Comment by whack | Hacker News Reader

Comment by whack | Hacker News Reader

> "Such systematic efforts raise thorny questions for bioethicists. Some worry that pushes to eliminate disabilities devalue the lives of those who already have them. The cost and accessibility of the procedure raises concerns about genetic traits further widening the divide between rich and poor people. Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability. The ever-present spectre of eugenics lurks in the shadows. But in China, although these concerns are considered, most thoughts are focused on the benefits of the procedures. “There are ethical problems, but if you bring an end to the disease, I think it’s good for society,” says Qiao."

It's interesting how there's such a wide culture gap between China and the west. We spend so much time worrying ourselves sick with every possible downside, debating in circles and not getting anywhere, while China is bravely pushing ahead with a bet that's 90% likely to pay off.

The arguments in the paragraph above are a perfect example. We should continue giving birth to babies with genetic diseases, because this will supposedly make the current patients feel better? We should continue subjecting our children to illnesses, because "eugenics"? How can people seriously believe in these things? Getting rid of disease is good. Polio eradication was a great step forward for humanity, and the sooner we can replicate this success with other diseases, the better.

There was only one good argument raised, which is ensuring egalitarian accessibility to such procedures. And I'm sure this is a solvable problem. If we can afford universal healthcare, we can afford universal genetic screening.

When I look at the can-do attitude in places like China, and the endless cynicism and paralysis-by-analysis in more developed countries, Jeff Bezos' quote comes to mind. It seems clear that we've become a Day-2 country, while China is still very much a Day-1 country.

Well stated. It's such a bizarrely out-of-touch statement to make. I have a life-altering disability and I would not wish it on my worse enemy. An opportunity to eliminate it for the next generation of Americans is unequivocally a good thing.

If your disability had been repaired with, say, CRISPR, you'd be alive right now and without that disability. Had your disability been removed via "selection", you wouldn't exist.

The same argument would also be used to ban abortion, just you know.

And morning after pills

You're technically right for some definition of "me", but I don't think that's a particularly useful way to think about it. My parents would have instead had a healthier version of "me".

If it was "repaired" with CRISPR, would the person that is ng12 exist, or would some other child belonging to ng12's parents exist?

Are we not a product of our experiences, or do you really think every zygote is endowed with some kind or unique soul?

Replace "unique soul" with "unique set of genetic attributes."

Even though I've no disabilities per se, I would gladly trade my own existence for that of a genetically-superior sibling.

(Being a superior being, such a sibling would deserve their existence more than I do mine.)

The fear is all wrapped up in, what happens when they go beyond diseases. We know some areas of the world will. The article states some of the oddities, China forbids sex selection while in the US its accepted as normal.

So when it hits traits that are more sensitive, protected, and similar, is where people are afraid to go. What is parents decide they want their children to favor one parents race to the exclusion of the other? It will be solvable. What is someone comes up for a hetero test if such a thing is even possible? What about selection for a known disability on purpose, the article stated that a deaf couple used the process to produce a child with just that trait.

So yes it is an awesome step forward to creating a healthy society but we must recognize that somewhere limits will need to be established and allow society to mature to accept broadening of the limits

> We spend so much time worrying ourselves sick with every possible downside, debating in circles and not getting anywhere, while China is bravely pushing ahead with a bet that's 90% likely to pay off.

This is one reason on why we tread cautiously. I'm sure others can provide more examples

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

"In the early 1990s a biotech company set out to solve a problem: how to destroy crop residue safely. Some crops' residues harbor plant pathogens. Burning is occasionally used to destroy the residue and pathogens, but this is a fire hazard and can be dangerous for the environment. This company realized that, because R. planticola is an aggressive and abundant soil bacterium, it could be genetically modified to destroy crop residue and also create ethanol. Testing of this process, however, was limited to sterile soil. Ph.D. research conducted at Oregon State University, supervised by Elaine Ingham, obtained a sample of the genetically modified organism for assessing ecological effects through the German Institut für Biotechnologie and, testing it in non-sterile (ordinary) soil, found that the modified bacteria caused mass plant death from the ethanol production. R. planticola is ubiquitous, found growing in the root systems of all kinds of plants everywhere. Therefore, some have speculated that without the independent test, the genetically modified bacteria might have been introduced in nature and then could have spread to contaminate the biosphere where it would cause worldwide plant death."

We need to know as much as possible about the wide ranging effects of anything non-trivial that we are introducing into the world. Yes it will slow down progress and innovation but it's also nice to avoid potentially world ending disasters as well. This is definitely not an area where you want to have a 'cha bu duo' attitude.

Where do you draw the line and who decides that? Right now we're stuck in a situation where some people with strong religious convictions will never support even researching this type of thing. The "solution" we thus have is to wait for them to die and hope that future generations don't think similarly.

> Where do you draw the line and who decides that?

If I wasn't clear in my other comment: other scientists. Cultural sensitivity wasn't a factor in my comment.

I think the sentiments of Jerome Lejeune are insightful here. When he discovered the concept of genetic disease he eventually saw that the medical community was shifting away from figuring out healing therapies for these ailments and pivoted to a non-medical populational euthanasia approach. He's supposed to have journaled or something to his wife about how he felt like he lost his Nobel prize by chastizing some medical board or some committee or something about turning from a committee of health to one of death or something to that effect.

It's interesting because if you essentially condemn a disease as non-treatable then you'll naturally not exert the resources to discover cures and the root cause will never be directly addressed.

The thornier ethical/political problems surround the embryos that are discarded... A living organism with human parents is, at least in some sense, a human. To "discard" one on the basis of a disability while giving another a chance to live can be construed as a philosophical cousin to some of the most dangerous forms of discrimination.

Especially in America, where the right to life movement still holds a lot of political and religious/cultural sway, this will be an especially hard sell...

My only real worry is about the system being used to remove entire classes of minds from being born. Yeah, you can make a plausible case that an embryo that would develop without arms should be aborted. But maybe you can make the same case for someone with severe autism? What about gay people? If a mixed-race couple have a child, should they be allowed to only keep the lightest-skinned embryos? These are all classes of people that are disadvantaged in various ways, ones that won't have a "normal" "standard" life trajectory.

And I worry because once you start erasing variation in what a human is, you lose the opportunity to have a discussion about it. Once there are no more autistic children, you can't say "we shouldn't abort autistic embryos actually", because there are no more autistic people to point at and say "hey, that's a normal person, we shouldn't be aborting those". Additionally, even if we don't eradicate autism, plenty of people would choose to screen for it, so fewer autistic children would be born, so treatments will be much slower to develop.

What worries me even more though, is that we could start selecting for economic incentives. China already have a problem with too many males and too few females due to the years of the one-child policy, which led to people aborting female babies. What if people can start selecting for "sociopathic jerk" genes? It's a fact, or at least an accepted truth (which in this case is the same thing, since it's people making decisions), that sociopathic jerks do much better in life than others. But can you imagine a world where every single CEO is a sociopathic non-cooperative jerk?

I worry, in short, that the slope might turn out a bit too slippery.

> It seems clear that we've become a Day-2 country, while China is still very much a Day-1 country.

I hadn't heard that term before. Here's what I found: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Jeff-Bezos-%E2%80%9CDay-1%E2%8...

Interested in what quote exactly you refer to?

I think this difference is primarily due to free speech. You will have to sacrifice fast, decisive action if you allow anyone to jump in and muddle the waters.

Jeff B's quote was from this year's shareholder letter re: Amazon, the previous poster was extending it to America as a whole.

https://www.recode.net/2017/4/12/15274220/jeff-bezos-amazon-...

Articles like this are more about suppressing the masses than anything else. You think the rich and powerful want the populace to be smart, able, and healthy? Think again bud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com