Another aspect, with studies indicating Transgender might be biological. Couldn’t that be screened for? And would that be wrong?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transracial-vs-transgender-whats-the-difference_us_58dd5f83e4b0fa4c09598748

Every time I read or hear an interview with deaf people who try to keep their deaf children from being able to hear thru medical procedures I get all ragey.  This is a similar thing, but the temptation for uber humans is a bit scary.

[Neonmoon 38127]

47 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Can you cite a source for there being a genetic test for "transgender" and where anyone is screening for it?

https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(08)01087-1/abstract

Here is the source stating there is a genetic link 

No, there is no source saying you can screen for it now. But if you think that it won’t become a thing in the future, you’re being naive 

[Parliament 14138]

Totally cool that parents would have the option to FIX things what they personally consider abnormalities. And that's what CRISPR does. It changes the DNA of a living organism. It doea not kill.

 

As a proponent of Right to Life, I am against killing embryo's. I won't argue that, as arguing hasn't eliminated abortion.

 

The issue raised above of "hybrid vigor" problems if we start screening and editing is legit. But it's take a whole lot to be a problem. We selectively breed livestock today. From the standpoint of genetic diversity, is that mich different?

 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Every time I read or hear an interview with deaf people who try to keep their deaf children from being able to hear thru medical procedures I get all ragey.  This is a similar thing, but the temptation for uber humans is a bit scary.

I think the opposite. They have their own community, language and culture. They truly celebrate their condition and consider themselves not handicapped in anyway. They actually prefer to give birth to a deaf child. 

I once thought like you until learning a lot more on the subject. I respect their right to exist and can see the real fear of science removing them from the population for good. 

What seems obvious from an outsider’s point of view becomes incredibly complex on an individual basis. 

As the examples above, the parent will probably choose the non-deaf, I’ll, homosexual egg etc etc over the opposite many times over. I can also see some wanting a natural birth with whatever comes.  It does have the unintended consequence of eradicating segments of the population. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[Mole 4320]

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

And my thought, why is that a bad thing? Wouldn’t eradicating Down syndrome be a good thing? They mentioned that because of genetic screening that happens now, Iceland had basically eradicated Down syndrome from its population. 

 

It depends on what is meant by eradicated. My understanding is that Iceland has eradicated Down syndrome via abortion. Without turning this thread into another pointless abortion debate, this is different than how smallpox was eradicated. On the scale of a large population (as opposed to what an individual might decide to do), it feels a bit like eugenics. Aside from the unintended consequences of such a practice becoming widespread, I'm not sure that a culture that embraces such a thing is healthy. To put it in an absurd light, we could eradicate any condition today simply via euthanasia. I don't think we'd consider that a positive development. This is commentary on the larger culture, not what should be legal nor what individual decisions might be made.

 

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

It’s all a matter of choice. Some people who conceive naturally screen their embryos, and some people who see that their child will have Down syndrome decide to terminate the pregnancy. Some don’t. That is a personal decision. I know people who would have the child no matter what. I do not feel the same way. However it’s a choice, and some people make it. 

The same thing for IVF screenings. It’s a choice. But poor people are not having kids through IVF. So the ability to limit the disabilities of your children is an option for the rich. At the same time, I don’t think many people are doing IVF if they can conceive naturally. Will that change in the future? Will they start using Crispr if they want their kids eyes to be green?  

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(08)01087-1/abstract

Here is the source stating there is a genetic link 

No, there is no source saying you can screen for it now. But if you think that it won’t become a thing in the future, you’re being naive 

So...no. I can't read the study but even the summary says that they conclude there "might" be a genetic factor "partly" connected to male gender identity. When you said it's already happening in IVF, that was an overstatement. I said nothing about whether there will or won't be a genetic test for transsexualism in the future. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

So...no. I can't read the study but even the summary says that they conclude there "might" be a genetic factor "partly" connected to male gender identity. When you said it's already happening in IVF, that was an overstatement. I said nothing about whether there will or won't be a genetic test for transsexualism in the future. 

Yes, that was an incorrect statement on my part. They are currently screening for other genetic markers, but currently not transsexualism. 

Way to go 

[LongestHorn 759]

Is CRISPR a political conversation?   

[F250 28691]

3 hours ago, LongestHorn said:

Is CRISPR a political conversation?   

CRISPR sounds like an oil-free fryer. Should probably be in the GM section.

[bernorange 8348]

Quote

Editing cells’ genomes with CRISPR-Cas9 might increase the risk that the altered cells, intended to treat disease, will trigger cancer, two studies published on Monday warn — a potential game-changer for the companies developing CRISPR-based therapies.

In the studies, published in Nature Medicine, scientists found that cells whose genomes are successfully edited by CRISPR-Cas9 have the potential to seed tumors inside a patient. That could make some CRISPR’d cells ticking time bombs, according to researchers from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute and, separately, Novartis.

...

More:  https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/11/crispr-hurdle-edited-cells-might-cause-cancer/

 

[Sbbruin 21738]

Considering there has been a steady de-evolution of our society over the past 20 years (just look at the FB thread for confirmation), reversing course and eradicating undesirables has its merits.

[woohorn 1131]

Is CRISPR a political conversation?   

[LongestHorn 759]

China confirms birth of gene-edited babies, blames scientist He Jiankui for breaking rules

The article doesn't say, but what I believe he did was take a couple with AIDS and make a baby without AIDS.  The article does say he had a team that included some foreigners.  An American among them.  Michael W. Deem, from Rice University.  And I've read American bioethicist Arthur Caplan at NYU make a defense along the lines of "it's going to happen anyway, so lets manage this so we're not making designer babies, but we are curing disease".

 

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2182964/china-confirms-gene-edited-babies-blames-scientist-he-jiankui

[Asithappens 974]

On 5/26/2018 at 8:01 AM, Neonmoon said:

 

They interviews a woman with dwarfism. She worried that because of Crispr, that science would use it to eradicate her kind. They even showed a man with Down syndrome testifying before Congress about that scenario. 

And my thought, why is that a bad thing? Wouldn’t eradicating Down syndrome be a good thing? They mentioned that because of genetic screening that happens now, Iceland had basically eradicated Down syndrome from its population. 

Agreed. 

It is not a bad thing. 

She needs to not be so small-minded about the topic.

[LongestHorn 759]

Hi, may I take your order?

Yes, I'd like a baby.

And how would you like it?

Extra CRISPR.

[Asithappens 974]

I think the whole "eugenics" argument, while valid, may be a bit overblown.

I hope this takes off. It may "cure" some babies from terrible afflictions.

[LongestHorn 759]

With a clear understanding of the unintended consequences, of course.

[Parliament 14138]

Agreed. 
It is not a bad thing. 
She needs to not be so small-minded about the topic.

Are they correcting a genetic defect early in life? Gene editing can be used to fix problems in older kids and even adults. All good things.

But if we're editing DNA before conception, or "selection" zygotes, that's cause for concern.

[Captainant 27467]

24 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I think the whole "eugenics" argument, while valid, may be a bit overblown.

I hope this takes off. It may "cure" some babies from terrible afflictions.

I'm a carrier for sickle cell, my dad has parkinsons, and his mom alzheimers. If I could ensure my future children were safe from those genetic disorders, you bet your ass I'd be down for it. There are some valid concerns with "how far is too far" with respect to trying to make people "perfect", but I think there's so much good that can be done with curing so many incurable genetic disorders.

[Asithappens 974]

35 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

With a clear understanding of the unintended consequences, of course.

Well, imo there can never be a clear understanding of unintended consequences, by definition.

If this can help a baby not be born with spina bifida, say, or Down Syndrome, or Fragile X, or a host of other disabilities, then we should embrace this. 

Let those who don't have a disabled kid who might benefit from this technology try to understand those who do.

[bernorange 8348]

I posted earlier a report about cancer risks with CRISPR.  That report referenced two studies (from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute and, separately, Novartis).  I just checked to see if there was any new news on this and found the following from November:

Quote

A study at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden has revealed that CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing could favor mutations in the most common cancer-causing gene. What does it mean for the first CRISPR therapy trials in humans?

CRISPR-Cas9 has taken the life sciences field by storm, making gene editing simpler and faster than ever. Although CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was only first described in 2012, the first human trials using CRISPR as a therapy were started in China last year and Europe is due to run the first one later this year. It seems like we might have rushed into it too soon, as a new study points out that therapies using this popular gene editing tool could inadvertently cause cancer.

The research, published today in Nature Medicine, describes that the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in human cells can activate the protein p53. This protein is involved in the repair of DNA breaks and can interfere with the efficiency of CRISPR to cut DNA.

This means that when selecting cells whose DNA has been correctly modified using CRISPR, those where p53 is mutated and therefore inactive will be more likely to be selected. Given that p53 mutations are the most common genetic alteration in cancer, the process used to modify and select CRISPR-edited cells could be favoring the selection of potentially cancerous cells.
...

https://labiotech.eu/medical/crispr-therapy-cancer-risk/

Genetically enhanced = high cancer risk

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

I posted earlier a report about cancer risks with CRISPR.  That report referenced two studies (from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute and, separately, Novartis).  I just checked to see if there was any new news on this and found the following from November:

https://labiotech.eu/medical/crispr-therapy-cancer-risk/

Genetically enhanced = high cancer risk

I don't really think "could favor mutations" equates to a high cancer risk. (or "could be favoring")

A relatively higher cancer risk? Sure. But that can be said of many things. 

Come on.

[Captainant 27467]

14 hours ago, bernorange said:

I posted earlier a report about cancer risks with CRISPR.  That report referenced two studies (from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute and, separately, Novartis).  I just checked to see if there was any new news on this and found the following from November:

https://labiotech.eu/medical/crispr-therapy-cancer-risk/

Genetically enhanced = high cancer risk

I'd would trade an elevated cancer risk for the near certainty of having a neurological disorder in my senior years. I've watched my dad waste away from Parkinson's over the last 15 years, I would just about rather eat a shotgun sandwich than put my family through that.

I'm eager to see what sort of gene therapies are developed from CRISPR, we don't know enough about the diseases to treat them like a typical condition

[bernorange 8348]

Quote

The Food and Drug Administration on Friday approved a powerful treatment for sickle cell disease, a devastating illness that affects more than 100,000 Americans, the majority of whom are Black.

The therapy, called Casgevy, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is the first medicine to be approved in the United States that uses the gene-editing tool CRISPR, which won its inventors the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2020.

...

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-approves-cure-sickle-cell-disease-first-treatment-use-gene-editing-rcna127979