China's CRISPR Twins Might Have Had Their Brains Inadvertently Enhanced (technologyreview.com) 254
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: The brains of two genetically-edited girls born in China last year may have been changed in ways that enhance cognition and memory, scientists say. The twins, called Lulu and Nana, were modified using CRISPR, a new gene-editing tool, by a Chinese scientific team to make the girls immune to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Now, new research shows the same genetic alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, to a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.
"The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains," says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. Silva's lab lab has been uncovering a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory formation and the brain's ability to form new connections. "The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins," says Silva. He says the exact effect on the girls cognition is impossible to predict and "that is why it should not be done." The Chinese designer babies were created to be resistant to HIV. A team in Shenzhen, China, led by Southern University of Science and Technology He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells. The scientist, He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, has been fired from the university as He is under investigation in China. There is no evidence that He actually set out to modify the twins' intelligence.
"The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains," says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. Silva's lab lab has been uncovering a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory formation and the brain's ability to form new connections. "The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins," says Silva. He says the exact effect on the girls cognition is impossible to predict and "that is why it should not be done." The Chinese designer babies were created to be resistant to HIV. A team in Shenzhen, China, led by Southern University of Science and Technology He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells. The scientist, He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, has been fired from the university as He is under investigation in China. There is no evidence that He actually set out to modify the twins' intelligence.
Reality imitates art. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there was an X-files episode about this.
Re: (Score:1)
There was the eugenics wars in Star Trek as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Khan!!!!!
or Reyyyyyyyyy!!!!! (Score:1)
Re: Yes... apk (Score:1)
Re-read TFS. It is the absence of the gene which confers immunity, not the presence of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more about the movie Gattaca.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more about the movie Gattaca.
Sounds like a Valid comparison. :-)
Re: Reality imitates art. (Score:1)
You've not seen the movie have you?
Re: (Score:1)
Gundam Seed [wikipedia.org] comes to mind. There the normal humans eventually discover a procedure to create enhanced humans they called coordinators. They had better reflexes, better intelligence, more resistance to disease, and were stronger. Once the secret was out it led to resentment and eventually war.
In the anime there is the downside of the Coordinators having difficulty having children, though I'm guessing at some point someone will figure out something that perhaps doesn't do the whole package, but does make a
Re: Reality imitates art. (Score:1)
Well government is fairly universal in they want to avoid intelligence in their citizens. No super countries will likely come about without a healthy brain washing campaign to boost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also Dirty Pair [wikipedia.org]. (should be SFW)
Re: (Score:2)
If life continues to imitate art, we can expect the twins to develop superhuman intelligence and strength, as well as homicidal psychoses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be more like Lulu and Nana Delphiki as these twins would be comparable to Bean .... not Ender.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it to late? (Score:4, Funny)
If only we could get some politicians to undergo this procedure...
Re: (Score:1)
Too many of them are born again as it is.
You are part of the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians are not stupid. They are disloyal. They seem stupid because they say they want one thing, and then put in plans that don't accomplish that thing. This is malice, not stupidity, at work.
Their public debates don't happen so they can convince each other of a damned thing. They do that to convince the masses to vote for them. Doing this, of course, requires that they make impossible promises. They are perfectly content to let everyone think they are stupid, because it allows them to get away with it.
Wake up, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
In a forum where disloyal cunning and stupidity are indistinguishable, it's also possible that a bunch of the truly stupid will attract more votes than the disloyals. I suppose it's up to the smart funders to make sure that their support only goes to the smart 'stupid' candidates - rather than the real thing. To the extent that it matters to them...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's not fair to rocks, at least they have millions of years of experience.
Re: (Score:3)
If we could get 90 % of the population to undergo this procedure...
Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that. - George Carlin
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they'll be smart enough to sway their country's ideology towards liberty without getting disappeared when they grow up. I certainly am not smart enough to figure out how that could be done now, let alone in a couple decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sweet (Score:3)
I am seriously looking forward to Battle Angel Nana!
It has begun (Score:2, Interesting)
So how much is it going to cost to get a super-baby in the next, say, ten years?
Captcha: normalcy
Re: (Score:1)
10 years? This guy did it now, in his own little private lab. What makes you think others can't do it right now?
As we speak dozens of researchers with low morals are planning their billionaire futures. CRISPR is extremely powerfull and very accessible at the same time.
I Want That (Score:1)
If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation? Does it increase metabolism too much or something? Perhaps stroke resistance is considered a downside, in societies where elderly are a drain on resources.
Re:I Want That (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's quickly becoming unuseful given our current ability to treat the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
And also, relatively higher human intelligence is not selected-for. Once one gets a bit above average intelligence (for either gender), the smarter one is, the less likely one is to breed.
So, a gene that keeps one's intelligence limited to normal levels will have a selective advantage.
Ok, but while that may be the case for the past few generations, it doesn't change the fact that for thousands of years of human evolution, higher intelligence has been a good thing. It's what got us to the top of the food chain.
Re: (Score:3)
We smart ones can tell the difference between getting laid and breeding.
Mostly because we don't believe in ridiculous nonsense that keeps us from using means to prevent unwanted side effects of fucking.
Here is why. (Score:5, Insightful)
We do not yet know *every single exact* effect the modification of this gene will do to a human being outside of a lab.
That is the reason why. No data = big problem.
Modern science is inherently cautious... The bonafide "mad scientist" He Jiankui, decided to say "F*** the ethical standards!" and went ahead and made it happen without any standard regulatory oversight.
From what I've seen, various scientific agencies of different countries have been trying hard to keep the CRISPR genie inside the bag... Dr. He Jiankui opened the bag wide open.
Re:Here is why. (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't entirely understand what intelligence is, we understand the genome even less, and modifying the genome to enhance intelligence is basically impossible at this point.
Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened (Score:2)
Health and Life insurance rates based on the presence of good and bad genes.
Highly competitive jobs and university programs only open to those with specific genes.
People with certain genes and abilities have their career paths chosen for them, and are forced to work for the state.
The presence of genes that contribute to violent behavior will be enough to push a jury towards an otherwise questionable verdict.
CRISPR-edited babies, combined with the massive wealth divides of a class-based society, will further
Re:Here's whats in the bag Dr. He opened (Score:4, Insightful)
CRISPR-edited babies, combined with the massive wealth divides of a class-based society, will further stratify humans into Morlocks and Eloi.
Depends on how it's implemented. This could be a state-run program that provides everyone the same set of enhancements. CRISPR made its mark in biotech for being relatively cheap so it wouldn't even cost all that much. Though given how much push back there is for mandatory vaccines, I imagine GM babies will spur even more conspiracies.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - gene edited humans could be a great benefit overall. But can you imagine some religious group eschewing all technology, living in isolation for generations, and how they'd fare in a world full of gene-enhanced humans? If hey're able to exist safely and humanely, then all the more power to them. But what happens if such groups becomes wards of the state because they have no chance of functioning in a modern society. Are they pets? Or do they become Eloi?
Humanities record of human rights for th
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah if all of society is gene edited except for one backward group and then that backward group gets a mad scientist to create a lethal virus which affects the gene edited, all we will be left with is a backward group who wont be able to maintain modern civilization and then we are back to the stone age.
Genetic diversity has its uses
Most of this is inevitable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an ethical dilemma. You have the ability to cure one serious disease, but you can't be sure it won't have side-effects, medical and social.
Re: (Score:2)
We do not yet know *every single exact* effect the modification of this gene will do to a human being outside of a lab.
That is the reason why. No data = big problem.
Which is why gene editing should take a cautious approach... but it should proceed similarly to a drug trials and it should meet similar standards at least initially. There should be some demonstrated need. Immunity from disease would be one of those benefits that meets that threshold like any vaccine would. Also such studies should be subject to longer term study so we don't mess up our species genome inadvertently in some widespread manner, but I would also say that drug treatments should receive the s
Re: (Score:2)
People keep talking about unintended consequences, but there's no guarantee that children conceived the natural way won't end up with some genetic issue that we didn't foresee.
In fact, we allow people with known genetic problems to have children. People with hereditary hearing loss or blindness are allowed to reproduce and take the chance that their child will inherit the condition.
How are the risks of unintended consequences from genetic engineering any different? Why shouldn't people be allowed to ta
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons this is banned in most nations is that when CRISPR snips out a chunk of DNA or cuts something in they don't fully understand the mechanism of how the cells will put it back together. There is a VERY high possibility that this will result in significant mutations and disruptions as the cells machinery tries to reassemble the CRISPR'd DNA.
These kids could end up with life ending mutations due to the CRISPR edits. It's only been in the last few months that they've found a way to better contr
Re: (Score:2)
higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation?
Intelligence is negatively correlated to fertility. Have you not seen Idiocracy?
Re: (Score:2)
where elderly are a drain on resources.
They are only a drain on resources, if they have a stroke.
Re: (Score:2)
If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation?
Because it's a fairly recent mutation, on evolutionary scales, and it takes a long time to propagate even when there's a selection advantage against an infectious disease. The Wikipedia article on the gene gives a bit on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It also sounds like the advantage to intelligence is subtle. There was also not much of an intelligence advantage when much of human society consisted of subsistence farmers. Someone that had an education from those in walking distance, with few able
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean, if it's useful why haven't we all evolved to have it? You do know that evolution doesn't work that way, right?
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, deleting the gene increases intelligence... which raises the question of why the gene spread so far. If it were the opposite I'd agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I think that's a misunderstanding of genetics and evolution. It's not like genes are simply advantageous and disadvantageous, and advantageous genes are spread and disadvantageous genes die out. Genes might have multiple effects which might be advantageous or disadvantageous based on the environment the organism finds itself in.
But also, being advantageous or disadvantageous isn't by itself the issue. It had to be advantageous enough to increase your chances of surviving long enough to reproduce,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because natural selection only favors variations which provide an advantage in reproductive success.
Of the group or tribe. Examples that seem counter-productive at first look include having some non-breeders to help with raising children or some being willing to self-sacrifice to protect the group/tribe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read it thus:
He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells
and
a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke
So the end result is no CCR5 == no HIV == not smarter. ...
If you can't get HIV because you don't have CCR5 you also don't have the 'smart' gene
Re: (Score:2)
Now, new research shows the same genetic alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, to a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.
The alteration (deleting the CCR5 gene) makes mice smarter. Not the gene itself.
Re: (Score:2)
If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation? Does it increase metabolism too much or something? Perhaps stroke resistance is considered a downside, in societies where elderly are a drain on resources.
It's not that we don't want that. It's that we are no where close to being smart enough to go tinkering just because of situations like this. Unforeseen consequences. In this case the kids may have lucked out (although even that isn't certain yet) but in the future others may not be so lucky. We just don't know enough about our own genetics to start tinkering with them yet. Maybe in the future sure. But it's going to be a long time before we are really knowledgeable enough to start doing it responsibly. Kee
Cover story (Score:1)
Did anyone really believe the AIDS story? This is China here. The gene just-so-happens to be cognitive boosting was not a happy accident.
Look at what they do to their Olympic athletes. Of course they will attempt to do the same to their future Han-Ubermensch students.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did anyone really believe the AIDS story? This is China here. The gene just-so-happens to be cognitive boosting was not a happy accident.
I don't know, I'd think immunity from HIV and similar infections is enough to experiment with this. Maybe they fear biological warfare from those already immune in the West. This immunity was already seen in Germany, likely a happy accident from all the plagues that swept through Europe from its long history of wars and international trade. 10% of Europeans carry this trait but outside of Europe it's rare as hen's teeth. Or maybe not biological warfare but the costs to their nation if they must fight an
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Who is "they"? The Chinese government? The government shut this guy down and are now prosecuting him.
As for it being a gay thing, actually most HIV/AIDS infections from sex involve opposite sex couples. In the US it's about 85% same sex couples, but globally it's mostly due to heterosexual intercourse and mostly in poorer countries where education, access to condoms and access to medication are limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, another troll mod. A homophobic mod perhaps, triggered by suggesting that AIDS isn't just a gay thing?
Re: (Score:2)
No, just no.
Do some research [aidsmap.com]
Do the ends justify the means? (Score:1)
Perhaps it's not a popular opinion but I think the ends justify the means when it comes to genes. The better we become with Gene editing, the better for the progress of the human race. The human race has escaped darwinism because we have an over abundance resources given to the stupid people. If we don't do this, idiocracy is our future.
So a guy working outside ethical guidlines (Score:2)
What are the odds are he did something right, even though people who know much more than me say he's full of shit? I'm guessing pretty low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Getting arrested for ethics in China is like getting demonetized for comments on YouTube. Neither one actually gives a shit, it's only about optics like Facebook's supposed concern for privacy.
Magic always comes with a price (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a short story by Greg Bear called "Sisters", about a society where gene enhancement of children is common. The modified offspring are smarter and more mediagenic, but in the story it's found that some of them are also subject to sudden attacks of clonic spasms followed by death, due to an unforeseen error. Chilling stuff, if you have children of your own.
Re: (Score:3)
Genes are basically software for living things. If you make patches to it without a good understanding how it works, it might do something completely unexpected. Of course, you can implement good software engineering practices such as iterative development, refactoring, code review and unit testing to reduce the chances of that.
In your example, it might be a good idea to create hermetic test environments within which you can deterministically reproduce those rare occurrences and study them in depth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Genes are basically software for living things. If you make patches to it without a good understanding how it works, it might do something completely unexpected. Of course, you can implement good software engineering practices such as iterative development, refactoring, code review and unit testing to reduce the chances of that.
That last bit is where people have an ethical problem. You can't unit test a human. You can only integration test a human. And you go through a lot of humans that way. Josef Mengele would be fine with such things. The rest of us aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
You can certainly test a patch of skin or a section of an intestine. I think most people are fine with testing up to the organ level with the exception of a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the meme of the future will be "fuck her only if she's sneezing".
i, for one.. (Score:1)
do not welcome our new genetically-enhanced chinese overlords.
Idiots (Score:2, Interesting)
The chances of a single gene mod inadvertently helping cognition are less than a random mod of the pistons in your car helping engine performance. That is, about a million to one. Lots to go wrong, very little to "make right" for most of us. The sad part is that we'll never know whether any cognitive improvement (or degradation (not to mention mental health)) is due to the enormous scrutiny they'll be under for the rest of their life or due to some real effects of the mod. Call it the observer effect writ l
MRA (Score:1)
Thought experiment: If you have girls with genetically-enhanced intelligence, will the Slashdot MRAs still expect them to go make a sandwich?
Re:MRA (Score:4, Funny)
If they do, it'll be the best god damned sandwich you will ever taste.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it will be poisoned, if their intelligence was really genetically enhanced.
Re:MRA (Score:4, Funny)
I've had two girls make me a bologna sandwich. I was the bologna.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fuck right off. You politically correct liberals make me want to puke.
"There is no evidence that He actually set out to" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he did create new life.
On the other hand, we do know that he really exists, so... probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Some pedantic details (Score:5, Interesting)
The CCR5-delta32 mutation doesn't provide absolute immunity to HIV... it just provides immunity to somewhere between 86 and 94% of HIV strains documented to exist "in the wild". Think of CCR5 as being like a T-cell's docking port for HIV (or alternatively, its identification beacon). Without the CCR5 gene, most HIV virions are either metaphorically unable to "grab on" and "dock" (to infect the T-cell), or are unable to even recognize it as an infectable cell in the first place.
Everyone has two copies of the CCR5 gene. If one copy has the delta-32 mutation, the person isn't immune at all to HIV... but could conceivably survive for a very, very long time after a short (but intense) primary infection. Basically, 50% of the person's T-cells express the gene, and 50% don't. After infection, half are infected and killed, but the remainder are primarily the nearly-uninfectable half. This is why, back in the late 80s and 1990s, there were a small -- but noteworthy -- cohort of HIV+ individuals who didn't progress beyond a certain point to AIDS.
Also, a CCR5-delta32 mutation isn't quite a "get out of jail free" card. People with the mutation, especially a heterozygous (2-copy) mutation, are ultra-vulnerable to respiratory illness. Therein lies another part of the late-80s/early-90s original HIV mystery... people with strong immune systems were easily infected, but people who'd been sick with one illness or another from the moment they were born seemed to be nearly immune to HIV. That's why... they WERE, and their life-long endless sequence of respiratory infections were the biggest drawback.
It's also important to note that late in an advanced HIV infection, HIV undergoes a mutation of its own that allows it to infect cells regardless of CCR5 deletion. The main defense against such mutated HIV is the fact that the same mutation that allows HIV to infect cells with a CCR5-delta32 mutation ALSO makes it less-capable of infecting a new host. The good news is that even the mutated HIV is readily-susceptible to modern HIV meds (and in fact, is generally EASIER to bring under control because the mutated virus itself is less robust and virulent).
Observations comparing this to sickle-cell anemia are apt. Back before effective HIV meds existed, having one or two copies of CCR5 with a delta-32 mutation could mean the difference between living long enough for real treatments to become available, and dying a horrible death within a few months or years. Nowadays, having one mutated copy is almost purely a drawback... a lifetime of respiratory infections, with benefits that are largely moot thanks to the effectiveness of modern HIV meds (which, for all intents and purposes, ARE a cure for "AIDS", even if they aren't literally a cure for "HIV").
Having two copies is somewhat of a bonus if you're otherwise at high risk for HIV infection... but once again, modern meds have largely negated THIS scenario too. If you take Truvada daily (Google: "PrEP"), your likelihood of catching HIV is practically nonexistent. In roughly 5 years, fewer than a half-dozen people worldwide who have been confirmed to have actually taken Truvada reliably have become infected... and AFAIK, all of those cases involved sex with someone who had a fairly advanced case of untreated full-blown AIDS. Putting it into perspective, you'd almost have to be willfully-indifferent and have LITERALLY no standards for whom you'll have sex with, because CCR5-mutated HIV is among the MOST susceptible to HIV meds(*).
---
Warning: very non politically-correct example with WAY too much information follows:
(*) Putting it less-delicately, you'd have to be a total manwhore-pig-cum-dump who likes being blindfolded, tied up, and and indiscriminately taking anonymous loads from random strangers that include crazy homeless people who are visibly ill. We aren't talking "active sex life" here, we're talking "complete abdication of anything that resembles common sense and/or having any standards WHATSOEVER". I think one of the confirmed cases admitted that he collected semen from several dozen guys with high viral loads, then gave himself an enema with it. Put another way... if you repeatedly taunt an angry pitbull, eventually you're going to slip on his dogshit and earn a Darwin Award.
Re: (Score:2)
Evil genius? (Score:2)
Where are the jokes about creating evil super-villains? Or am I joking?
Actually I think it's way too early to speculate on the effects of this essentially random experiment. In nature most mutations are on the scale from bad to terrible, and the bigger the mutation, the more likely it's fatal.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll make the joke...
Is nobody worried about Khan Noonien Singh rising to power now? He could be the offspring of one of these girls, rise to power, and launch the Eugenics Wars. Then we'll need James Tiberus Kirk and Spock, a starship Enterprise, and the whole thing becomes a mess.
Did no one in China watch Wrath of Khan or Into Darkness? Have we learned NOTHING from Star Trek?!?!
We can't be timid with this stuff (Score:2)
Khan Noonien Singh! (Score:2)
When do the Eugenics Wars start?
This is why its immoral to experiment on humans (Score:2)
Who can say that the same genetic code variation that makes mice appear smarter could have profound negative effects in humans. It could be a good thing if the consequences of this application of Crispr were better understood, but they are not.
To be so egotistical to roll the dice like that for personal benefit and whose consequences would be paid by innocent children is psychopathic.
.
There is no evidence that He actually set out to (Score:2)
LOL! Everything that putrid wanker did stank of eugenics from the start. I guarantee you the ChiComms were all over it. They already harvest organs from "prisoners" to keep their own oligarch class alive and don't give it a second thought. Gene editing for the Peoples' Great Revolutionary Victory would be a logical step.
Oh and before anyone here starts getting all "hey sign me up for the transhuman upgrade path" remember they can just as easily insert a gene for a fatal protein deficiency that they can then
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't insightful, it's full on fucking Nazism. There are plenty of people who, despite not working as everyone else thinks they should who have made significant contributions to our society, particularly within science.
It's fuckwads like you who needs to be exterminated, not people with various neurological disorders.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I was too harsh. As a person with neurodevelopmental disorder I didn't say that disabled people can't have any talents. There is just no scientific evidence that people with quite serious neurobiological developmental disorders have much more chance to be gifted or have any other significant advantage. For most of us it's just a cu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's complex. Seems the same gene combination that causes people to get AIDS gives immunity to the black death. There's also sickle cell anemia that protects against malaria.
Your other "undesirable traits" are just as likely to give advantages in some situations and situations change. New diseases, need for certain types of intelligence, needs for certain types of warriors are possibilities.
We have enough experience in husbandry, agriculture etc that while mono-culture has advantages, it also has large weak
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We will become sicker, dumber and more dependent on medicine. So what future potential adaptive traits are you talking about?
I have no idea, the future is an unknown, but is likely to be surprising, and that surprise might not be good. Nuclear war is an extreme example of the possibilities that would change everything.
While you make a point about parents, the problem is if the State or even just heavy peer pressure forces these things on everyone.
Modern civilization is also not everywhere, so different selection pressures exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity evolved to AFFORD individual "catastrophes".
Failures die sooner than successes, but everyone dies which makes our species adaptable. We view death as bad because evolution selected for that viewpoint. That's not necessarily rational as our ability to direct our own evolution improves.
If there is a problem, abort the problem. If the problem manifests later then study and treat if practical. If not the host may die sooner than otherwise, but to the species that's no loss.