I suppose a downside (depending on your perspective) of this is that it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect.
That's good if your goals are to detect genetic modification which may be considered cheating in competitive sports.
That's bad if your goals are to detect genetically modified people and discriminate against them.
I see a near future where the kind of people who loathe things like vaccines and genuinely believe that vaccines can spread illness to the non-vaccinated feel the same way about other things like genetic modification and use legal mechanisms to discriminate and persecute people who are genetically modified.
> it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect.
I'm not totally sure. If I understand it correctly, the mRNA contains pseudouridine, and it makes the protein that will edit the DNA. The edited DNA should look like a normal one.
I'm less interested in detecting genetic modification for the purposes of discrimination than making sure it's available to everyone.
Assuming requisite safety of course.
I'm more concerned about the possible negative unintended consequences of making it available to everyone first. Genetic modification is well-explored Pandora's Box in science fiction and present humanity seems so ill-equipped in collective philosophy and reason to handle a paradigm shift of that magnitude.
RNA is a byproduct, not a "source of truth" in technical terms. The DNA is. DNA is converted to RNA and then executed and then discarded, per my understanding. The DNA is still AGCT.
Don't be silly, the rich will want their babies to be perfect so gene editing will be legal and considered OK.
Can you explain why this is a bad thing, or is it just “”the rich” bad”?
Not OP, but presumably it's because it could cement a permanent divide between classes. We still have quite a bit of upward mobility in the US, but health is a tremendous predictor of future outcomes, so gating that to the rich is dangerous to the stability of society in that way.
This seems like more of an issue with accessibility of the treatment than the treatment itself
If we could make most children smart, productive, ambitious, courteous, civil, conscientious, honorable, strong... the value to society is probably high enough to justify covering it for almost anyone.
The society already can invest a lot (through public education) to “make most children smart, productive, ambitious …”.
Somehow society (or indeed parts of it) decided to use it as a tool of further segregation rather than overall prosperity. I’m afraid same might apply to this.
We "invest" more than almost anyone. 38% higher than the OECD average. I don't find discussions about throwing more money at the problem to be constructive so much as a way to ignore other issues at play.
I don't really see how this affects e.g. what I do for my children. I will absolutely be turning them into the closest to superhuman the current state of treatments lets me, traveling internationally if I need to. If someone else decides to segregate access to treatment, that is a separate, wrong act that will not hold me back from giving my children every advantage possible.
(Yes, I understand this is a positional arms race, but 1. that doesn't change the individually-optimal outcome, and 2. that doesn't change that society net benefits from it.)
I don't mean to invest as to spend more money, rather to spend money better and in a more equal way. While USA spends a lot of money on education I don't think it translates in better education on average. Even if this was beneficial for the society in general.
I am, afraid, that this kind of genome modification will further increase divide in a society and turn social lifts off even more. I.e. it's not gonna be your kid to get "improve" brain genes first, and later your kid wouldn't get a chance to get it ever again for their children.
Just to be clear I'm not against of the progress, this thing is fascinating and really shows how awesome humans are. And I get why you'll get it if possible for your kid. I'm just not sure its benefits for the society mean it's gonna be anyhow affordable for regular people.
This is already true to a great extent. A family with lots of genetic health conditions are probably going to remain poor.
I'm explaining that gene modification will not be considered illegal or bad because the rich will have a vested interest in it being legal. This is a reply to GP saying:
> use legal mechanisms to discriminate and persecute people who are genetically modified
I believe there is no way this will happen, because legal mechanisms are driven by the whims of the rich, and they will want gene editing to be legal. So there will beno legal mechanisms to discriminate against those who have been edited.
If you're going to make the comparison with vaccines, and if history is any indication, the more realistic worry would be the other way around (since that's where the money is): that genetic modifications will be mandated, and that those who object will be discriminated against.
[And no, I am not anti-vax, nor anti-gene-editing.]
“What do you mean you haven’t modified your chromosome 7 CFTR gene? And you’re planning to have children???”
I don't know anything about gene editing, but my grandmother was a carrier of the BRCA mutation. It would have saved a lot of heartbreak in my family if that could have been detected and repaired. My aunt, mom, and brother (age 4) all died of cancer. I'm just glad that my mom didn't know she had the mutation and passed it on to her child.
It wouldn’t be crazy if I teleported 50 years in the future and heard someone tell me that not doing this is akin to child abuse. Obviously all suffering is relative, etc. etc., but it’s just interesting to imagine a world where the societal pressure to make a perfect child is high.
Careful with qualifiers there. I genuinely believe that vaccines can spread illness to the non-vaccinated, since it has happened many times and is well-documented. For example, it's why only the inactivated (aka "dead" virus) polio vaccine has been used in the US since 2000.
I'm not arguing about whether the risks of the attenuated virus outweigh the benefits. I think the data are very clear there. (Heh -- and I'm sure the vast majority of people will agree with that statement, even if they disagree on what the clear answer is....)
It's just that one shouldn't mock a belief without including the necessary qualifiers, as otherwise you're setting up an argument that can be invalidated by being shown to be factually incorrect.
As for genetic modification of humans, IMO there are a lot of very good reasons to be wary, most of them social. Fatal hereditary conditions are obviously an easy call. What about autism (not saying there's a genetic link there to use, just a what if)? Or other neurodivergence? Like being a troublemaker in class? Or voting for the party that doesn't control the medical incentive structure? Heck, let's stick with the fatal hereditary conditions, and say the editing does not affect germ cells. Is it ok if the human race gradually becomes dependent on gene editing to produce viable offspring? Or let's say it does extend to germ cells. The population with resources becomes genetically superior (eg in the sense of natural lifespan and lower medical costs) to those without, creating a solid scientific rationale for eugenics. Think of it as redlining carved into our blood.
I don't think discrimination against the genetically modified is the only potential problem here.
As humans, we'll deal with these problems the way we've dealt with everything else transformational. Namely: very, very badly.
At one time organ transplants were considered an ethical grey area (perhaps they still are by some), but I think most people now would consider it better to save lives in such a manner when it only brings help to those who need it and it's possible to, compared to the alternative. Having the capability may mean that things like organ theft now exist, but the benefits around the world outweigh the nastiness that has always come as part of human nature.
I agree that organ transplants are a net positive, and in fact are far less susceptible to unintended consequences (there's a pretty low limit to the number of organs and operations involved, for one.)
I also think that gene repair is a net positive. I would just like us to, for once, look ahead and foresee some of the foreseeable consequences and act to mitigate them before the bulk of the damage is done.
I don't think it's necessary to slow the development; gene therapy is too desperately needed, and slowing it down so that we can prepare is not going to cause us to prepare.
I mean, I feel like autism is a terrible example here, it's not just some quirky personality trait, it's a reality people live with that runs the gamut from difficult to completely debilitating. Even the more mild forms of autism cause extreme difficulty in many aspects of life. If that was curable or preventable, that'd be great.
If it turns out some pathogen or chemical made me autistic, regardless of whether or not I could be cured as an adult, I'd have certainly preferred to live the reality where I had been as a child.
I think a better reason autism is a bad example is that part of its definition is that it is a consequence of fundamental brain structure and development (differentiating it from other psychological disorders which are acquired and more malleable). These aren't things you will "undo" with some gene edits. The whole brain has developed in a different way. Short of re-growing them a new brain you aren't going to change that (assuming you wanted to).
I think scientists have believed for a while that any type of “autism cure” would need to be extremely early intervention for maximum effectiveness for exactly this reason. I remember speaking with a team that was studying detection of autism in the womb for this exact reason.
Sure, the purpose was to illustrate a slippery slope, and curing autism is meant to be more obviously good than abolishing all forms of neurodivergence but less obviously good than fixing fatal hereditary diseases.
I'm not going to claim that I know the perfect place to draw the line.
> vaccines can spread illness to the non-vaccinated, since it has happened many times and is well-documented
Nothing in medicine is certain. Nearly any medical treatment has a small chance it could kill you. There’s a small, but non-zero chance of a lethal infection even if they injected you with saline, odds that rise dramatically in less than sanitary conditions.
Ironically the use of the attenuated oral vaccine for polio was because of the risk of infection in places where the availability of sterile syringes was hard to guarantee. It’s all about the relative odds.
>...and say the editing does not affect germ cells.
To me the wildest scenarios take this off the table.