Five Couples Have Lined Up for CRISPR Babies To Avoid Deafness (newscientist.com) 111
Five Russian couples who are deaf want to try the CRISPR gene-editing technique so they can have a biological child who can hear, biologist Denis Rebrikov told New Scientist. He plans to apply to the relevant Russian authorities for permission in "a couple of weeks." From a report: The case for using CRISPR for this purpose is stronger than for trying to make children HIV-resistant, as attempted previously, but the risks still outweigh the benefits, say other researchers. "Rebrikov is definitely determined to do some germline gene editing, and I think we should take him very seriously," says CRISPR expert Gaetan Burgio at the Australian National University. "But it's too early, it's too risky." Both would-be parents in each couple have a recessive form of deafness, meaning that all their children would normally inherit the same condition. While the vast majority of genetic diseases can be prevented by screening IVF embryos before implantation, with no need for gene-editing, this is not an option for these couples. Several reports have suggested that -- if it can be done safely -- editing the genes of babies might be justified in this kind of situation.
in soviet russia we edit you! (Score:2)
in soviet russia we edit you!
There are millions of children in the world! (Score:1, Interesting)
Millions of children in this world don't have parents to care for them and can hear perfectly fine. ADOPT YOU IDIOTS.
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of children in this world don't have parents to care for them and can hear perfectly fine. ADOPT YOU IDIOTS.
How many of those children have you adopted?
Adopting orphans is a very honorable thing to do and I applaud anyone that does it; however anyone who hasn't adopted someone themselves would be a little hypocritical to suggest that others should adopt rather than have their own kids.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those children have you adopted? ... a little hypocritical ...
"Because I cannot adopt a child, I cannot promote the cause of adoption for others." Check.
Imagine this child growing up. "I lay in my crib crying all night for attention, and neither Momski nor Dadski ever come change me or feed me or even just comfort me. They must not love me at all."
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, babies that are allowed to cry uninterrupted at night grow into children who sleep better than babies who get quick attention by crying at night.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Bring popcorn for watching this one play out in the courts. I remember the hissy fit the "politcally deaf" activists threw when cochlear implants for children were approved. Not very oddly, it was the same neo-Marxist fools who insist that scientifically speaking there is no such thing as gender, and that the identity of the deaf political group must be protected from able-ist discrimination.
Most parents *of course* want their children to be able to hear. While they can have full lives with deafness, it's
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, there are not "millions" of babies up for adoption. That's simply not the case.
When people who know what they are talking about are recommending people adopt instead of have their own children, they generally mean adopting older children. There is a surplus of 6 year old kids whose parents are dead or more likely unfit to be guardians. My wife has a high school friend who has adopted three children when each of them were around 3-4 years old. They are foster parents who ended up adopting after a few years.
I pass no judgement because I chose to have my biological children, but claiming
Recurring theme... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is of course a reason for health to be treated more like Defense or clean drinking water - a public good and not as a profit center.
Re: (Score:2)
As often seems to be the case with deafness... no risk is too great for ones child to avoid the embarrassment of having a deaf kid.
That's an interesting... emphasis to have.
Me, I'm mildly curious as to whether mainstream SJWs will ever begin to really take up the cause of deaf people who say that these things (along with cochlear implants) constitute an assault on deaf culture [wikipedia.org]. Seems like a bridge too far, but then again these are strange times.
Speaking as a parent, there's no way in fucking hell I would deny an entire sense my child, regardless of whether or not I had it myself, regardless of whether or not it had any daily util
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like deafness is one of the disabilities [sic] that electronic miniaturization has been able to address most effectively. Modern hearing aids have bluetooth volume control and double as cell phone and music earbuds. Hopefully CRISPR is safe, but if you were on the fence, it seems like you have really good non-retroviral (?) options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, what do deaf people know about what it's really like to go through life deaf?
Shame on you. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They would like their children to hear (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and to be able to SHOOT frickin' LASER BEAMS out of their EYES!
Yes, but every GOOD parent wants their kids to be able to SHOOT frickin' LASER BEAMS out of their EYES!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that anyone you adopt will still have most of your own genes this is a given. However CRISPR has the ability to permanently remove a deleterious gene. It is going to happen and nothing except the collapse of civilization will stop it. Better to let these trials go ahead somewhere so that the problems can be found before it becomes mainstream.
But... (Score:1)
is this really that much different then "We are both really dumb and want a smart baby?". Note I have a problem with neither, actually I think it's a good idea. No reason not to raise the global IQ if possible.
Re: (Score:2)
is this really that much different then "We are both really dumb and want a smart baby?". Note I have a problem with neither, actually I think it's a good idea. No reason not to raise the global IQ if possible.
No reason not to have more tall, strong people with big muscles and good looking to boot. How about lower risk for cardiovascular problems and cancer?
The problem is, everyone will want a lot of the same things and human diversity will be depleted. That's a big problem when certain diseases pick up and wipe everyone out because eventually large percent of the population shares large genetic overlap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is, everyone will want a lot of the same things and human diversity will be depleted.
Not really. To some extent yes but it won't be as bad as all that. Dr. Seuss covered this pretty well in The Sneeches [wikipedia.org]. Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Chinese, for instance, will not be opting for blond hair. (Which is a pity because my first girlfriend was 1/4 Japanese with blues eyes and blond hair and I have to say holy shit is that a nice combination, aesthetically speaking.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem with any kind of eugenics. There are traits most of humanity can agree on would be good; and lower risk of cardiovascular disease obviously falls in to that category. But tall and strong with big muscles, well okay. So is this just some new generalized form of Übermensch?
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than risk gene editing I would suggest that they find new partners. With divorce rates being what they are in Russia (828 per thousand) they’re almost guaranteed to have new partners in a few years anyway.
Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)
The dating pool for congenitally deaf people is not going to be great to begin with. Now you're suggesting removing all the other congenitally deaf people from it?
That's all, of course, leaving aside the sheer monstrousity of suggesting loving couples should break up. Maybe they have no other option if they want hearing children, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the first resort.
Also, the whole point of gene editing is to avoid the randomization your anecdote alludes to, at least for stuff you care about. That's not (yet) practical for complicated, delicate, and intertwined things like overall appearance or intelligence, so the children of these would-be parents will still be randomized on those axes. They'll have at least as good - possibly a better - chance of being able to hear as any other child, though, instead of no chance at all. We're talking about a single gene with a massive population of people who have the "working" version. This is one of the best possible used cases for something like CRISPR in humans.
It's in fashion yet? (Score:1)
Seems like having kids is a welcomed fashion, parents can use them as accessories with their trophy wives (or husbands), and those new cars, I can't wait to see when babies with flippers will be popular again in summer : /
Seriously, people are asking for weird problems.
Re: (Score:1)
systemd for humans!
Slashdot, 2029 (Score:3)
One Japanese couple, with a lower-than-average-IQ father and a flat-chested wife, want to try the CRISPR gene-editing technique so they can have a pair of biological super-intelligent daughters with huge racks, biologist Toyota Nissan told New Scientist. He plans to apply to the relevant Japanese authorities for permission in "a couple of weeks." The daughters are to be named Kei and Yuri.
Re: (Score:1)
Meh, that's what Google and plastic surgery is for. CRISPR to improve their natural muscle tone and make them crack shots ... now you're talking.
Re: (Score:1)
What sort of terrible sci fi utopia are you smoking? Unless the gains are significant for endurance, its going to be minor stuff. And minor stuff isn't work the hassle, unless you are doing national healthcare or some other large scale of operation. Because at that scale of larger operation, you can get massive benefits from stacking small percentages to alter the landscape of diseases or endurance.
Even if we go ahead with CRISP and it has obvious venues: It won't be interesting until people either figure o
Re: (Score:1)
Gene editing will go awry and give them a male Einstein with Dolly-Pardon-sized breasts. And tech support will ignore the parents' calls. [slashdot.org]
They can't do that! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, everyone with a modicum of sense predicted this. Exactly this [slashdot.org]. The public at large will not damn parents for wanting these things. And after a decade or so of this, it's going to be a short enough jump to higher IQs and whatnot. There will be side effects and shorten lifespans and lurid headlines along the way, but you can't stuff this genie back in the bottle. It's coming. When are we in the west going to start talking sensibly about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are using what is called a slippery slope fallacy. That is, if they allow X, then they will allow Y.
Other examples of this include things like:
If we allow gay marriage, the next thing we know, people will want to marry their dogs, or their cats, or what about their pigs?
If we give in every time our baby cries, he will always pitch a fit to get what he wants, and he will end up in prison because we never set limits.
-
This is total bullshit and has always been total bullshit. There is NO SUCH THING as a
Re: (Score:2)
When social security numbers were introduced, there was a huge backlash on privacy grounds and lawmakers insisted that it would only be used for social security purposes, never as a general national citizen ID number. Whoops. Turns out that slope was indeed a slippery one.
More generally, it turns out that a lot of the informal logical fallacies of debate (emphasis on informal) are of very limi
Re: (Score:2)
There will be side effects and shorten lifespans and lurid headlines along the way, but you can't stuff this genie back in the bottle.
If they have a gene modification to lengthen lifespan, I'll take it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, that "serious increase" you're referring to amounted to an expected lifespan reduction of less than 2 years. (Which doesn't imply no one would die much too early, but the overwhelming majority would not.)
Humans are at least HALF stupid, if not more so. (Score:3, Interesting)
We can't even think long term about environmental impacts.
Then, "you just can't have children," is the proper answer.
Some people are sterile (and more should be) and they are just out of luck. Life sucks; deal with it. Just because you are capable of having offspring does not give you the right to; anymore than being capable of killing does not give you the right to kill. Even if you were raised to dream about killing, you can't get everything you want.
Too many people and not enough adopting parents... If
Re: (Score:2)
Hand wringing is not a solution. In a word, it's selfish--it's designed to make you feel good about your worldview. But it has no wider practical effect here. It was obvious even before these stories started coming out [slashdot.org] that China and Russia were not going to be toeing the line. This *is* coming. And you'll be shocked to discover just how much of public opinion will disagree with you. even if so many self-annointed b
Re: Humans are at least HALF stupid, if not more s (Score:1)
KHHHHAAAAAANNNNN! (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
LOL! We know everything so let's fuck it up! (Score:1)
I can see this having tremendous side-effects.
Not genetically fit and selfish... (Score:1)
In my opinion, these folks aren't genetically fit to be having children. They have a known genetic defect, which may or may not have other effects throughout the body. Is it right to inflict some experimental treatment on another human in a selfish desire to reproduce despite full awareness of your genetic faults? What if the CRISPR process somehow causes other unintended genetic changes? The parents aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences of this genetic modification, after all. Tal