First Human Embryos Edited in US

Ur_Mom said:
So, field research. :)
Click to expand...
We're not allowed to experiment on humans the way we do with, oh, fruit flies, creating entire populations and then dissecting them to see what we find after altering their genes.

edit: We also don't know about all sorts of genetic predispositions for personality. So much is felt to be nurture rather than nature, but we all know families where every single person is 'hot tempered'. Which genes code for that? How many other things about our personalities are coded for genetically? How many are absolutes, how many are only influences? The whole gender identity thing is filled with this; what, where and when does it manifest itself? And by how much?

All these things we simply do not know. Today our scientists LIKE to believe that they know everything. They do not. And just as before, when it turns out they're wrong, all we're going to get is a, 'Whoops! Didn't see that coming! Sorry!' to the people who are effected by it.
 
Last edited:
nightfly said:
OK. Do we know which gene codes for the preference of the color orange?
Click to expand...
Can this even be determined to be something encoded in our genes? Do you come from a long line of people that prefer the color orange or something?

I'm talking about things we can determine for a fact. We can determine when someone has down syndrome by testing their genes. We might not know the exact cause of it (probably genetic variation on conception (rolling the dice)), but since we can determine it's there, if we have the tools to fix it, why wouldn't we?
 
thesmokingman said:
We do in fact know why and what is going on. I won't bother to comment on the rest of the stuff you pulled out of your ass but as with anything unknown, just because its unknown that doesn't mean we should bother to stop shedding light on it.

http://sciencenordic.com/we-lose-control-our-dna-age-55

And they've been working on reversing the loss of control.

http://time.com/4711023/how-to-keep-your-dna-from-aging/
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with you more on this.....That other junk the guy before you was a little sensationalist but if we did know what was going on they wouldn't have to bother researching it any further because we know all there is to know about it.
They are still mapping people's genomes to figure out how to best treat patients based on how someone metabolizes certain drugs and such. Each person is completely different so trying to create the exact same thing is not going to have the same exact result. So when you go in and start effing with a code that is still not fully understood is not what I call a smart move.
Think of it this way, take a guy who has never setup or run a DB on server, he goes in and based off his limited knowledge of how it works he starts deleting temp folders of log files, those log files contain diagnostic information that an automated program that helps maintain stability of the system but no one realized that until the system came to a grinding halt because of the missing files. That's basically what this equates to.
 
thesmokingman said:
We do in fact know why and what is going on. I won't bother to comment on the rest of the stuff you pulled out of your ass but as with anything unknown, just because its unknown that doesn't mean we should bother to stop shedding light on it.

http://sciencenordic.com/we-lose-control-our-dna-age-55

And they've been working on reversing the loss of control.

http://time.com/4711023/how-to-keep-your-dna-from-aging/
Click to expand...

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2002-09/what-effect-do-telomeres-have-aging-process

Telemeres shorten after RNA replication, through stress, and environmental exposure. Animals with particularly low body metabolisms (tortoises) are shown to live longer. It's also shown that taller people and fatter people are subject to shorter life spans, as well as males as testosterone is actually hard on some parts of the body and causes inflammation . (Which appears to be another factor that indicates damage: https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals...ted-diseases-2167-7182.1000e126.php?aid=27707 )

One of the primary causes of inflammation and replication errors are oxidizers. That's why all the health nuts are all over certain foods which are high in anti-oxidents, like flavonoids/polyphenols which act as interceptors for charged molecules which can destroy DNA proteins and reduce inflamation. The science behind this though is sketchy as it looks like our body doesn't metabolize these sources well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavonoid#Research
 
nightfly said:
We're not allowed to experiment on humans the way we do with, oh, fruit flies, creating entire populations and then dissecting them to see what we find after altering their genes.

edit: We also don't know about all sorts of genetic predispositions for personality. So much is felt to be nurture rather than nature, but we all know families where every single person is 'hot tempered'. Which genes code for that? How many other things about our personalities are coded for genetically? How many are absolutes, how many are only influences? The whole gender identity thing is filled with this; what, where and when does it manifest itself? And by how much?

All these things we simply do not know. Today our scientists LIKE to believe that they know everything. They do not. And just as before, when it turns out they're wrong, all we're going to get is a, 'Whoops! Didn't see that coming! Sorry!' to the people who are effected by it.
Click to expand...
See what you described there is actually the perfect example of nuture, the hot headed family is not because they were born "hot headed" but it was learned from the people they have been around.....Babies are born with a clean slate when it comes to personality, I know because I have 4 kids and each child was completely different personalities as infants but I have noticed that in fact my children have learned to be disrespectful from how the others talk to my wife and I (it can change that since they are still young and can have that behavior corrected) Personality may not be genetically predisposed but physical traits are for sure driven by DNA. Eye color, hair color, height etc, My personality has changed through the course of my life because of circumstances that i have been through. (one such factor was being in the military).
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Can this even be determined to be something encoded in our genes? Do you come from a long line of people that prefer the color orange or something?
Click to expand...
My favorite color is orange, my dad, red, my mom blue. My sister green. Where does this come from? I've preferred this color since I was first self aware; perhaps earlier.
I'm talking about things we can determine for a fact. We can determine when someone has down syndrome by testing their genes. We might not know the exact cause of it (probably genetic variation on conception (rolling the dice)), but since we can determine it's there, if we have the tools to fix it, why wouldn't we?
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that specific genes code for SOME specific things, but we don't know what ELSE they might code for if they're interacting with other genes as well. We're discovering that some genes turn on, or off, other genes. To what extent? Does gene 1 code for hating the taste of broccoli AND influence gene 2 which determines exactly which baldness pattern you wind up with, while another influences when you go bald? Does gene 2 then affect gene 3 which causes us to crave salty crunchy things?
All this we do not know. Guessing that none of it matters would be a foolish assumption. As mentioned, if we try to eliminate a genetic cause of, say, autism, by avoiding having parents of genes for it reproduce together, that might be how nature does it. But what else are we changing, that we're unaware of?
 
Archaea said:
But to me, a human life begins at the point of conception. (Because at that point, if left to natural devices, a human baby will be born).
Click to expand...
Actually, somewhere between a third and half of all fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarry. Most of the time, the potential mother never knows she was pregnant.
 
nightfly said:
My favorite color is orange, my dad, red, my mom blue. My sister green. Where does this come from? I've preferred this color since I was first self aware; perhaps earlier.

Yes, we know that specific genes code for SOME specific things, but we don't know what ELSE they might code for if they're interacting with other genes as well. We're discovering that some genes turn on, or off, other genes. To what extent? Does gene 1 code for hating the taste of broccoli AND influence gene 2 which determines exactly which baldness pattern you wind up with, while another influences when you go bald? Does gene 2 then affect gene 3 which causes us to crave salty crunchy things?
All this we do not know. Guessing that none of it matters would be a foolish assumption. As mentioned, if we try to eliminate a genetic cause of, say, autism, by avoiding having parents of genes for it reproduce together, that might be how nature does it. But what else are we changing, that we're unaware of?
Click to expand...
There's lots of books on the philosophical debate on what is nature (genes) and what is nurture (learned from experience). My take on it is that a human is more than the sum of his parts (genes).
I'm not saying we know how all genes are expressed. I'm saying for the ones we do know, we have a lot of evidence that it works a certain way. We haven't created anything new, we're talking about swapping out badly encoded genes (for ones we know we have problems with) with working ones (from people whom don't have a problem) and or swapping out genes that express things like eye color for different existing ones.

So i want to take your opinion on something, tackling this from a different perspective. If i have a known genetic disorder and i want to procreate, should i abstain from procreating? Should i take a chance? Or could i utilize technology like CRISPR to eliminate the chance of passing the abnormality to my offspring? Which is your answer and which answer do you think is morally correct?
 
Hypergreatthing said:
We're just talking about modifications to the randomness which is genetics when it comes to creating a human and modifying it to the new life's benefit. Whether that's to remove disease/disabilities or to select enhancements, what's the problem?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the problem is, but if you are asking what's the problem with respect to people who view that human life begins at conception, it makes me curious if those people would view this as a small modification, or destruction of the original and creation of a new.

If people place great importance on conception, when the DNA (or RNA? i forget) from the male and female mix, does modifying the DNA after that change things signficantly? Does it depend on how much you modify? Maybe most people that place great importance on conception believe that at that point the embryo has a soul and so most other changes become irrelevant as long as you don't kill it. shrug.
 
SomeoneElse said:
See what you described there is actually the perfect example of nuture, the hot headed family is not because they were born "hot headed" but it was learned from the people they have been around.....Babies are born with a clean slate when it comes to personality.
Click to expand...
We know that we can breed temperment into certain animals, and that certain behaviors are genetically caused in animals as well (a female lovebird, when nesting, will chew things into certain lengths and widths to make her nest. Even if she NEVER saw an adult lovebird do this. The male cannot make these strips, though they try, but they screw it up.
This is an example of a genetically inherited behavior. What makes you think it doesn't happen in humans as well? So we may not exactly be 'a clean slate' as we may very well be predisposed to certain behaviors by our genetics. To what degree varies with the individuals, which further suggests that very mechanism.
 
Ur_Mom said:
So, we have the opportunity to rid the body of many genetic diseases, but we choose not to?

I'd like to see some more experiments with this. Where are the Nazi's when you need them. Damn moral based laws.
Click to expand...

What I have heard is that the risk of editing in the embryo means that these genes will be passed down to future generations with unknown repercussions. While editing while mature won't pass those genes on to their offspring. I think we should continue with non-transferable gene editing while this is still a relatively young method.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
There's lots of books on the philosophical debate on what is nature (genes) and what is nurture (learned from experience). My take on it is that a human is more than the sum of his parts (genes).
Click to expand...
Yes. However, exactly what we start off with, personality wise, is as yet undetermined, and of course how we start off with such, is also as yet unknown, but it has to be genetically caused.
I'm not saying we know how all genes are expressed. I'm saying for the ones we do know, we have a lot of evidence that it works a certain way. We haven't created anything new, we're talking about swapping out badly encoded genes (for ones we know we have problems with) with working ones (from people whom don't have a problem) and or swapping out genes that express things like eye color for different existing ones.
Click to expand...
Again, we don't know what else we might be changing. While we are sure that a gene does one thing, we don't know what else it might be doing, especially if it's not easily observed. Nurture further complicates this, as we don't exist in a controlled lab, so all sorts of things can have an affect on us. There is no current way to evaluate all the results of our potential genetic manipulations on people.

So i want to take your opinion on something, tackling this from a different perspective. If i have a known genetic disorder and i want to procreate, should i abstain from procreating? Should i take a chance? Or could i utilize technology like CRISPR to eliminate the chance of passing the abnormality to my offspring? Which is your answer and which answer do you think is morally correct?
Click to expand...
What we wind up with here, is the same old problem. Everyone wants to believe that they have the best and most worthwhile dna, or, in the face of some defect, want to believe that the rest of their dna is so superior that it warrants reproduction. And that's where we have a problem. We see this right now, as we're potentially having more and more surviving children with genetic predispositions for disease processes, survive a disease in infancy which would have previously eliminated them from the gene pool, grow up and want to have kids of their own with that genetically poor dna combination. We appear to be currently de-volving intellectually as well, as more stupid people than smart people, are having kids (and more of them).
 
I am not against genetic modification BUT if this technology is like any other cutting/bleeding edge technology, you can bet that the companies that can do it will charge a BAZILLION dollars for it. While the "idea" of getting rid of certain diseases is great, this isn't going to be dime store tech, folks. Only the wealthy will have access to this technology - which in turn will create an UBER class of rich people with no illness or vulnerability - while the regular folks will be left in the dust. I'm with everyone who has already said GATTACA or Elysium or the like.
 
dvsman said:
I am not against genetic modification BUT if this technology is like any other cutting/bleeding edge technology, you can bet that the companies that can do it will charge a BAZILLION dollars for it. While the "idea" of getting rid of certain diseases is great, this isn't going to be dime store tech, folks. Only the wealthy will have access to this technology - which in turn will create an UBER class of rich people with no illness or vulnerability - while the regular folks will be left in the dust. I'm with everyone who has already said GATTACA or Elysium or the like.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up for this uber class?
 
dvsman said:
I am not against genetic modification BUT if this technology is like any other cutting/bleeding edge technology, you can bet that the companies that can do it will charge a BAZILLION dollars for it. While the "idea" of getting rid of certain diseases is great, this isn't going to be dime store tech, folks. Only the wealthy will have access to this technology - which in turn will create an UBER class of rich people with no illness or vulnerability - while the regular folks will be left in the dust. I'm with everyone who has already said GATTACA or Elysium or the like.
Click to expand...

Genetic welfare too?
 
We already have 'designer babies.' Humans have an extremely complex mating process that culls a lot of genes that lead to physical appearances or behaviors that are incompatible with our current way of life.

Should we get rid of mating rituals and marriage in the name of genetic diversity, too? Our desires for things like a 'beautiful' face shape are completely arbitrary, we just don't think about it the way we think about active genetic modification because it's a slow background process.
 
nightfly said:
What we wind up with here, is the same old problem. Everyone wants to believe that they have the best and most worthwhile dna, or, in the face of some defect, want to believe that the rest of their dna is so superior that it warrants reproduction. And that's where we have a problem. We see this right now, as we're potentially having more and more surviving children with genetic predispositions for disease processes, survive a disease in infancy which would have previously eliminated them from the gene pool, grow up and want to have kids of their own with that genetically poor dna combination. We appear to be currently de-volving intellectually as well, as more stupid people than smart people, are having kids (and more of them).
Click to expand...
That's not how this works and you know it. There's no correlation to intelligence and genetic diseases.
Once you make genetic modifications to the baseline structure, you can only pass those corrected genes forward.

You could theoretically fix genetic defects before they manifest in a person, before he passes it along to their offspring and practically eliminate it from appearing again.

There's always the off-chance you'll have a mutation in which it works it's way back into the gene pool, but with proper testing this too can be eliminated.

In a future where sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia (and many others) are just footnotes in history that have been conquered, i fully welcome that.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
There's always the off-chance you'll have a mutation in which it works it's way back into the gene pool, but with proper testing this too can be eliminated.
Click to expand...
How do you propose that testing be done? At this point, in order to determine the success or failure of a genetic manipulation, would require the study of genetically modified individuals in controlled environments (in order to eliminate outside influences) for entire lifetimes. So right now we're looking at thousands of years of testing before being able to confirm if something works or not without otherwise changing something else about the organism. The 'one gene, ONLY one effect' principle is flawed, we know that. There are so many things that we don't know the cause of right now, which may be affected by any change we might make. While it might be advantageous to proceed with genetic modifications and hope for the best, do you want your children to be the subject of such experiments, in the hope that it MIGHT work? Or just want those experiments performed on others?
 
Last edited:
blkt said:
When you begin to define what is a genetic disease or defect, this is where the problem begins. Some guy in Germany tried that.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Comparing this to Hitler is stupidity pure and simple. Hitler wanted to eradicate a susbet people by murdering them when they didnt fit his narrow view point of purity. This is nothing like that, nobody is talking about doing that except you.

Krixon said:
If you haven't already, give the 'Old Man's War' book series a try - it deals with this very idea.
Click to expand...

I have and it was a good read but its just fiction. Its no more than a thought experiment and doesnt mean we shouldnt proceed with this. Fiction doesnt necessarily indicate that if we do this it will turn out the way it did there.
 
kju1 said:
Bullshit. Comparing this to Hitler is stupidity pure and simple. Hitler wanted to eradicate a susbet people by murdering them when they didnt fit his narrow view point of purity. This is nothing like that, nobody is talking about doing that except you.
Click to expand...

Actually its pretty spot on. Read up on the his eugenics experiments in across Europe & Argentina. Murdering the Jewish population was only part of the plan.

Anyway, about the OP article, it would seem that this kind of master race ideology would only be a thought away with this kind of technology in the hands of the right person or government who had access and the means to use it.
 
Last edited:
Krenum said:
Actually its pretty spot on. Read up on the his eugenics experiments in across Europe & Argentina. Murdering the Jewish population was only part of the plan.

Anyway, about the OP article, it would seem that this kind of master race ideology would only be a thought away in the hands of the right person or government who had access and the means to do it.
Click to expand...

Nope by your logic we shouldnt do any research into or help people with hypothermia since Hitler conducted experiments with people using it. We should also ban human testing of pharmaceuticals since he did that too. We could go on but the point is that he did bad things for bad reasons. Will someone abuse this? Probably, just like people abuse everything else in the world. But that doesnt mean we should ban it all. Unless of course you advocate living like a nun...
 
Dollars to donuts the Military will use this to create a super soldier army.
 
nightfly said:
How do you propose that testing be done? At this point, in order to determine the success or failure of a genetic manipulation, would require the study of genetically modified individuals in controlled environments (in order to eliminate outside influences) for entire lifetimes. So right now we're looking at thousands of years of testing before being able to confirm if something works or not without otherwise changing something else about the organism. The 'one gene, ONLY one effect' principle is flawed, we know that. There are so many things that we don't know the cause of right now, which may be affected by any change we might make. While it might be advantageous to proceed with genetic modifications and hope for the best, do you want your children to be the subject of such experiments, in the hope that it MIGHT work? Or just want those experiments performed on others?
Click to expand...
Because you can sequence the genome of a zygote and do a direct comparison of the genes? Then you can apply gene modification to those genes that are determined to be faulty?
It can also be voluntary?
 
kju1 said:
Nope by your logic we shouldnt do any research into or help people with hypothermia since Hitler conducted experiments with people using it. We should also ban human testing of pharmaceuticals since he did that too. We could go on but the point is that he did bad things for bad reasons. Will someone abuse this? Probably, just like people abuse everything else in the world. But that doesnt mean we should ban it all. Unless of course you advocate living like a nun...
Click to expand...

This is a whole different beast than researching known ailments & conditions. Playing with mother nature will get us into a whole lot of trouble. Human meddling is what got us in the situation were in now.
 
TwistedAegis said:
What I have heard is that the risk of editing in the embryo means that these genes will be passed down to future generations with unknown repercussions. While editing while mature won't pass those genes on to their offspring. I think we should continue with non-transferable gene editing while this is still a relatively young method.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
kju1 said:
........... I have and it was a good read but its just fiction. Its no more than a thought experiment and doesnt mean we shouldnt proceed with this. Fiction doesnt necessarily indicate that if we do this it will turn out the way it did there.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps you misunderstand or perhaps undervalue some fiction. Fiction is not just make believe for entertainment. Fiction is a tool that authors often use that allows them the freedom to pose questions to the reader, to make readers think. To create awareness and address topics of importance. Science fiction goes even further by allowing the author to do so in a made up world. The thinking is that an author can take a contemporary issue and repackage it in a make believe reality freeing the issue from the emotions and dead weight of the real world so that the readers can more clearly see the issue for what it is, and see the author's thoughts on it without getting bogged down in the surrounding histories, and very real emotions of the day.

Now you are correct that fiction isn't a crystal ball that foretells our future. But it is a medium we can use to examine an issue in a clearer setting.

For instance, take the recent news, the US is going back on their acceptance of gays in the military. Take the issue, tear it out of today's world and implant it into a fictional one. Now take a new look at the issue, and perhaps see what the author wants say about it.

Just fiction can be eye opening.
 
Krenum said:
Dollars to donuts the Military will use this to create a super soldier army.
Click to expand...

Is there something wrong with that?

If I can make soldiers see better in the dark then he doesn't need night vision devices. He isn't really seeing better, but his batteries won't give out and it'll take some weight off his neck, like a helmet isn't heavy enough. Could save us some tax dollars, or at least allow the money to be spent on something else that can be more effective.

It's not the tool, it's how you use the tool.
 
Ur_Mom said:
So, we have the opportunity to rid the body of many genetic diseases, but we choose not to?

I'd like to see some more experiments with this. Where are the Nazi's when you need them. Damn moral based laws.
Click to expand...

What's the result? Better life? Longer life? Fewer deaths. A population boom?

We have so many problems and men are such vain and weak creatures.

I think we have to get somewhere first before we let this particular genie out of it's bottle.

Of course it's probably not going to be up to us.
 
kju1 said:
I have and it was a good read but its just fiction. Its no more than a thought experiment and doesnt mean we shouldnt proceed with this. Fiction doesnt necessarily indicate that if we do this it will turn out the way it did there.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you enjoyed it. I never meant to imply that the series was predicting the future, just that it directly followed what you wrote.

I agree that we should pursue this technology. Perhaps, one day, we could be downloaded into green-skinned super-clones. Ah, to dream.
 
thesmokingman said:
Which one do you prefer?

orphan-black-hot-topic1.jpg
Click to expand...

Did you seriously just try to pass a Hot Topic model as Tatiana Maslany? Let me fix that for you.

54cc6942-75de-4ae3-8ed2-c891158309b7.jpg
 
The government:

No one can make babies naturally. You need a permit. We don't need that type of personality, sorry-- we only want compliant, docile personalities...
 
Archaea said:
The government:

No one can make babies naturally. You need a permit. We don't need that type of personality, sorry-- we only want compliant, docile personalities...
Click to expand...

Thats how it will probably end up. Its already started in China. Or it'll end up where they change some gene and bring about the Zombie Apocalypse, one can only hope.
 
we have a duty to ensure that if we can not cure cancer then preventing it at the genetic level should be done.

seriously FUCK CANCER.
 
“In the garden we are growin' Many changes will be flowin' If you want to be amazin' See the flowers we are raising”
 
Master_shake_ said:
we have a duty to ensure that if we can not cure cancer then preventing it at the genetic level should be done.

seriously FUCK CANCER.
Click to expand...


Man I want to say I understand your sentiments on this. But I don't really, because although I have lost those I love, I've never lost a really close loved one to cancer.

So please please don't take this personal. And if you can't make the leap I am asking for, I'll at least try to understand and accept that. Right up front, you don't have to agree with me, and I am not expecting you to.

So if we cured cancer tomorrow, what impact would it have on the world's population? How would it impact our lives.

Today we say "everybody dies"

Tomorrow would we be saying "everybody dies, but not from cancer and not as young"

If the world's population spikes, what will life be like for us, for people across thee world over.

So I'll follow along with you and say "Fuck Cancer" with you. But we got a lot more fucking to do first cause if we don't, fucking cancer might just fuck us all.
 
If you really want a scientific explanation of what this is all about, look up the term "Polymerase Chain Reaction" or PCR. It ultimately involves taking a tiny portion of the DNA chain and amplifying that tiny chain thousands or millions of times to be injected into a "defective" DNA strand. Sometimes - if they're lucky - that good DNA chain finds where it belongs in the defective DNA and magically replaces it. it can literally replace any so-called "defective" DNA strands throughout the organism with which it was injected. I learned about this around 2001 - 02 when I worked in the computer department of a company that could sequence DNA strands digitally. Extremely interesting - but it is still a process that is in its infancy.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Because you can sequence the genome of a zygote and do a direct comparison of the genes? Then you can apply gene modification to those genes that are determined to be faulty?
It can also be voluntary?
Click to expand...
How do you get around the amount of time and control conditions required to correctly evaluate exactly what affects your gene replacement has produced? We already have disease processes which don't appear until several decades after you're born. What do we tell the people that we make? 'Oh, we wanted someone with blue eyes, sorry that you wound up with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at 35, we didn't have any idea that would happen, too. Whoops. My bad.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top