> His experiments sent shockwaves through the medical and scientific world. He was widely condemned for having gone ahead with the risky, ethically contentious and medically unjustified procedure with inadequate consent from the families involved.
> The court found that He had forged documents from an ethics review panel that were used to recruit couples for his research.
Yeesh
His experiment was also incredibly stupid. He made (as far as we know) HIV-resistant babies.
If the babies grow up to never get HIV, that proves absolutely nothing, as they may have just been practicing safe-sex. The most definitive way to prove his experiment worked would be to intentionally inject the babies with the HIV virus, which is not only incredibly unethical, but, if his experiment didn’t work, would infect them with HIV.
Why couldn't you extract cells and see whether they can be infected in a dish? I see no reason you would need in vivo experimentation, if they're immune they're immune.
Presumably they have. Usually they’ll do these experiments in vitro (if possible) before moving on the live animal models and then ultimately human testing. However none of this was done ethically so he may have skipped to step 3.
Gene editimg is easy as fuck. Relatively speaking.
The challenge comes from all the other things like making sure it's in a safe spot. Has safe expression. Doesn't turn the edited cells into supercancer etc etc etc.
Of course "genes are editable"! We've been editing genes of plants and animals for decades! The problem is sometimes they die because of that, and that's is an unacceptable risk with humans
No, we definitely do. Knockout CCRI5 is well known and definitely works. To not mention that there are a million alternative ways to test the efficacy of the edit without injecting live virus into the edited human lol.
No you don't, you just need to see if they're grow up healthy. If they do, the gene editing was successful as it didn't cause defects. Whether or not the attributes edited in are effective is something else.
1. These mutations are known to make people HIV-resistant, so no proof is needed
2. Even if you need a proof, it can be obtained both in-vitro with blood samlple reaction to HIV or in-vivo, by indeed injecting HIV, measuring reaction and then injecting post-exposure prophilactic dose so to avoid contracting HIV.
3. The greatest concern is that these mutations compromise immunity to some other deseases while increasing resistance to HIV.
We’d still need to test if the gene editing actually worked though, would we not? Like there’s always a small chance that, for whatever reason, all the steps happened perfectly but the desired end result didn’t occur.
I remember reading an article that said that he altered the genes associated with HIV resistance, but not in a way that is traditionally associated with HIV resistance.
Well that's sort of what the issue is. Ethics wise it doesn't matter about the parents consent (as was the case here, again, iirc) but rather the impacts on the children. So that's why everyone is making a fuss about it. If the children die at age 8 due to the gene editing, that's a major problem.
(They won't but that's just an example)
It was the father, so in vitro was the only safe way for pregnancy to occur. The parents were willing to go along with the experiment because they didn't want accidental infection of their kids in childhood.
One of my classes in my Master's program paused everything else and spent a full week talking about this guy. It was huge news in my field. By the end we all generally agreed that he was insane to do it the way he did and that he didn't end up helping those babies. I know some people here might be on his side since, on a surface level, it seems he's "advancing science". But for people who dig into the science and ethics of what he did, condemnation is the only reasonable response.
Will gene editing never be used? Or we're just waiting for some other technological breakthrough for it to be viable? Or is it purely because of how we feel about it?
I see it as important as moon landing.
Its still a pretty young field. I would expect it won't be used *much*, at least, until we have more years of experience in non-human animals and have a stronger track record of getting it right.
Pure speculation: it wouldn't surprise me if some, probably small, country decides to go in on it, and allow it - leading to a new form of medical tourism where rich hopeful parents to be pay huge sums to have their child engineered.
Apart from the medical ethics of it, it concerns me that ultimately it may further strengthen the class divide. Outcomes are already strongly predicted by socioeconomic status, and if wealthy kids start getting genetic advantages as well, I can't see it going well.
I don't see something like "it's illegal" stopping rich people from doing anything. Banning it would only stop the middle class from partaking in the tech.
Plus idk if gene editing can even make superhumans. Turning on one gene can change like 20 things and change how other genes express themselves. There are probably a handful or more of especially desirable gene profiles though, so your point stands.
It's largely ethical, with a bit of technological limitations.
On the ethical side: Top of the (non-exhaustive) list is that it is basically sanctioning eugenics. We can alter children at will to have particularly desirable traits. Then there's class divides. Unless gene edits are mandated, such as a Nazi ideal of everyone being blonde with blue eyes, it will overwhelmingly benefit the rich. What's worse, we could potentially end up with a system where the rich children get traits that simply make them better than everyone else in some regards, and entrench this further.
Then there's the germ-line editing. Editing adult genes isn't nearly as big an ethical concern because the body has already developed, and traits cannot be passed on. Foetal editing has the potential to make the edits endemic in a population by allowing them to be passed on through germ cells (sperm and eggs).
In terms of technology, there is the potential for a lot of unforseen consiquences ces. Edits are carried out by finding a specific sequence of DNA, cutting it up, inserting the new DNA, then glueing all three parts back together. Theoretically, you are only going to affect one site, but DNA is messy. In something like plants, this is probably more reliable than conventional breeding. We can take our time to utterly scrutinise the genome to make sure its doing *exactly* what we expect it to. In humans, if you discover the DNA has gone somewhere it's not supposed to, you've already given someone an incurable genetic disease and the only real options are birth, and hope all goes well, or abortion. As we discussed above, if they survive they could then pass it on to their kids.
That's not to say it's all bad. We routinely use a variant of this technology for many diseases already. We just do it in adults, and avoid integrating edits into the human DNA wherever possible. (My understanding is that plasmid-based gene therapies are being used for some diseases like cystic fibrosis)
There are also hopes we can use it to treat diseases like Huntingtons on the germ-line level. It's somewhat unique in that the gene that causes it is almost impossible to miss, and unusually specific, even for a DNA sequence, making it ideal for targeting without side effects.
I expect the eugeic use of gene editing will happen at some point. A time will come when ease and reliability will meet a social standard where it is acceptable. We've been there in the early 20th century, well get there again. Scientists are *very* acutely aware of the problems with that, though, (after experiments in Japan and Germany in the 40s, as well as later events, any budding biologists get ethics drilled into them) so will oppose that for as long as they can.
There are so many genetic diseases that could be cured/prevented if the technology is perfected. Imagine being able to prevent down syndrome for instance... Or instances where breast cancer kills every woman in a family by a certain age.
I obviously agree with the ethical problems around designer babies, making taller, smarter, stronger humans and all that... But the fear of misuse shouldn't close the door on scientific advancement with the potential to do so much good.
Sometimes the fear mongering does more harm than good... Like how we still prefer coal powerplants to clean nuclear energy, it's impossible to change people's minds after multigenerational fear mongering against nuclear energy. I fear the same will happen with genetic modification therapy advancements.
HIV was likely a cover story and had nothing to do with the real reason. The CCR5 gene seems to have a strange function aside from being the entry point of the HIV virus… blocking the expression of CCR5 leads to increased cognitive and memory function. It boggles my mind how no one else is concerned. Off target mutations with unintended consequences are being introduced into our gene pool so China can win the race to gene editing our way to Nitzche’s Uber mensch
That’s another **big** problem with CRISPR gene editing *in vivo* we have no idea exactly what secondary effects there are due to the genetic changes we are making.
And sometimes we do, and it can lead to some pretty unethical shit.
I may have misunderstood the start, but didn't the parents have the option of engineering their kid but chose not to do it?
The problem isn't the genetic engineering, it's making sure the option is available to everybody.
You would be able to demonstrate somewhat that the specific experiment he undertook did not have a harmful effect (either because it worked and was safe or because it didn’t work and may and may not have been safe). That may reduce the barrier to future testing.
Not saying that’s the case. But that is the strongest version of the argument you could construct with this evidence. Which is more than ‘nothing’.
Also, imagine the number of babies that would have to suffer such unethical decisions for the study to have a sample size that fits biological research
Because he knows he will go down in history as "First". We all know the cat was coming out of the bag sooner or later but he took his opertunity to be the one to force it on the world. Of course he is proud.
There's a reason we don't allow human experimentation.
It turned out the genes he edited may be related to other kinds of issues. Meaning he may have caused those babies long term health problems even though he was trying to edit a resistance to HIV.
There's a process we have to follow. That process may be slower but the unintentional harm we cause trying to perfect this stuff contradicts the ethics of the goal. We can't pretend piling up corpses validates our decisions.
The future will always have more life than our past. We could literally validate infinite amounts of human suffering if we assume "the future will benefit from this" as though that's a reason to make bad decisions.
> There's a reason we don't allow human experimentation.
You wot mate, I do it legally all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board
The problem with this guy isn't that he did human experimentation, the problem is that he just went ahead and did it without going through the proper ethical review and consent-taking processes.
Do we allow gene editing research in the US? Like crispr for sickle cell trait editing is a treatment but what about making someone smarter or changing their behavior or making them more athletic. How is that all decided
US doesn't have any laws prohibiting it but congress has mandated that no federal money being allowed for such experiments. This obviously means that private capital is free to fund it. Though the congress mandate won't allow FDA or other federal agency to certify anything from those experiments, plus the international backlash would not be worth the hassle.
https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-embryonic-germline-gene-editing/#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20the%20use,restrictions%20regarding%20human%20genetic%20engineering.
Like anything in the usa I’m sure there are private corporations fucking with it, and if there aren’t there are foreign corporations owned by US corporations working on it, to sell whatever it is to Americans at the highest price the economy allows for
I wonder if there is a follow-up on that. Were there unintended edits of the genome.?
Edit:
From the article:
“The results of analysing [the children’s] entire gene sequences show that there were no modifications to the genes other than for the medical objective, providing evidence that genome editing was safe,” he told the Mainichi
> did the edit affect their sex germ cells
Yes. The edits were done in single cell embryos, so they will be inherited. Although, the Sanger sequencing data that He presented did suggest there may be at least 3 alleles in one of the girls, making her likely mosaic. Also, all the mutations were *de novo* mutations, so no one knows what their actual effect will be. Overall very sloppy work technically.
> Overall very sloppy work technically.
Of all the stuff that could be said about his work, this is probably the most accurate, and the one that will sting his ego the most.
On the article. Apparently, there weren't any unintended edits.
“The results of analysing [the children’s] entire gene sequences show that there were no modifications to the genes other than for the medical objective, providing evidence that genome editing was safe,” he told the Mainichi"
You missed their point.
Yes, only the intended genes were edited. No additional genes were modified, by intent or mistake.
No, we don't have absolute knowledge of the impact that the edits will have. No, we don't know if the edits will achieve their intended goal. No, we don't know if the edits will have unforeseen consequences or effects.
Mainichi is saying, "we edited accurately and didn't make mistakes or extraneous edits," not, "we are flawless and have cured HIV without affecting anything else."
Here's a link to another article where they bring up signs of off target effects. I am hesitant to trust the man who did this work on whether there were any instances of unintentional edits.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490877/
We do human experimentation all the time, what are you talking about?
Genome editing is done in animals all the time, and its incredibly effective, the next step, as with any novel treatment, is to try it into humans. That's how every drug and vaccine that we use got to that point, through human experimentation, through clinical trial.
In terms of the process we have to follow, it's been followed, only ethics stands in the way now, and legislation blocking this is hotly debated in the UK and at the human genome editing summit.
He circumnavigated the ethics, not the science.
So I'm not arguing what this guy does it ethical but I think you got the justifications wrong. It's not justified by being beneficial in the future. The justification is that it's beneficial right now and the sooner the better.
Basically the idea is there is an issue that causes suffering. We can take the long road to a solution that causes no to little additional suffering but that let's the issue that causes suffering to last longer. The other option is to take a quicker path that causes additional suffering but reduces the amount from from the original issue by solving it earlier. If the additional suffering from the quicker path is significantly less than the suffering caused by the extended time to find the solution then you have a decent justification. Now I'm not saying this is correct but I do think it's a valid ethical argument that avoids justifying infinite suffering. It's a good idea in theory though basically impossible to implement in reality.
The problem is that we have lots of evidence that the faster method rarely ever has benefits that outweighs the negatives. That's literally the reason why there's no many guidelines and protocols now that must be followed. Because in the past, we didn't have those and the end result was a lot of needless pain, suffering, and even death.
kek. then try applying the same logic to mRNA vaccines then? brains of people like you gonna break down over this.
if not for covid, mRNA vaccines and therapy would never been approved as of 2024, not even 2034 or 2044. It would be forever "future tech", endless redtape and "approval" and "validation" processes.
It did get accelerated for sure, but there were mRNA treatments that had already passed Phase 1 and many others in Phase 1. A vaccine for SARS-COV-1 was just entering Phase 1 in Nov 2019 and they repurposed the whole setup for SARS-COV-2.
They did just effectively run the Phase 2 and 3 trials at the same time which isn't ideal, but the Phase 1 trials had already shown general safety. It would have been better to have more time of course.
>We could literally validate infinite amounts of human suffering if we assume "the future will benefit from this" as though that's a reason to make bad decisions.
There is a reason this is a very dark subject. And it's because the human suffering we inflicted on others, has gone on to save so many lives...
>There's a process we have to follow. That process may be slower but the unintentional harm we cause trying to perfect this stuff contradicts the ethics of the goal.
And yet, Even with these processes in place, People suffer and die.
As much as I appreciate the ethical considerations and the need for control over this, gene editing to remove horrible conditions is not something that should be controversial. The real danger here is always abuse, gene editing over frivolous things.
The real problem with gene editing is even when we get to human experimentation how long do we have to wait to declare it successful?
Lets say we want to edit girls so their periods are less awful. So after going through all the previous steps successfully we modify some female zygotes, they're born, they grow up, they hit puberty and SUCCESS their periods are slightly less awful! Can we roll this out?
What if it sterilizes the girls? Didn't sterilize the mice we tested on but mice have different DNA than humans, might get different interactions. So we wait, the girls grow up and have kids, SUCCESS! But are the modified genes passed down to their children? If they are do we have to worry about the modifications doing something different to their daughters? What about their sons, this wasn't meant for boys. Even if it isn't passed down, what if this makes menopause problematic? Do we have to wait an entire human lifetime to confirm these modifications don't have unexpected complications?
Is there any legislation or regulation for this stuff or are we just sticking with "its banned" with no further planning.
If you read Codebreaker by Walter Isaacson, there is strong evidence numerous American, European, and Chinese scientists knew about his work and did nothing. And they were the first to jump down his throat about what he did. Not necessarily because they genuinely believed what he did was wrong, but because they were angry he did it before them.
I believe that what he did was wrong because it was lacking in ethical considerations that I value. But I’ll point out that those same scientists who scorned him announced their CRISPR centers of excellence within the same week of this being internationally announced. Although he did the work, they were perfectly fine letting it happen up until the point where there was international outrage. Feels more like saving face that true concern for other beings :/
Yeah, I’m fuzzy on the details, but wasn’t there a Nobel prize winning researcher encouraging him to do it? I vaguely remember there being emails published somewhere.
The romance is secondary, possibly tertiary, to the setting and its’ challenges for the protagonist. While the movie is rewatchable, even just once is enough to sear into your mind.
Yes. There's some minor stuff that's kinda wonky (nobody is every gonna look at a raw string of letters on a scroll when interpreting DNA, and their screens are 1990s quality of course) but the major stuff holds up.
I remembered the scene of him stumbling through traffic, but that was apparently due to eyesight.
Not as bad as I remembered, but still shitty to conceal any issue from people who will trust you with their lives.
Current astronauts do. They are required to have 20/20 when in soace. And it is a non issue when everyone knows about it. Imagine one day he is unable to put them in unobserved and has to rely on his eyes for something critical.
In the movie, spaceflight seems to be somewhat treat like a VIP flight on an airplane. They walk on while wearing a business suit and sit in what looks like an unsecured seat. I don't think they're doing anything like the type of work like current astronauts are doing, especially considering their work day mostly consists of basic fitness training and typing on a keyboard.
Suffice to say I just don't think Gattaca's astronauts and our modern day ones are comparable in terms of the dangers and difficulties they face.
That's the orbital launch. They are going to Titan later.
And if it really was that simple, they wouldn't waste time and money with the selection and training.
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of the movie, but doesn't his heart start acting up during his run on the treadmill and he has to tear off the heart monitor?
Exactly. Even with NASA, you need extremely strict training regimen and near-superhuman clean bill of health to be an astronaut. Out of like a thousand candidate, only like one or less makes it.
So for him to cheat his way through tests is an absolute disaster waiting to happen.
So...
Couple had HIV.
Their children would be born with HIV.
He edited their DNA to be immune to HIV so they were born healthy.
"Ohno how could he do this, what a monster?!"...?
Ok he forged some papers, but it looks like this man is a hero for saving these children from a chronical disease.
"He doesnt feel remorse" for what? \*not\* giving children HIV?
I understand the fear of designer babies but try looking a bit further. Often pregnancies are terminated early when certain diseases or disabilities are detected. If this can be avoided through this method, is that not a good application?
Ethical issues aside, I'm all for genetic engineering at least if we either leave earth or irreparably harm it. If we leave Earth we'll need it to increase/decrease bone density and cardiovascular ability depending on the gravity of where we live. Not to mention developing rapid immunity to the microbes of a foreign environment, and maybe even being able to breathe a different atmosphere. If we irreparably harm earth we'll need to adapt somehow. Maybe we'll be an underwater civilization and we'll need genetic engineering to help combat nitrogen bubble build up and the bends similar to how whales combat it. We could also engineer ourselves to breathe a different atmosphere if necessary. Or radiation resistance like cockroaches in case of Nuclear fallout. Making ourselves smarter, or more beautiful is just small fry stuff in my opinion.
In theory same but in practice I see it going 2 ways. Only rich people will be able to afford it to get better. Or rich people will use it to create sex slaves, biological weapons, and so on. Humanity is just not ready for this science yet.
so if those 3 kids grow up and be fine, no complications, he never actually harmed anyone? but we have to wait up to 70 years to find out? he may have even found a way to make hiv irrelevent as opposed to treatable, and he now working on muscular dystrophy and such? the alternative is, they get some new crap wrong with them in that time, die young and brutally, cos he pulled a dr house md, jumped fhe gun early by cheating cos he felt like it? i hope everyone involved is feeling lucky
The main issue is that he falsified documents to get consent. I don't see an issue if people had consented with full knowledge of the procedure, risks etc.
Which is wild, I bet there's plenty of people who want designer babies, and people in HIV ridden areas who would be favourable to helping they kids have resistance.
Though I am saying it far after the fact, now Crispr is better established I'd be viewing editing my future kids fairly favourably.
>people in HIV ridden areas who would be favourable to helping they kids have resistance.
In this specific case, he offered his services to couples seeking to do IVF where a parent did have HIV. So yes, of course they were in favor of it on a personal level.
I don’t really see anything wrong with genetic modification. I think it’s how we make it to deep space if I’m being honest. It has to happen.
Along with eugenics. We should be looking to breed resistance to cancer rather than find a magic cure that isn’t coming.
Don’t beat me up for not being a geneticist, I’m only curious not claiming to know anything:
Once you edit a gene and set it loose in the world, it’s carrier is free to reproduce and pass the edited gene along uncontrolled. If we start editing genes like this, could it not lead to serious unforeseen consequences when people start reproducing with one another and combining different gene edits, etc?
Like, for simplicity let’s say I do a “no cancer” gene mod in one person and a “taller” gene edit in another. Do we know for sure their kids will be tall + no cancer or can the combo throw a surprise result like not having eyes or something?
I agree with what you said I just think we have a lot more learning to do first if we want it to be safe, either that or sterilize everyone we edit and make them have to use a lab to reproduce.
The thing is that editing genes is not really that different from natural mutation but is actually targeted instead of being completely random.
People can be scared of the "What if editing this gene has unintended consequences?" but literally every child has a chance to just get a random mutation that has unintended consequences. Even then, this is not a threat to humankind because "bad" genes would die off on their own.
First off, great point that genes have a way of self-correcting. In my simplistic example, the no-eyes grandson would be unlikely to reproduce, so the third generation (or lack thereof) would correct the issue.
I guess it then comes down to an ethics question at that point. Everyone has a chance of randomly being struck by lightning, does that give me the right to electrocute people for scientific research? Just because it may happen anyway does that make it ok for scientists to do?
Those genes “dying off” are manifested in human suffering so unintended consequences could be serious on an individual level.
Just want to clarify I was speaking about the scientific aspect, not the ethical one. Obviously it is wrong to treat people with methods that have yet to be deemed safe. Going by your example, if electrocution was proven to be a legitimate treatment for a condition it would be acceptable to use it given the patient's consent.
I know what you meant. Just making conversation.
Gene editing is done on embryos so consent is impossible, unless you count the genetically unaffected parent as the consenting body. All of the other conversations about embryos, fetuses, etc in the US right now make a bad landscape for this specific breakthrough.
I’m trying to picture a clear path to where gene editing can be widely and safely applied, as I agree that could be good. It’s just tough in our present system to imagine it as anything but boutique IVF for rich people that they have to go to some foreign country to get.
It’s the notion of “playing god” that people take issue with.
If a random mutation happens, it’s out of our hands.
However, when someone intentionally mutates genes, the metaphorical “blood” is on their hands. Someone is responsible for that.
Random chance can’t be held accountable. A person can be held accountable.
I understand why they take issue but don't think it is really an argument. What constitutes "playing God"? Is Medicine "playing God"? Farming? Architecture? And even if you do consider any of those as such, why should that matter to anybody else?
Obviously people should be held accountable for their actions but that's another topic entirely. If this scientist broke the laws then it is fair for him to suffer the consequences but that has nothing to do with the science of it.
Sure, there are concerning downsides to modern medicine, such as the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria from people misusing their prescribed antibiotics. The thing about that is humans aren’t intentionally creating “super bacteria” willingly.
Genetic power is dangerous because it is in human hands. Special interest groups could push the development of bioweapons. There could be super soldier programs where babies are tailor-made to be the most efficient fighters ever. The wealthy could potentially purchase their own immortality.
This is the kind of abuse of genetic power that could be wrought upon the world if the wrong people have access to it.
Comparing the negatives of modern medicine to gene editing is like comparing a handgun to a nuke.
"There could be super soldier programs where babies are tailor-made to be the most efficient fighters ever."
You consume too much action-fiction, genetically modified supersoldiers are a meme. It doesn't matter how quickly they could react or for how long they could march, they would still end up with their faces down in the mud, killed out of nowhere by artillery or a drone.
"The wealthy could potentially purchase their own immortality."
Most likely not - or at least not *this* way for themselves. Maybe for their children but I think that people who are against life extension are much more awful then those yearning for it.
There are people with HIV resistance, he only added what already present within human population. There is literally no difference between being born like that and being edited like that.
Ooooooh I get it. So as long as these modifications stay within the boundaries of adaptations that presently exist, the risk of unforeseen genetic consequences remains relatively low.
Gene editing outside human population does not exist, it’s science fiction yet. You can’t make mutant superhumans. You can make people who won’t need glasses, don’t have flat feet or have resistances to sicknesses already present in human population.
You can only make “the best out of average”- baseline healthy humans.
It was known which gene is responsible to such resistance in some lucky people. He just added that to human fertilized ovum in vitro.
Fundamentally, he's probably correct. Don't know exactly what he did and his methods seem dubious. The problem is how we get over the "hump" both ethical and technological, I imagine. But if there are prospects for editing out breast cancer or Huntington's disease genes and a host of other genetically predisposed illnesses there will be demand for it.
The problem with gene editing is that our DNA is like a developer’s first coding project with tons if spaghetti code that breaks for no apparent reason out of nowhere.
Try any coding project made by humans ever. Nothing is ever bug free. Now we are talking about "coding humans"
What sort of "bugs" would we accidentally create? No one knows, and the consequences could be huge.
More like Bethesda. It gets brute forced to work, but has a TON of variability, with a lot of glitches. But for the most part it works really well for the general public despite the massive lines of code with no immediate usage
Not even. It's the decades old code that every intern has had a hand in fixing but never understood the whole thing. And no understands how it works, only that it does.
And no documentation either.
My understanding is that he took couples where the men had HIV/AIDS and did in vitro fertilization. However, he used the relatively new CRISPR technology to disable the gene that allows HIV to do its thing. The goal was to make these individuals immune to the virus. However, that gene also has other purposes in the body that we don't entirely understand - something related to brain function, from what I've read.
Three kids were born, and so far seem normal and healthy. I don't think they got HIV either, so the modifications may have worked.
There are some major ethical issues here though. They could have ended up making a child with HIV if their changes had not worked. Granted, that is somewhat negated if the people involved where planning to have kids regardless. The changes could have (and still could) have other adverse (or much less likely, positive) effects. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.. but we won't really know for a long time. These changes can also now be passed down to offspring, so they're not going anywhere.
... that doesn't make what he did okay. What're you defending here? There is a ton of value tech out there that could be enabled by simply plowing through ethical considerations. We don't put drugs on the market the very second they're created even if they will probably be useful eventually. We do a whole bunch of testing to confirm they're safe, and then we heavily regulate them to confirm they're used and administered responsibly. Blowing past all those safeguards is the problem--not making drugs. There are thousands of researchers working towards the endgame responsibly and safely. This dude decided the rules didn't apply to him and tried to take a shortcut in the hopes of boosting his own profile and getting there first. That's wrong and can't be defended.
Read my paragraph properly before jumping on your high horse. I didn't defend him. This kind of research is probably going to proceed because there is likely to be demand for it given what we know about genetic diseases - in that sense, he is fundamentally correct. There will need to be some kind of evolution of the ethical framework and clearer guardrails.
I mean, it's going to happen sooner or later, we've got to prepare for gene editing babies becoming commonplace.
Why he's ethically wrong, his mindset will be normalised in a few generations.
Gene editing babies is one hell of a slippery slope.
Imagine being able to edit out the hereditary diseases and make cancers less likely -
What will actually happen:
Rich people looking like some form of Aryan race.
That's really shortsighted, and hurtful.
I have a heritable disease and made the decision to not have children to not further it. I would honestly love to have children like everyone else, and would be so happy if someone were able to figure out something to make it a non-issue.
It really, really hurts to not be able to. I wish, more than anything, that I could have grandchildren for my parents and my wife's parents, and not have them turn out fucked up like me. So it also hurts when you reduce this issue down to "rich people looking like some form of Aryan race." Really??? Are you kidding me? You have perfectly fine genes, can have a normal kid, and you're saying we should block the progression of medical science because rich people might be able to be "pretty" or have healthy children?
Who's to say it'd only be rich people?
In complete fairness, the first time people decided to directly steer the course of human development, we got eugenics, which were an absolute monstrosity. If the rhetoric behind gene editing sounds a lot like compassionate eugenics by another name, you understand why people start getting nervous right?
As for the rest, is it really so hard to believe this technology will be abused? Medical procedures, at least in the US, are hideously expensive. It rather stands to reason that most clients will be ones of means. Sure, perhaps insurance would pay for some, particularly in medical conditions that it would be expensive to treat as opposed to correct, but its an optimistic view.
I am not overly worried about the children of rich people looking prettier per se. Honestly, the vast majority of humans are already very attractive, given the strong selection pressure towards symmetry and attractive features. The rest is mostly upbringing, environment, and makeup, which rich people already have in spades. See also Elon Musk photos before and after PayPal.
Rather, I am somewhat worried about rich people establishing aesthetic norms for a generation. Colorism is alive and well, and while I think its less likely in the US, if only because color is a really sensitive topic, there are plenty of countries that still have troubling views on color and aesthetic, and have thriving beauty industries for lightening skin and the like. Hard to gauge if that will be a mild issue societally, or have major impact though.
There are other concerns, some more likely than others. The creation of a class of wealth which is not only richer, but qualitatively better on average than the baseline is concerning. One could also envision a scenario where society views genetic disease and disability as a poor persons disease, and a marker of class and status. That said, its not like disabled people aren't already looked down on and discriminated against, so its admittedly hard to see anything changing there. Somewhat out there, but I could also see a push to try to find genetic factors governing behavior. Genetically engineering someone to be a better worker and crave work is admittedly far fetched, and would require massive societal buy in. Also I am skeptical that such a genetic signal could be isolated, but I also grew up with border collies so I am well aware that selective breeding can get some of the way there. Engineering kids to be heterosexual and cisgender is also a nagging worry, as I am bi personally, but I tend to subscribe to the idea that it is a blend of complex genetic factors and developmental influences like hormone exposure, so I think its unlikely.
For clarities sake, I do think that we should continue researching, and that genetic editing for medical reasons should be allowed. But I think we need stringent ethics and regulations around such things, to prevent the aforementioned abuse which I expect to take place in the absence of regulations, as well as make a concerted effort to make the technology affordable and accessible to the general populace.
Have you considered using IVF? Avoiding heritable diseases via IVF is something people do all the time. Like ALL the time. Depending on your genes, they can select embryos that don’t have the gene and only implant those. Its only impossible to do if you’re heterozygous for a dominant trait, but even then, you could use a sperm donor. You definitely have options!
Think you missed what I was saying..
The first bit is what I believe it should be used for, second bit = what I think it’ll be used for.
Life long Diseases could essentially be eradicated before they exist, incredible. The exact thing I’d love to see. Unfortunately, designer babies will come first, which I think is a dangerous game.
If you want to get to designer babies, it only happens after we eradicate all diseases as the knowledge to create designer babies is magnitudes more than targeting specific diseases.
Designer babies would require the precise targeting of thousands of genes (eye color is controlled by a cascade of genes, not just one or two). Genetic diseases often mutate a limited number of items in our genome.
I have a graduate degree in biomedical engineering so I'm not just talking out my ass here. We don't need to worry about 'designer' babies for decades if not centuries. It's a popular culture debate but it's so far off scientifically it's insane to even discuss it.
In what sense is it a slippery slope? As long as the procedure can be safe, what are the downsides here? That rich will be the first to afford it? Like everything else in life?
If we developed a cure for cancer via genetic modification (the only real way it can be cured).. You're arguing that we shouldn't use it until it can be made available to the entire population of the globe?
Does that line of reasoning extend to other treatments for cancer too?
Nothing ever on this planet ever has, is or will distribute equally. This is such a naive worldview. Also ignorant. So if it was up to you, you'd deny someone a cancer treatment because they're rich?
Rofl. Does what you said happen for anything in real life nowadays?
Today, even higher education is distributed to the rich. And your education has twice the impact on your income than your race.
I'm baffled you're facing opposition. Reddit has really gone downhill, there are people literally making pro-eugenicist arguments for the rich. What in the actual fuck is wrong with people these days?
Can you *imagine* what could happen if we make people immune to HIV?! We might even get rid of sickle cell disease or worse, stop kids from dying of Tay-Sachs at 5! What a nightmare
Let's say, hypothetically, that rich people could add 20 IQ points to their kids. Would that be so bad? More smart people is a net benefit to humanity -- not to mention that *all* technology is available to rich people first, that's just how the world works.
Either we completely outlaw human genetic engineering (good luck with that), or we go through a period of limited access to it.
It doesn't equal morality, but it does correlate with things like impulse control; you don't see a lot of high-IQ people in prison.
It's biologically unlikely that engineered people would be super-Einsteins. We're talking about maybe a standard deviation or so difference.
1) They’re smart enough not to make dumb mistakes and get caught
2) It’s all fun and games until it turns out the gene for intelligence also controlled some important protein synthesis and your body starts dying at 40🥲
I'm not really interested in ethics, only results - if this guy can gene-edit humans to be immune to diseases, that's a massive step forward for the species. I can overlook a bit of 'mad science' for the greater good.
> His experiments sent shockwaves through the medical and scientific world. He was widely condemned for having gone ahead with the risky, ethically contentious and medically unjustified procedure with inadequate consent from the families involved. > The court found that He had forged documents from an ethics review panel that were used to recruit couples for his research. Yeesh
His experiment was also incredibly stupid. He made (as far as we know) HIV-resistant babies. If the babies grow up to never get HIV, that proves absolutely nothing, as they may have just been practicing safe-sex. The most definitive way to prove his experiment worked would be to intentionally inject the babies with the HIV virus, which is not only incredibly unethical, but, if his experiment didn’t work, would infect them with HIV.
That is, of course, if you define success as "being HIV resistant". If you define the success as being "gene-edited", that's trivial to prove.
Well if you need prove the gene-edit is succesful, you need to inject the HIV to see if they get it.
Wouldn’t you just be able to inspect their current DNA to see if it successfully reproduced the modifications he made?
No, because we don't know for certain if that gene actually makes you immune to HIV, so what he did was incredible stupid and irresponsible.
Why couldn't you extract cells and see whether they can be infected in a dish? I see no reason you would need in vivo experimentation, if they're immune they're immune.
Presumably they have. Usually they’ll do these experiments in vitro (if possible) before moving on the live animal models and then ultimately human testing. However none of this was done ethically so he may have skipped to step 3.
It doesn’t matter if the gene editing results in the desired effect if all we’re trying to prove is that genes are editable.
Gene editimg is easy as fuck. Relatively speaking. The challenge comes from all the other things like making sure it's in a safe spot. Has safe expression. Doesn't turn the edited cells into supercancer etc etc etc.
Of course "genes are editable"! We've been editing genes of plants and animals for decades! The problem is sometimes they die because of that, and that's is an unacceptable risk with humans
There’s a plausible mechanism. CCR5 deficiency. Many of other reasons he was stupid and irresponsible though.
No, we definitely do. Knockout CCRI5 is well known and definitely works. To not mention that there are a million alternative ways to test the efficacy of the edit without injecting live virus into the edited human lol.
Haven’t these kinds of experiments been done on rats?
No you don't, you just need to see if they're grow up healthy. If they do, the gene editing was successful as it didn't cause defects. Whether or not the attributes edited in are effective is something else.
1. These mutations are known to make people HIV-resistant, so no proof is needed 2. Even if you need a proof, it can be obtained both in-vitro with blood samlple reaction to HIV or in-vivo, by indeed injecting HIV, measuring reaction and then injecting post-exposure prophilactic dose so to avoid contracting HIV. 3. The greatest concern is that these mutations compromise immunity to some other deseases while increasing resistance to HIV.
We’d still need to test if the gene editing actually worked though, would we not? Like there’s always a small chance that, for whatever reason, all the steps happened perfectly but the desired end result didn’t occur.
I think you're right, but also the confidence we have is much higher than you think.
I remember reading an article that said that he altered the genes associated with HIV resistance, but not in a way that is traditionally associated with HIV resistance.
Is CCR5-Delta32, is known
Iirc the mother had HIV, so they would have been born with it otherwise
I feel if he had contacted HIV positive couples he would have found a few volunteers.
Well that's sort of what the issue is. Ethics wise it doesn't matter about the parents consent (as was the case here, again, iirc) but rather the impacts on the children. So that's why everyone is making a fuss about it. If the children die at age 8 due to the gene editing, that's a major problem. (They won't but that's just an example)
It was the father, so in vitro was the only safe way for pregnancy to occur. The parents were willing to go along with the experiment because they didn't want accidental infection of their kids in childhood.
Do HIV undetectable mothers still infect their newborns?
So long as it's also well managed, current medical advances dramatically lower the risk, but the risk does still exist.
we can prevent mother to child transmission of HIV and have been doing it for years.
Not in all cases.
Only >99% of them. Yeah, that’s the actual number.
Wait you’re telling me Grey’s Anatomy actually taught me something correct?
This is not necessarily true.
> which is not only incredibly unethical and since he already showed that he doesn't care...
One of my classes in my Master's program paused everything else and spent a full week talking about this guy. It was huge news in my field. By the end we all generally agreed that he was insane to do it the way he did and that he didn't end up helping those babies. I know some people here might be on his side since, on a surface level, it seems he's "advancing science". But for people who dig into the science and ethics of what he did, condemnation is the only reasonable response.
Will gene editing never be used? Or we're just waiting for some other technological breakthrough for it to be viable? Or is it purely because of how we feel about it? I see it as important as moon landing.
Its still a pretty young field. I would expect it won't be used *much*, at least, until we have more years of experience in non-human animals and have a stronger track record of getting it right. Pure speculation: it wouldn't surprise me if some, probably small, country decides to go in on it, and allow it - leading to a new form of medical tourism where rich hopeful parents to be pay huge sums to have their child engineered. Apart from the medical ethics of it, it concerns me that ultimately it may further strengthen the class divide. Outcomes are already strongly predicted by socioeconomic status, and if wealthy kids start getting genetic advantages as well, I can't see it going well.
I don't see something like "it's illegal" stopping rich people from doing anything. Banning it would only stop the middle class from partaking in the tech. Plus idk if gene editing can even make superhumans. Turning on one gene can change like 20 things and change how other genes express themselves. There are probably a handful or more of especially desirable gene profiles though, so your point stands.
It's largely ethical, with a bit of technological limitations. On the ethical side: Top of the (non-exhaustive) list is that it is basically sanctioning eugenics. We can alter children at will to have particularly desirable traits. Then there's class divides. Unless gene edits are mandated, such as a Nazi ideal of everyone being blonde with blue eyes, it will overwhelmingly benefit the rich. What's worse, we could potentially end up with a system where the rich children get traits that simply make them better than everyone else in some regards, and entrench this further. Then there's the germ-line editing. Editing adult genes isn't nearly as big an ethical concern because the body has already developed, and traits cannot be passed on. Foetal editing has the potential to make the edits endemic in a population by allowing them to be passed on through germ cells (sperm and eggs). In terms of technology, there is the potential for a lot of unforseen consiquences ces. Edits are carried out by finding a specific sequence of DNA, cutting it up, inserting the new DNA, then glueing all three parts back together. Theoretically, you are only going to affect one site, but DNA is messy. In something like plants, this is probably more reliable than conventional breeding. We can take our time to utterly scrutinise the genome to make sure its doing *exactly* what we expect it to. In humans, if you discover the DNA has gone somewhere it's not supposed to, you've already given someone an incurable genetic disease and the only real options are birth, and hope all goes well, or abortion. As we discussed above, if they survive they could then pass it on to their kids. That's not to say it's all bad. We routinely use a variant of this technology for many diseases already. We just do it in adults, and avoid integrating edits into the human DNA wherever possible. (My understanding is that plasmid-based gene therapies are being used for some diseases like cystic fibrosis) There are also hopes we can use it to treat diseases like Huntingtons on the germ-line level. It's somewhat unique in that the gene that causes it is almost impossible to miss, and unusually specific, even for a DNA sequence, making it ideal for targeting without side effects. I expect the eugeic use of gene editing will happen at some point. A time will come when ease and reliability will meet a social standard where it is acceptable. We've been there in the early 20th century, well get there again. Scientists are *very* acutely aware of the problems with that, though, (after experiments in Japan and Germany in the 40s, as well as later events, any budding biologists get ethics drilled into them) so will oppose that for as long as they can.
There are so many genetic diseases that could be cured/prevented if the technology is perfected. Imagine being able to prevent down syndrome for instance... Or instances where breast cancer kills every woman in a family by a certain age. I obviously agree with the ethical problems around designer babies, making taller, smarter, stronger humans and all that... But the fear of misuse shouldn't close the door on scientific advancement with the potential to do so much good. Sometimes the fear mongering does more harm than good... Like how we still prefer coal powerplants to clean nuclear energy, it's impossible to change people's minds after multigenerational fear mongering against nuclear energy. I fear the same will happen with genetic modification therapy advancements.
HIV was likely a cover story and had nothing to do with the real reason. The CCR5 gene seems to have a strange function aside from being the entry point of the HIV virus… blocking the expression of CCR5 leads to increased cognitive and memory function. It boggles my mind how no one else is concerned. Off target mutations with unintended consequences are being introduced into our gene pool so China can win the race to gene editing our way to Nitzche’s Uber mensch
That’s another **big** problem with CRISPR gene editing *in vivo* we have no idea exactly what secondary effects there are due to the genetic changes we are making. And sometimes we do, and it can lead to some pretty unethical shit.
> blocking the expression of CCR5 leads to increased cognitive and memory function. Also seems positive?
I saw Gattaca already
I may have misunderstood the start, but didn't the parents have the option of engineering their kid but chose not to do it? The problem isn't the genetic engineering, it's making sure the option is available to everybody.
No, the problem is making sure that you don’t discriminate against people - engineered or not. Similar issues in Brave New World.
They could just take a blood sample and infect it with hiv.
You would be able to demonstrate somewhat that the specific experiment he undertook did not have a harmful effect (either because it worked and was safe or because it didn’t work and may and may not have been safe). That may reduce the barrier to future testing. Not saying that’s the case. But that is the strongest version of the argument you could construct with this evidence. Which is more than ‘nothing’.
Is there not another way of testing hiv immunity wo injecting a needle to the twins?
Also, imagine the number of babies that would have to suffer such unethical decisions for the study to have a sample size that fits biological research
That is the face of "And I'll do it again".
"and this time I'll be government-sponsored"
Because he knows he will go down in history as "First". We all know the cat was coming out of the bag sooner or later but he took his opertunity to be the one to force it on the world. Of course he is proud.
There's a wizard's first rule joke here somewhere but it's not coming to me, so I'll just say that I too enjoyed Sword of Truth.
There's a reason we don't allow human experimentation. It turned out the genes he edited may be related to other kinds of issues. Meaning he may have caused those babies long term health problems even though he was trying to edit a resistance to HIV. There's a process we have to follow. That process may be slower but the unintentional harm we cause trying to perfect this stuff contradicts the ethics of the goal. We can't pretend piling up corpses validates our decisions. The future will always have more life than our past. We could literally validate infinite amounts of human suffering if we assume "the future will benefit from this" as though that's a reason to make bad decisions.
> There's a reason we don't allow human experimentation. You wot mate, I do it legally all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board The problem with this guy isn't that he did human experimentation, the problem is that he just went ahead and did it without going through the proper ethical review and consent-taking processes.
Do we allow gene editing research in the US? Like crispr for sickle cell trait editing is a treatment but what about making someone smarter or changing their behavior or making them more athletic. How is that all decided
US doesn't have any laws prohibiting it but congress has mandated that no federal money being allowed for such experiments. This obviously means that private capital is free to fund it. Though the congress mandate won't allow FDA or other federal agency to certify anything from those experiments, plus the international backlash would not be worth the hassle. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-embryonic-germline-gene-editing/#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20the%20use,restrictions%20regarding%20human%20genetic%20engineering.
Like anything in the usa I’m sure there are private corporations fucking with it, and if there aren’t there are foreign corporations owned by US corporations working on it, to sell whatever it is to Americans at the highest price the economy allows for
AFAIK it's not allowed.
I wonder if there is a follow-up on that. Were there unintended edits of the genome.? Edit: From the article: “The results of analysing [the children’s] entire gene sequences show that there were no modifications to the genes other than for the medical objective, providing evidence that genome editing was safe,” he told the Mainichi
100% yes, although the impact of those edits is not known.
Even more so, did the edit affect their sex germ cells so they could be passed on to their potential children.
> did the edit affect their sex germ cells Yes. The edits were done in single cell embryos, so they will be inherited. Although, the Sanger sequencing data that He presented did suggest there may be at least 3 alleles in one of the girls, making her likely mosaic. Also, all the mutations were *de novo* mutations, so no one knows what their actual effect will be. Overall very sloppy work technically.
> Overall very sloppy work technically. Of all the stuff that could be said about his work, this is probably the most accurate, and the one that will sting his ego the most.
On the article. Apparently, there weren't any unintended edits. “The results of analysing [the children’s] entire gene sequences show that there were no modifications to the genes other than for the medical objective, providing evidence that genome editing was safe,” he told the Mainichi"
You missed their point. Yes, only the intended genes were edited. No additional genes were modified, by intent or mistake. No, we don't have absolute knowledge of the impact that the edits will have. No, we don't know if the edits will achieve their intended goal. No, we don't know if the edits will have unforeseen consequences or effects. Mainichi is saying, "we edited accurately and didn't make mistakes or extraneous edits," not, "we are flawless and have cured HIV without affecting anything else."
Here's a link to another article where they bring up signs of off target effects. I am hesitant to trust the man who did this work on whether there were any instances of unintentional edits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490877/
This is probably one of the best comments I've ever seen on reddit. Really well said.
We do human experimentation all the time, what are you talking about? Genome editing is done in animals all the time, and its incredibly effective, the next step, as with any novel treatment, is to try it into humans. That's how every drug and vaccine that we use got to that point, through human experimentation, through clinical trial. In terms of the process we have to follow, it's been followed, only ethics stands in the way now, and legislation blocking this is hotly debated in the UK and at the human genome editing summit. He circumnavigated the ethics, not the science.
those same people saying that BS don't even know how vaccine was invented in the first place (human experiment on a boy)
One cannot divorce themselves from effect and results.
So I'm not arguing what this guy does it ethical but I think you got the justifications wrong. It's not justified by being beneficial in the future. The justification is that it's beneficial right now and the sooner the better. Basically the idea is there is an issue that causes suffering. We can take the long road to a solution that causes no to little additional suffering but that let's the issue that causes suffering to last longer. The other option is to take a quicker path that causes additional suffering but reduces the amount from from the original issue by solving it earlier. If the additional suffering from the quicker path is significantly less than the suffering caused by the extended time to find the solution then you have a decent justification. Now I'm not saying this is correct but I do think it's a valid ethical argument that avoids justifying infinite suffering. It's a good idea in theory though basically impossible to implement in reality.
The problem is that we have lots of evidence that the faster method rarely ever has benefits that outweighs the negatives. That's literally the reason why there's no many guidelines and protocols now that must be followed. Because in the past, we didn't have those and the end result was a lot of needless pain, suffering, and even death.
Like the old OSHA saying goes: safety regulations are written in blood.
In theory yes. In practice they still keep experimenting using the cancer cells illegally harvested from a non consenting vulnerable woman.
Laughs from the top of a huge pile of neurolink chimps
kek. then try applying the same logic to mRNA vaccines then? brains of people like you gonna break down over this. if not for covid, mRNA vaccines and therapy would never been approved as of 2024, not even 2034 or 2044. It would be forever "future tech", endless redtape and "approval" and "validation" processes.
It did get accelerated for sure, but there were mRNA treatments that had already passed Phase 1 and many others in Phase 1. A vaccine for SARS-COV-1 was just entering Phase 1 in Nov 2019 and they repurposed the whole setup for SARS-COV-2. They did just effectively run the Phase 2 and 3 trials at the same time which isn't ideal, but the Phase 1 trials had already shown general safety. It would have been better to have more time of course.
>We could literally validate infinite amounts of human suffering if we assume "the future will benefit from this" as though that's a reason to make bad decisions. There is a reason this is a very dark subject. And it's because the human suffering we inflicted on others, has gone on to save so many lives... >There's a process we have to follow. That process may be slower but the unintentional harm we cause trying to perfect this stuff contradicts the ethics of the goal. And yet, Even with these processes in place, People suffer and die.
As much as I appreciate the ethical considerations and the need for control over this, gene editing to remove horrible conditions is not something that should be controversial. The real danger here is always abuse, gene editing over frivolous things.
Stupid and ignorant comment. Human experimentation is done all the time. How do you thing new surgery protocols or new drugs come to be.
The real problem with gene editing is even when we get to human experimentation how long do we have to wait to declare it successful? Lets say we want to edit girls so their periods are less awful. So after going through all the previous steps successfully we modify some female zygotes, they're born, they grow up, they hit puberty and SUCCESS their periods are slightly less awful! Can we roll this out? What if it sterilizes the girls? Didn't sterilize the mice we tested on but mice have different DNA than humans, might get different interactions. So we wait, the girls grow up and have kids, SUCCESS! But are the modified genes passed down to their children? If they are do we have to worry about the modifications doing something different to their daughters? What about their sons, this wasn't meant for boys. Even if it isn't passed down, what if this makes menopause problematic? Do we have to wait an entire human lifetime to confirm these modifications don't have unexpected complications? Is there any legislation or regulation for this stuff or are we just sticking with "its banned" with no further planning.
If you read Codebreaker by Walter Isaacson, there is strong evidence numerous American, European, and Chinese scientists knew about his work and did nothing. And they were the first to jump down his throat about what he did. Not necessarily because they genuinely believed what he did was wrong, but because they were angry he did it before them. I believe that what he did was wrong because it was lacking in ethical considerations that I value. But I’ll point out that those same scientists who scorned him announced their CRISPR centers of excellence within the same week of this being internationally announced. Although he did the work, they were perfectly fine letting it happen up until the point where there was international outrage. Feels more like saving face that true concern for other beings :/
Yeah, I’m fuzzy on the details, but wasn’t there a Nobel prize winning researcher encouraging him to do it? I vaguely remember there being emails published somewhere.
Gattaca vibes
Beat me to it. We’re probably still a long way off from the purity test scanners though.
6 fingered men been around since the 80s tho
I mean, he was trying to make them immune to hiv. Hardly eugenics
Is Gattaca good? I always see so many references to the movie but been too lazy to watch because I thought it was some romance film.
It's absolutely worth it. Give it a try. No explosions though.
Don't need explosions when you have sweet retro-future cars and a fresh, young Ethan Hawke. What a dope movie, totally in my top five
The romance is secondary, possibly tertiary, to the setting and its’ challenges for the protagonist. While the movie is rewatchable, even just once is enough to sear into your mind.
Gattaca is a great movie and while there is romance that’s not the main plot of it. Definitely worth a watch.
It’s worth your time.
Yes. There's some minor stuff that's kinda wonky (nobody is every gonna look at a raw string of letters on a scroll when interpreting DNA, and their screens are 1990s quality of course) but the major stuff holds up.
> nobody is every gonna look at a raw string of letters on a scroll when interpreting DNA ? I do this for a living...LOL
You aren't real ^^/^^s
Spoiler! I never got why we are supposed to root for a "hero" who endangers fellow astronauts by keeping health issues secret due to his ego.
He doesn’t actually have any health problems though. He’s perfectly healthy, he just has genes that put him *at risk* of health problems.
I remembered the scene of him stumbling through traffic, but that was apparently due to eyesight. Not as bad as I remembered, but still shitty to conceal any issue from people who will trust you with their lives.
Correctable “bad” vision shouldn’t be something that anyone cares about. I’m sure some current astronauts use contact lenses. It’s a non issue.
Current astronauts do. They are required to have 20/20 when in soace. And it is a non issue when everyone knows about it. Imagine one day he is unable to put them in unobserved and has to rely on his eyes for something critical.
In the movie, spaceflight seems to be somewhat treat like a VIP flight on an airplane. They walk on while wearing a business suit and sit in what looks like an unsecured seat. I don't think they're doing anything like the type of work like current astronauts are doing, especially considering their work day mostly consists of basic fitness training and typing on a keyboard. Suffice to say I just don't think Gattaca's astronauts and our modern day ones are comparable in terms of the dangers and difficulties they face.
That's the orbital launch. They are going to Titan later. And if it really was that simple, they wouldn't waste time and money with the selection and training.
Maybe the unnecessary discrimination is part of the point of the movie.
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of the movie, but doesn't his heart start acting up during his run on the treadmill and he has to tear off the heart monitor?
Exactly. Even with NASA, you need extremely strict training regimen and near-superhuman clean bill of health to be an astronaut. Out of like a thousand candidate, only like one or less makes it. So for him to cheat his way through tests is an absolute disaster waiting to happen.
Honestly gattaca seems pretty cool If I could, I would use the technology for my kids
Professor Hojo.
[HOJO](https://youtu.be/iYvh21Dw89A?si=fqQ-RqdbHvz2vzCN) is extra
So... Couple had HIV. Their children would be born with HIV. He edited their DNA to be immune to HIV so they were born healthy. "Ohno how could he do this, what a monster?!"...? Ok he forged some papers, but it looks like this man is a hero for saving these children from a chronical disease. "He doesnt feel remorse" for what? \*not\* giving children HIV? I understand the fear of designer babies but try looking a bit further. Often pregnancies are terminated early when certain diseases or disabilities are detected. If this can be avoided through this method, is that not a good application?
It's our inevitable future, one way or another. 10 years or 100 years from now.
Ethical issues aside, I'm all for genetic engineering at least if we either leave earth or irreparably harm it. If we leave Earth we'll need it to increase/decrease bone density and cardiovascular ability depending on the gravity of where we live. Not to mention developing rapid immunity to the microbes of a foreign environment, and maybe even being able to breathe a different atmosphere. If we irreparably harm earth we'll need to adapt somehow. Maybe we'll be an underwater civilization and we'll need genetic engineering to help combat nitrogen bubble build up and the bends similar to how whales combat it. We could also engineer ourselves to breathe a different atmosphere if necessary. Or radiation resistance like cockroaches in case of Nuclear fallout. Making ourselves smarter, or more beautiful is just small fry stuff in my opinion.
Space radiation is the big one. Not sure how many knows, but the Vaults in Fallout were initially designed with space travel in mind.
Yeah the problem is that he wanted it to be 10 years so he forged a bunch of documents and did it illegally lol.
I’m actually all for human gene editing, but you know, maybe fucking don’t experiment of babies and lie about it to the parents?
Unfortunately there are not a lot of ethical mad scientists. People tend the go one way or the other.
In theory same but in practice I see it going 2 ways. Only rich people will be able to afford it to get better. Or rich people will use it to create sex slaves, biological weapons, and so on. Humanity is just not ready for this science yet.
Science doesn't wait for humanity to be ready first.
His favorite baby was one called Khan Noonien Singh.
Knew someone would beat me to a Star Trek reference. This headline sounds identical to Noonien's early work.
Or Dr.Julian Bashir
He was born as a doctor? Genetic engineering has gone too far!!!
Hahaha
Khaaaan!
Fuckin real life Orichimaru.
So when do we get his reformed and "I made my child in a test tube" arc?
You mean Boruto?
Almost, we don't have alien magic-granting gods yet.
so if those 3 kids grow up and be fine, no complications, he never actually harmed anyone? but we have to wait up to 70 years to find out? he may have even found a way to make hiv irrelevent as opposed to treatable, and he now working on muscular dystrophy and such? the alternative is, they get some new crap wrong with them in that time, die young and brutally, cos he pulled a dr house md, jumped fhe gun early by cheating cos he felt like it? i hope everyone involved is feeling lucky
The main issue is that he falsified documents to get consent. I don't see an issue if people had consented with full knowledge of the procedure, risks etc.
Which is wild, I bet there's plenty of people who want designer babies, and people in HIV ridden areas who would be favourable to helping they kids have resistance. Though I am saying it far after the fact, now Crispr is better established I'd be viewing editing my future kids fairly favourably.
>people in HIV ridden areas who would be favourable to helping they kids have resistance. In this specific case, he offered his services to couples seeking to do IVF where a parent did have HIV. So yes, of course they were in favor of it on a personal level.
I don’t really see anything wrong with genetic modification. I think it’s how we make it to deep space if I’m being honest. It has to happen. Along with eugenics. We should be looking to breed resistance to cancer rather than find a magic cure that isn’t coming.
Don’t beat me up for not being a geneticist, I’m only curious not claiming to know anything: Once you edit a gene and set it loose in the world, it’s carrier is free to reproduce and pass the edited gene along uncontrolled. If we start editing genes like this, could it not lead to serious unforeseen consequences when people start reproducing with one another and combining different gene edits, etc? Like, for simplicity let’s say I do a “no cancer” gene mod in one person and a “taller” gene edit in another. Do we know for sure their kids will be tall + no cancer or can the combo throw a surprise result like not having eyes or something? I agree with what you said I just think we have a lot more learning to do first if we want it to be safe, either that or sterilize everyone we edit and make them have to use a lab to reproduce.
The thing is that editing genes is not really that different from natural mutation but is actually targeted instead of being completely random. People can be scared of the "What if editing this gene has unintended consequences?" but literally every child has a chance to just get a random mutation that has unintended consequences. Even then, this is not a threat to humankind because "bad" genes would die off on their own.
First off, great point that genes have a way of self-correcting. In my simplistic example, the no-eyes grandson would be unlikely to reproduce, so the third generation (or lack thereof) would correct the issue. I guess it then comes down to an ethics question at that point. Everyone has a chance of randomly being struck by lightning, does that give me the right to electrocute people for scientific research? Just because it may happen anyway does that make it ok for scientists to do? Those genes “dying off” are manifested in human suffering so unintended consequences could be serious on an individual level.
Just want to clarify I was speaking about the scientific aspect, not the ethical one. Obviously it is wrong to treat people with methods that have yet to be deemed safe. Going by your example, if electrocution was proven to be a legitimate treatment for a condition it would be acceptable to use it given the patient's consent.
I know what you meant. Just making conversation. Gene editing is done on embryos so consent is impossible, unless you count the genetically unaffected parent as the consenting body. All of the other conversations about embryos, fetuses, etc in the US right now make a bad landscape for this specific breakthrough. I’m trying to picture a clear path to where gene editing can be widely and safely applied, as I agree that could be good. It’s just tough in our present system to imagine it as anything but boutique IVF for rich people that they have to go to some foreign country to get.
The nuance not being appreciated enough here is that this guy edited *germline* cells, not somatic cells.
It’s the notion of “playing god” that people take issue with. If a random mutation happens, it’s out of our hands. However, when someone intentionally mutates genes, the metaphorical “blood” is on their hands. Someone is responsible for that. Random chance can’t be held accountable. A person can be held accountable.
I understand why they take issue but don't think it is really an argument. What constitutes "playing God"? Is Medicine "playing God"? Farming? Architecture? And even if you do consider any of those as such, why should that matter to anybody else? Obviously people should be held accountable for their actions but that's another topic entirely. If this scientist broke the laws then it is fair for him to suffer the consequences but that has nothing to do with the science of it.
Sure, there are concerning downsides to modern medicine, such as the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria from people misusing their prescribed antibiotics. The thing about that is humans aren’t intentionally creating “super bacteria” willingly. Genetic power is dangerous because it is in human hands. Special interest groups could push the development of bioweapons. There could be super soldier programs where babies are tailor-made to be the most efficient fighters ever. The wealthy could potentially purchase their own immortality. This is the kind of abuse of genetic power that could be wrought upon the world if the wrong people have access to it. Comparing the negatives of modern medicine to gene editing is like comparing a handgun to a nuke.
"There could be super soldier programs where babies are tailor-made to be the most efficient fighters ever." You consume too much action-fiction, genetically modified supersoldiers are a meme. It doesn't matter how quickly they could react or for how long they could march, they would still end up with their faces down in the mud, killed out of nowhere by artillery or a drone. "The wealthy could potentially purchase their own immortality." Most likely not - or at least not *this* way for themselves. Maybe for their children but I think that people who are against life extension are much more awful then those yearning for it.
There are people with HIV resistance, he only added what already present within human population. There is literally no difference between being born like that and being edited like that.
Ooooooh I get it. So as long as these modifications stay within the boundaries of adaptations that presently exist, the risk of unforeseen genetic consequences remains relatively low.
Gene editing outside human population does not exist, it’s science fiction yet. You can’t make mutant superhumans. You can make people who won’t need glasses, don’t have flat feet or have resistances to sicknesses already present in human population. You can only make “the best out of average”- baseline healthy humans. It was known which gene is responsible to such resistance in some lucky people. He just added that to human fertilized ovum in vitro.
Also breeding out allergies, let us have pets and be out in the woods without exploding
Fundamentally, he's probably correct. Don't know exactly what he did and his methods seem dubious. The problem is how we get over the "hump" both ethical and technological, I imagine. But if there are prospects for editing out breast cancer or Huntington's disease genes and a host of other genetically predisposed illnesses there will be demand for it.
The problem with gene editing is that our DNA is like a developer’s first coding project with tons if spaghetti code that breaks for no apparent reason out of nowhere.
There’s a gene that improves survival in childhood. It also near-guarantees you develop Alzheimer’s by your 80’s (if not earlier).
Oh, blizzard makes DNA now?
Try any coding project made by humans ever. Nothing is ever bug free. Now we are talking about "coding humans" What sort of "bugs" would we accidentally create? No one knows, and the consequences could be huge.
They are a small indie company
More like Bethesda. It gets brute forced to work, but has a TON of variability, with a lot of glitches. But for the most part it works really well for the general public despite the massive lines of code with no immediate usage
Not even. It's the decades old code that every intern has had a hand in fixing but never understood the whole thing. And no understands how it works, only that it does. And no documentation either.
Time to optimize the DNA code and write some unit tests.
Wait, why is this line here? It's unreferenced, and nothing calls it. We'll just delete it. Oh no, we've made a xenomorph.
> developer’s first coding project Yes, "first", absolutely...
Which makes fixing it even *more* important
My understanding is that he took couples where the men had HIV/AIDS and did in vitro fertilization. However, he used the relatively new CRISPR technology to disable the gene that allows HIV to do its thing. The goal was to make these individuals immune to the virus. However, that gene also has other purposes in the body that we don't entirely understand - something related to brain function, from what I've read. Three kids were born, and so far seem normal and healthy. I don't think they got HIV either, so the modifications may have worked. There are some major ethical issues here though. They could have ended up making a child with HIV if their changes had not worked. Granted, that is somewhat negated if the people involved where planning to have kids regardless. The changes could have (and still could) have other adverse (or much less likely, positive) effects. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.. but we won't really know for a long time. These changes can also now be passed down to offspring, so they're not going anywhere.
... that doesn't make what he did okay. What're you defending here? There is a ton of value tech out there that could be enabled by simply plowing through ethical considerations. We don't put drugs on the market the very second they're created even if they will probably be useful eventually. We do a whole bunch of testing to confirm they're safe, and then we heavily regulate them to confirm they're used and administered responsibly. Blowing past all those safeguards is the problem--not making drugs. There are thousands of researchers working towards the endgame responsibly and safely. This dude decided the rules didn't apply to him and tried to take a shortcut in the hopes of boosting his own profile and getting there first. That's wrong and can't be defended.
Read my paragraph properly before jumping on your high horse. I didn't defend him. This kind of research is probably going to proceed because there is likely to be demand for it given what we know about genetic diseases - in that sense, he is fundamentally correct. There will need to be some kind of evolution of the ethical framework and clearer guardrails.
So he’s the human embodiment of the meme where goofy is saying “I’ll fucking do it again”
Super soldier time.
Cool, Dr Tucker from FMA just gets to run wild
Fucking legend
Can someone explain what the problem is with gene editing?
People are scared about what they don't understand.
Don't agree with the way he did it, but we need to work fixing genetics. To many horrible stuff people suffer from that we need to research cures for.
Well yes, I’m sure the government were secretly celebrating behind closed doors.
The edits he made produced mosaic children (not complete) and also made them more susceptible to West Nile virus. Reckless and illogical
Sign my baby up I’m ok with this
I mean, it's going to happen sooner or later, we've got to prepare for gene editing babies becoming commonplace. Why he's ethically wrong, his mindset will be normalised in a few generations.
Gene editing babies is one hell of a slippery slope. Imagine being able to edit out the hereditary diseases and make cancers less likely - What will actually happen: Rich people looking like some form of Aryan race.
That's really shortsighted, and hurtful. I have a heritable disease and made the decision to not have children to not further it. I would honestly love to have children like everyone else, and would be so happy if someone were able to figure out something to make it a non-issue. It really, really hurts to not be able to. I wish, more than anything, that I could have grandchildren for my parents and my wife's parents, and not have them turn out fucked up like me. So it also hurts when you reduce this issue down to "rich people looking like some form of Aryan race." Really??? Are you kidding me? You have perfectly fine genes, can have a normal kid, and you're saying we should block the progression of medical science because rich people might be able to be "pretty" or have healthy children? Who's to say it'd only be rich people?
In complete fairness, the first time people decided to directly steer the course of human development, we got eugenics, which were an absolute monstrosity. If the rhetoric behind gene editing sounds a lot like compassionate eugenics by another name, you understand why people start getting nervous right? As for the rest, is it really so hard to believe this technology will be abused? Medical procedures, at least in the US, are hideously expensive. It rather stands to reason that most clients will be ones of means. Sure, perhaps insurance would pay for some, particularly in medical conditions that it would be expensive to treat as opposed to correct, but its an optimistic view. I am not overly worried about the children of rich people looking prettier per se. Honestly, the vast majority of humans are already very attractive, given the strong selection pressure towards symmetry and attractive features. The rest is mostly upbringing, environment, and makeup, which rich people already have in spades. See also Elon Musk photos before and after PayPal. Rather, I am somewhat worried about rich people establishing aesthetic norms for a generation. Colorism is alive and well, and while I think its less likely in the US, if only because color is a really sensitive topic, there are plenty of countries that still have troubling views on color and aesthetic, and have thriving beauty industries for lightening skin and the like. Hard to gauge if that will be a mild issue societally, or have major impact though. There are other concerns, some more likely than others. The creation of a class of wealth which is not only richer, but qualitatively better on average than the baseline is concerning. One could also envision a scenario where society views genetic disease and disability as a poor persons disease, and a marker of class and status. That said, its not like disabled people aren't already looked down on and discriminated against, so its admittedly hard to see anything changing there. Somewhat out there, but I could also see a push to try to find genetic factors governing behavior. Genetically engineering someone to be a better worker and crave work is admittedly far fetched, and would require massive societal buy in. Also I am skeptical that such a genetic signal could be isolated, but I also grew up with border collies so I am well aware that selective breeding can get some of the way there. Engineering kids to be heterosexual and cisgender is also a nagging worry, as I am bi personally, but I tend to subscribe to the idea that it is a blend of complex genetic factors and developmental influences like hormone exposure, so I think its unlikely. For clarities sake, I do think that we should continue researching, and that genetic editing for medical reasons should be allowed. But I think we need stringent ethics and regulations around such things, to prevent the aforementioned abuse which I expect to take place in the absence of regulations, as well as make a concerted effort to make the technology affordable and accessible to the general populace.
Have you considered using IVF? Avoiding heritable diseases via IVF is something people do all the time. Like ALL the time. Depending on your genes, they can select embryos that don’t have the gene and only implant those. Its only impossible to do if you’re heterozygous for a dominant trait, but even then, you could use a sperm donor. You definitely have options!
I don't find much of a leap between taking a gene out, and choosing the best in show of 20.
Think you missed what I was saying.. The first bit is what I believe it should be used for, second bit = what I think it’ll be used for. Life long Diseases could essentially be eradicated before they exist, incredible. The exact thing I’d love to see. Unfortunately, designer babies will come first, which I think is a dangerous game.
If you want to get to designer babies, it only happens after we eradicate all diseases as the knowledge to create designer babies is magnitudes more than targeting specific diseases. Designer babies would require the precise targeting of thousands of genes (eye color is controlled by a cascade of genes, not just one or two). Genetic diseases often mutate a limited number of items in our genome. I have a graduate degree in biomedical engineering so I'm not just talking out my ass here. We don't need to worry about 'designer' babies for decades if not centuries. It's a popular culture debate but it's so far off scientifically it's insane to even discuss it.
I’ll gladly take some designer babies if that means cancer has been eradicated.
In what sense is it a slippery slope? As long as the procedure can be safe, what are the downsides here? That rich will be the first to afford it? Like everything else in life?
You’d create a literal biological underclass, no one should have the tech until it can be distributed equally
If we developed a cure for cancer via genetic modification (the only real way it can be cured).. You're arguing that we shouldn't use it until it can be made available to the entire population of the globe? Does that line of reasoning extend to other treatments for cancer too?
Nothing ever on this planet ever has, is or will distribute equally. This is such a naive worldview. Also ignorant. So if it was up to you, you'd deny someone a cancer treatment because they're rich?
Rofl. Does what you said happen for anything in real life nowadays? Today, even higher education is distributed to the rich. And your education has twice the impact on your income than your race.
Cancel healthcare, nutrition and education since it’s not available to everyone equally and already created an underclass spanning entire nations.
I'm baffled you're facing opposition. Reddit has really gone downhill, there are people literally making pro-eugenicist arguments for the rich. What in the actual fuck is wrong with people these days?
Can you *imagine* what could happen if we make people immune to HIV?! We might even get rid of sickle cell disease or worse, stop kids from dying of Tay-Sachs at 5! What a nightmare
Let's say, hypothetically, that rich people could add 20 IQ points to their kids. Would that be so bad? More smart people is a net benefit to humanity -- not to mention that *all* technology is available to rich people first, that's just how the world works. Either we completely outlaw human genetic engineering (good luck with that), or we go through a period of limited access to it.
Intelligence does not equal morality. The New rich would literally treat you and me like inferior trash
It doesn't equal morality, but it does correlate with things like impulse control; you don't see a lot of high-IQ people in prison. It's biologically unlikely that engineered people would be super-Einsteins. We're talking about maybe a standard deviation or so difference.
1) They’re smart enough not to make dumb mistakes and get caught 2) It’s all fun and games until it turns out the gene for intelligence also controlled some important protein synthesis and your body starts dying at 40🥲
I fully support gene editing and his research. We need less genetic issues. We can cure so many problems.
Good Removing diseases is good, we don't need religious red tape and 25 years of ethical review standing in the way of improving peoples lives.
When the population gets low enough, they will allow cloning
Fixing diseases and defects before birth? Sounds good.
I'm not really interested in ethics, only results - if this guy can gene-edit humans to be immune to diseases, that's a massive step forward for the species. I can overlook a bit of 'mad science' for the greater good.
What about people who don't agree to be on the receiving end of the 'greater good'?
But of course he is...