There Still Aren't Any Rules Preventing Rogue Scientists From Making Gene-Edited Babies (medium.com) 118
Emily Mullin, writing for OneZero: Around this time last November, Chinese scientist He Jiankui stunned the world when he revealed the birth of the first known gene-edited babies. Working in relative secrecy, he had used CRISPR to modify human embryos in the lab and then established pregnancies with those embryos. Twin girls with edited genomes were born as a result. The scientific community's condemnation of He was harsh and swift. He had edited the germline, making a heritable genetic change. There were safety questions about the effects on the twins, and he had not meant to fix a genetic defect or prevent disease. Instead, he tweaked a gene in an attempt to bestow an uncommon, protective genetic trait: resistance to HIV. In the aftermath, leading scientists and ethicists published an open letter in the journal Nature calling for a temporary moratorium on human germline gene editing -- that is, editing eggs, sperm, or embryos to make genetically modified children. But it's been a year, and there is still no unified set of rules to dictate whether or how scientists should conduct this research.
Some scientists have rejected a blanket moratorium in favor of self-regulating, believing that they can chart a path toward responsible germline editing to prevent a number of inherited diseases. But how to do so remains a point of contention. Meanwhile, at least one scientist is already planning more gene-edited children. In June, Russian molecular biologist Denis Rebrikov said he wanted to use CRISPR to create more HIV-resistant babies, but in a more ethical way than He's experiment. His plans have since shifted to editing embryos of couples with inherited deafness in an attempt to make hearing babies. "The horse has already left the barn," Jennifer Doudna, one of CRISPR's inventors, tells OneZero.
Some scientists have rejected a blanket moratorium in favor of self-regulating, believing that they can chart a path toward responsible germline editing to prevent a number of inherited diseases. But how to do so remains a point of contention. Meanwhile, at least one scientist is already planning more gene-edited children. In June, Russian molecular biologist Denis Rebrikov said he wanted to use CRISPR to create more HIV-resistant babies, but in a more ethical way than He's experiment. His plans have since shifted to editing embryos of couples with inherited deafness in an attempt to make hearing babies. "The horse has already left the barn," Jennifer Doudna, one of CRISPR's inventors, tells OneZero.
Rules don't prevent rogue scientists from anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Rogue scientist are nothing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest, it's the Dwarf Fortress Scientists you really have to watch out for. Those guys... they make Mengele look like Dr. Phil.
Re: (Score:2)
Dark elf, necromancer, spec'ed in summoning.... those scientist are scary
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rules don't prevent rogue scientists from anyth (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should the government be telling people what they can do with their own DNA?
There is no constitutional basis for government meddling in individual reproductive decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
It is stupider than that; there is also the question of "which government?"
The reason that "there is still no unified set of rules to dictate whether or how scientists should conduct this research" is that the world still simply lacks a dictator. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Any country banning this research is going to just push its leading scientists offshore. I can easily envision Zimbabwe or Vanuatu becoming vacation spots for prospective parents wanting designer-gene babies when the major countries prohibit it.
Once the procedures are well defined there won't be any keeping it to just the elites either, this shit is cheap and getting cheaper daily. Already gene splicing equipment only five or six years old is available on eBay for less than the cost of a good used car, an
Re: (Score:2)
There is certainly a thing called "international law"
Re: (Score:2)
There is a constitutional basis for 'meddling' in ANY action that has or reasonably will have significant impact on another citizens ( in this case a child's) right to 'life', 'liberty' etc. ... IVF should be illegal as well as all forms of human gene editing.
It should be illegal because every person has a 'right' to be born from an embrace of love between two committed (aka married) and complementary parents who have pledged to care for that person until adulthood. Anything less is a violation of child
Re: (Score:2)
Two things: What is the Constitutional basis of which you speak? And don't quote the Declaration of Independence for it.
And we're not talking about a "child". It's just a bunch of cells until it's born. Can't have it both ways - either abortion is wrong, or it's perfectly fine. In the latter case, until that cluste
Re: (Score:2)
What is the Constitutional basis of which you speak? And don't quote the Declaration of Independence for it.
Love this
And we're not talking about a "child". It's just a bunch of cells until it's born. Can't have it both ways - either abortion is wrong, or it's perfectly fine. In the latter case, until that cluster of cells is born, it's not people....
This is where you lost me.
We are not talking about about an individual. We are talking about the entire future of our species. DNA gets passed along, an aborted fetus does not.
Unless of course sterilization is also included in any genetic modification.
We don't even understand gravity yet, you think we are ready to alter the building blocks of our being?
Re: (Score:2)
Creating bodies with subhuman intelligence for the purpose of organ harvest.
Creating insanely aggressive people for the purposes of waging war or some specialized commercial purpose
Throwing the DNA dice to see what happens, ignoring the fact that innocent children will live with the painful consequences
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the commo
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing the DNA dice to see what happens, ignoring the fact that innocent children will live with the painful consequences
This is the current default.
Are you saying we should ban unprotected sex?
Re: (Score:2)
The way reproduction works is that the male and female DNA embody an error correction and rejection mechanism. The odds of a profound deformity are relatively low. It's certainly a roll of the dice, but a IMHO very good bet.
Crispr CAS9 chops out part of a DNA strand and relies on a self healing mechanism. It's actually a crude method that is remarkably effective. It is definitely however a big roll of the di
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing the DNA dice to see what happens, ignoring the fact that innocent children will live with the painful consequences
This is the current default.
Are you saying we should ban unprotected sex?
We have absolutely no comprehension of how half of this stuff actually works.
Re:Rules don't prevent rogue scientists from anyth (Score:4, Insightful)
Because those people are not the ones who will suffer the consequences. And, unlike the abortion case, there will be actual people out there suffering.
You can use the exact same rationale to ban genetically defective people from reproducing.
If I have a kid with DNA patched to repair a defect, there is a slight chance of a deleterious effect.
But if two people with IQs in the 80s have a kid, the deleterious effect is almost certain.
Once you insert the heavy hand of government into these decisions, then where do you stop?
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re: Rules don't prevent rogue scientists from anyt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah i need the scientist in Istanbul turkey who is about to edit a gene into human DNA that creates a 10 year lifespan, but lies dormant for the first 25 generations, to regulate himself.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an expert on the Chinese and Russian constitutions, then? Oh, wait, you're just a childish provincial US peasant. My mistake.
It does not require an expert to judge Russia and China for murdering 10s of millions of their own citizens.
Good! (Score:2)
Let's get some genetic diseases cured before all the red tape bogs us down!
(I am kidding of course. Well, maybe half-kidding).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Khaaaaaaaan!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get some genetic diseases cured before all the red tape bogs us down!
(I am kidding of course. Well, maybe half-kidding).
Where is the rent seeking in that?
Idiot idea. (Score:2)
You know he tweaked a gene for bigger breasts too. (Score:1)
No Rules = No Rogues... (Score:3)
What kind of title is this?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty typical of msmash's writing ability.
And slashdot's inability to correct stupid mistakes in posts later.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least it's not "There still aren't any rules preventing rouge scientists from making gene-edited babies". That would have triggered Russian propaganda trolls, to say the least.
Who cares?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gene edited babies are inevitable, let them go wild figuring out what can be done. On the whole it will greatly benefit humanity.
Way too much fear around gene editing, let's not trow away decades of progress that could be made out of fear, the way we retarded nuclear power development.
Re: (Score:3)
The real lesson here is that you just ne
So what (Score:3)
I think too many people are worried that someone's going to try to create a bunch of blue-eyed blonde-haired babies and try to take over the world or something.
Lucky for us the real world is not a James Bond movie, or a game of Wolfenstein.
Far more likely is that someone is going to try to figure out how to ensure editing can remove hereditary diseases, or give boosts to attributes like strength and intelligence. Because there is a lot of money in that and the elite of any gender will be happy to pay for,
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is a lot of money in that and the elite of any gender will be happy to pay for, regardless of legality.
It won't stay in the hands of the elites for long, considering the galloping advances in genetics and robotics. The first time we analyzed a human genome it took thousand of people a decade and cost billions, now it's one tech and an automated machine and the process costs under $100. Monsanto and others have totally automated splicing genes into a variety of species already, doing it to a human genome rather than a cow's is not any different except for the lawyers who will want to be involved.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese will do it (Score:2)
All it takes is a rumor that they can improve intelligence by 5% and any rules are out the window. Everyone wants to have a smart kid, and every nation knows that if the Chinese end up 5% smarter then they are toast.
But my bet is that we will build intelligent computers before we will learn how to do anything major with genetic engineering. At which point it will be mute -- the computers won't care.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a Gattaca scenario is a lot more likely, where not being genetically modified and or selected will put people at a disadvantage and make them subject do discrimination. If we extrapolate how we already handle anti-vaxxer (of course that's not quite comparable to this topic) it's not too difficult to see ho
Re: (Score:2)
I think a Gattaca scenario is a lot more likely, where not being genetically modified and or selected will put people at a disadvantage and make them subject do discrimination.
Hello, we are already way past that point, we just do that with upper rings of society and Harvard/Yale today instead of gene manipulation (though even there gene manipulation has already occurred among the elite for a long, like time through selection).
So why even attempt to stop what is already happening (impossible), instead of pro
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the results, that's a pretty good argument against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course being gay isn't genetic so that wouldn't work.
Contrary to popular opinion, there is no 'gay' gene. The studies that had the highest correlation found that genetically identical twins were about a 50% indicator of the 'gayness' of the other, which goes to prove both gene influence and that genes are not the only thing in play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it suggests the relationship is much more complicated then that. Also, I didn't make an argument, I was offering supporting data for one.
If 50% of people with the same genetics have the same behavior what you can tell with certainty is that the behavior is not 100% genetic,
which should not surprise anyone. Something caused by genes is something that always happens because genes are make compounds and are either active or not active. Either you have the correct combination of genes for blue eyes or yo
Re: (Score:2)
"Gene edited babies are inevitable" -- probably true
"let them go wild figuring out what can be done. On the whole it will greatly benefit humanity." -- a dubious assumption, it could also destroy or super cede humanity. :"Way too much fear around gene editing, let's not trow away decades of progress that could be made out of fear, the way we retarded nuclear power development." -- because after all Chernobyl was just a hiccough. Nothing really to be worried about there.
--
At this point how would you enforce it? (Score:2)
Brave New World, folks. Despite the wisdom that says this is a Bad Idea people with money and power are going to want it for their kids regardless, and there will be people with the ways and means to do it who may not have the w
Re:At this point how would you enforce it? (Score:4, Insightful)
this is a Bad Idea
You state that as if it were immediately obvious, but it's not. Why is this a bad idea?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't really undestand what we're doing or the long-term implications/consequences of it. If it's an animal, it's not as bad, if you created something dangerous you can, with some regret, destroy the animal, or just quarrantine it for it's lifespan. I won't even mention GMO plants because that horse has already left the barn and it's too late to do anything about it, GMO is already 'in the wind', literally, proliferating through all plant life. A human being, modified before it's
Re: (Score:2)
A human being, modified before it's even conceived, has to literally live with the consequences.
Which is why we probably don't want to use the technique for something like cosmetic changes just now - small reward, high risk.
But we have genetic disabilities. I had a neighbour once who got a Down Syndrome child, and while for her probably mother instinct clouded judgement, from the outside it was sadly obvious how badly both her life and that of the child had been affected. A chance to avoid that would have dramatically improved two lives. High reward, moderate risk.
There are many examples where the con
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to modify a program to do something different, but you don't have the source code, just the binary executable, and additionally you're not all that familiar with machine code to begin with, should you really pull it into a binary debugger and start dinking around with it? Especially since the binary code you're looking at is w
Re: (Score:2)
Technophobia in an engineer, that's new.
First, genes aren't nuclear reactors. They don't suddenly blow up when you mess with them.
Second, "genetic disease" is a misnomer. It's properly called a genetic disorder, specifically because unlike a disease, it does not spread. Even if we introduced a harmful gene defect, it would propagate the genetic way, meaning that it at best affects the descendents of those treated, and that basically only with a 50% chance (depending on details, but basically).
For an extinct
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No insult intended. Just pointing out you are overly dramatic about the potential consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh any by the way: I don't have time or wherewithal to sit here and write a thousand
Re: (Score:2)
most people lack a reasonble amount of caution and sure as hell lack the foresight
I'm a professional cybersecurity risk manager and risk analysis expert. In fact, I've written a book about it. I'm reasonably sure that a) my risk estimates are better than average and b) there are overly cautious people who generally think other people are missing the dangers and are careless and there are overly risk-seeking people who think other people are exaggerating with the dangers and should chill.
Typically, both of them are wrong. At least in the majority of the cases where I've done a fact-based,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, we've come to the level of insults. Don't have time for that, and I actually don't care to win you over. Just telling you that "I'm scared of this new thing" is not a valid argument. Talk abou the actual risks, what exactly could happen - then we can ask the experts in genetics how likely that actually is.
Re: (Score:1)
Birth defects, genetic monoculture, susceptibility to pandemics. Long term, natural humans will be more resilient to extreme events. We're naturally evolved to survive in almost all habitats and to withstand natural disasters. Yes that includes our brains and opposable thumbs. Genetic engineering will undo a lot of that by creating a race of hyperspecialized but highly vulnerable humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Long term, natural humans will be more resilient to extreme events. We're naturally evolved to survive in almost all habitats and to withstand natural disasters.
The species as a whole, yes. Nature doesn't give two fucks about the individual. Essentially, as long as you've created the next generation before you croak, nature is happy.
Nature also doesn't care if you suffer from diseases and if half the population is occasionally wiped out in a plague. As long as the species survives or maybe even gets stronger with it, that's actually a nice event that helped cleanse the gene pool.
I don't know which moral standards you follow, but losing half your people every few ge
Re: (Score:3)
It is against the law to do a clinical trial in US using gene therapy to modify germline cells.
It is against the law to use federal funds to do research into genetic modification of germline cells.
It is against the law to market a gene therapy product in the US without a special license and approval.
So if you hire a doctor to develop a custom modification just for you, and they didn't market any such service, you sought them out and asked them to do it on an individual basis, then it is probably legal. If y
Re: (Score:2)
If you have the money to do this, then you have the money to do it outside the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Find the nations that are non signatory, only signed... doing accession...
Consider the gene editing laws, rules, educational ethics, standards in the same way...
Place a lab and go to work... in a nation that needs the investment and is more open to investment...
No need to risk work in the USA.
If the USA has laws, rules, inspections, dont risk getting detected in the USA.
Invest outside the USA and its not a legal problem
Work, test, perfect, br
and ? (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is wrong with gene-edited babies?
Too much religion ("playing with gods work") and too much hyperbole ("gene edited zombie monsters will eat you!") and too little science.
There's a ton of good that can be done. Sure, mistakes will be made. It's not like humans don't die every day because of mistakes being made, you know? So we need to ask if there's a net benefit. Not make blanket rulings for ideological reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, at the same time the potential to correct diseases is virtually limitless, so how do you get the benefits without (too much of) the risks? It reminds me of nuclear power, so much we can do with nuclear reactors but people insist on wanting atomi
Re: (Score:2)
let's say people genetically engineered to be slaves
I thought we dumped the idea that slavery is somehow inheritable 186 years ago?
so how do you get the benefits without (too much of) the risks?
By allowing, but controlling it. Give green light to the research, but run it through the ethics commission and validate the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, what happens is that some really bad people insist on ignoring this memo. Even today in my country there are still farmers who really believe that people should work for them for free and without questioning (ie, slaves).
Re: (Score:2)
And what is wrong with gene-edited babies?
The zombie apocalypse part that comes later.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but generally the humans that die have some say in it. In this case the 'humans that die' will be children or even grand children who were never asked if they wanted to be involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thousands of people die every day who had no say in it. Accidents happen, wars happen, mistakes in medicine happen, inbreeding happens, terrorism happens. Only some of those deaths are the consequence of risky behaviour, in many cases the dead didn't do anything that caused his demise.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is wrong with gene-edited babies?
Please look into the state of the art in Crispr. You don't have to be an expert to understand that we're rolling the DNA dice. I think we can all agree gambling with somebody else's future is immoral, and the high odds of creating deformed children is a seriously bad bet.
Re: (Score:2)
We are rolling the DNA dice by the millions every day. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of babies are born every year with genetic defects because their parents really shouldn't have gambled with that combination of genes?
How is that immoral, but gene editing isn't?
Hint: You're stuck up in "if something bad happens, but it was natural, it's ok" thinking. If humans actually thought like that, we'd still be living in trees. We modern people think nature is the beautiful thing that we visit on the weeken
Re: (Score:2)
Monstrous. Absolutely monstrous. As far as you can get from morality and ethics. Mengele territory.
Don't we already choose our offsprings genes... (Score:2)
And this is a problem because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what's the big deal about gene-edited babies?
Is it the "baby" word? If so, call them gene-edited fetuses. DO remember that they can be aborted at any point pre-birth, so if the editing turns out bad, just dispose of them....
Or have we reached the point where anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden, by definition? If so, it's a sad day....
Or are we really that worried about someone doing a Khan Noonian Singh on us? If so, trust me, won't matter in the long run....
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, what's the big deal about gene-edited babies?
The odds of creating deformed and genetically damaged children is very high.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Same is true if you smoke heavily while carrying a fetus, and smoking is not illegal.
Ditto for alcohol.
And other things.
If the fetus turns out to be defective, dispose of it pre-birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Read up on Thalidomide.
"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."
Re: (Score:2)
That's simply not true, as the fetus can die or have genetic defects from both of those.
How is Crispr synonymous to Thalidomide?
Re: (Score:2)
Well we can agree to disagree then. Genetic predisposition to disease is all about odds. Genetic damage with Crispr always occurs 100% of the time and it depends upon DNA's ability to repair itself - that's what Crispr does. Serious genetic defects from moderate alcohol and smoking while not a good thing is thankfully a lower risk - hundreds of millions of children have been born in the last century from mothers who
Oh shit!!! (Score:2)
I just realized we don't have any rules preventing rogue scientists from putting freakin' lasers on freakin' sharks' heads either!
WTF are we gonna do?!? Someone legislate this shit pronto!
Rogue scientists should ONLY be allowed to use APPROVED lasers on APPROVED sharks!!!
Caucasian !? (Score:2)
On the issue at hand, everything has already been said. It will happen discreetly no matter what.
But those jokes about super blue eyed Aryans are off the mark, this happens in Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
Blue eyes look pretty on Asians too.
Re: (Score:2)
On the issue at hand, everything has already been said. It will happen discreetly no matter what.
But those jokes about super blue eyed Aryans are off the mark, this happens in Asia.
Indeed, southeast Asia has been a favored location for human modification in science fiction for decades. From cyborgs to genetic editing, multiple different authors have pegged Asia as the place it will happen first and advance fastest. William Gibson chose Chiba City, Japan as the world leader in cyborg enhancement in his Sprawl trilogy, specifically naming it as the place where Molly Millions got her cybernetic implants. Other authors have favored Singapore or Vietnam. Cultures in the region seem to
Because it is point less! (Score:2)
Also, Only Honest people obey rules anyway, no one else does.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents ;)
I guess you're 20% of the way to buying this service! ;)
-- Or you were ....
Maybe we need more rogues. (Score:4)
I think the implication is that gene edited babies are bad and that creating them would be bad so scientists who engage in it are "rogue" despite the absence of rules forbidding it. This ignores the ongoing public dialog about this exact issue. There are people who believe human genetic modification is bad and there are plenty of people who think it's incredibly good.
In her last few years, my mom suffered heavily from MS. When I was still somewhat up to date on the research for it, I remember there were strong suspicions that it had genetic origins or at least partial genetic origins. Imagine if we could use gene editing to prevent anyone from having to suffer what she went through (and many other people are still going through!) ever again. Imagine if we could use technologies like CRISPR to fix the problem in people who are currently suffering it.
Yes, there should be checks on the abuse of genetic research. We've all suffered through enough sermons about the dangers of technology dressed up as movies and television in our lives, we're not stupid, we get it. But this kind of research has a lot of potential for good. Acting like it's a foregone conclusion that it's bad and ignoring the public dialog about it serves to misinform people, which in turn influences public opinion and that holds back the incredible potential for good this kind of research can have. Please don't do that.
We heard this somewhere before (Score:2)
I'm certain I've heard this remark before. Something along the lines of a company saying they can do better than having the government regulate them.
After all, what could possibly go wrong if an organization says it can take care of itself without outside interference? It's not like they'd falsify records or let things slip through the cracks, would they?
Re: (Score:2)
The sig on your comment is rather ironic in the context. Was that deliberate?
What do you mean rules? (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
You mean... (Score:2)
...like the rules against murder, thievery and so on?
Because they work so well?
Re: (Score:2)
...like the rules against murder, thievery and so on?
Because they work so well?
You can point at the laws and then lock up/kill those people who break them.
If there weren't laws. What would you do? Tell them they are naughty but free to go do it again?
Of course there are rules (Score:2)
Of course there are rules preventing it. Lots and lots of them, in fact. That's why anybody who does it is "rogue".
The Russian biologist they mention is currently being held up by the necessity to get the Russian health ministry's approval to continue, which they won't give.
Also no rules about making GMO foods (Score:2)
The dangers from designer babies are non-existent. Our knowledge of genetics is quite frankly not up to the media fears. We can barely recognize bad genes, let alone create anything dangerous.
But more importantly, normal human procreation is not perfect. Approximately 25% of human pregnancies end in miscarriage. Most of these (50-70%) are caused by genetic issues. (https://www.epainassist.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/how-many-pregnancies-end-in-miscarriage)
Genetic engineering can easily beat nature's 1
Re: (Score:2)
The dangers from designer babies are non-existent. Our knowledge of genetics is quite frankly not up to the media fears. We can barely recognize bad genes, let alone create anything dangerous.
If you can barely recognise bad genes. How will you even know if you created something dangerous until it's too late, say at puberty? Or some arbitrary time post birth. What if it's not a problem until they have children of their own?
Reminded me of my cloning idea (Score:1)
Ive always wanted to give birth to my own clone. Sort of inception style, no?
Any rogue scientist interested?