CRISPR needs consent from the CRISPRed? What?

[schwarzkopf]

You have no idea when it was developed.

What ? Of course we do ... check out a bit of evolutionary science young'un.

[Total Crica]

What ? Of course we do ... check out a bit of evolutionary science young'un.

Try reading the rest of my post before suggesting more conjecture.

[schwarzkopf]

Try reading the rest of my post before suggesting more conjecture.

No need, you are denying the simple truth of evolution - I don't tend to read past that sort of trash.

[Total Crica]

No need, you are denying the simple truth of evolution - I don't tend to read past that sort of trash.

Truth? You were there at the beginning of it all? Wow, do tell us all about this truth!

If not, all you espouse is conjecture.

[AeneasBK]

I'd be against "super babies" too.

And blonde hair blue eyes wouldn't be "good looking" for me, I was just pointing out pop culture and fashion's use of that appearance as a standard-bearer for what beauty should be.

Sorry this wasn't particularly aimed at you its just this isn't a new topic; we were debating the ethics of it when I was a young teenager in school, and everyone since then seemed to focus on the aesthetic benefits as opposed to the medical (in terms of anti-disease) or practical (super strength, super brains) applications. Just find it funny.

OMG did we just see a nutter ask "were you there" regarding theory of evolution I thought that was just a "exagerated example of how mental they are". This website does not fail to entertain.

[Total Crica]

a nutter.

Only a nutter would claim to be in full possession of all information needed to know the truth of how everything came into existence.

[AeneasBK]

Only a nutter would claim to be in full possession of all information needed to know the truth of how everything came into existence.

Yes. That doesn't change ther "were you there?" argument from being completely dumb-as-fuck.

[Total Crica]

Yes. That doesn't change ther "were you there?" argument from being completely dumb-as-fuck.

What argument? It was a question. If the answer is no, then all else IS conjecture, since you don't know if you have ALL needed information or not to know the truth.

[Independent voter]

Wasn't there a Trek episode where some aliens secretly stole some of Riker's DNA and made a clone of him without Riker knowing? When Riker found out he was mad.

[Seethe]

Ummm... really? Consent of the fetus? What happened to the right to chose?
The parents have the right to use this tech to save their unborn child from life destroying genetic disorders.
Once it hits the market and people want to use genetic mods to turn themselves into what ever they want, go for it.
We don't have the right to say no because we disagree with the way someone else uses it on themselves. It is wrong to label this tech taboo.

What matters now is that we build, as a society, a strong moral compass on how to use this tech for the betterment of everyone.
From nuclear bombs to nuclear reactors.
No one wants Gattaca.
No one wants horrible genetic disorders.
Foster invention.
Teach your children responsibility.

[Asaliah]

Embryos aren't human being, it's just a bunch of cells.

[mickybrighteyes]

I think someone here is already ignoring the possible side effects of gene editing.

Until further notice... I'm going to assume it can vary as widely as some attempts at boobjobs. When they look like Mary-Claude, sure I can't see a downside.... when they look like Kristi Think.... FUCK THAT SHIT I'M OUT.

[Sylv_]

Overpopulation isn't that much of an issue as many people think. If you look at the population growth numbers and the economic situation than you can see that the second the quality of life gets better, birth rates shrink drastically. Many estimations suggest that a population of 10 Billion will never be reached.

I respectfully disagree about us reaching 10B. We will reach it. Overpopulation will be a problem. Now, we have an issue with mortality vs natality. Mortality rates will go down, and natality rates will stay the same, or increase. This causes an inflation of the number of humans, who have the possibility to have more children, versus dying.

Mega fuck.

[Arenis]

She actually makes quite a lot of sense. Here is a paper which touches the ethical side of genome editing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251934/

An important part (though I'd advise to read everything under that section):

From a societal viewpoint, different issues would emerge when genome editing-mediated germline gene correction is practiced for preventive medicine. A regulatory agency would require that practitioners should fulfil long-term monitoring and healthcare of children born using the procedure because it could be associated with a potential risk of health impairment. However, it is difficult to determine how long such children must be monitored. Does the monitoring last during their whole lives or across several generations of the offspring? With regard to the mitochondrial replacement, the UK HFEA declared that it would be necessary to monitor the resulting children during their lifetime and ensure the traceability of gametes and embryos [83]. However, it is unlikely to be possible to perform such monitoring in all relevant countries. Moreover, it is also difficult to decide whether a country should aid all patients with thousands of genetic diseases, or how to select the subjects for the preventive medicine.

Basically, by choosing CRISPR editing on a germline level (that passes on to future generations, which somatic doesn't, hence it's less of an issue) you will subject your offspring to possibly a life long of inspection, tests, unforeseen medical circumstances and prejudice.

Seeing some reactions here, it's fully understandable why these high-level discussions are only being conducted with actually knowledgeable people...

[Masark]

Wasn't there a Trek episode where some aliens secretly stole some of Riker's DNA and made a clone of him without Riker knowing? When Riker found out he was mad.

Up The Long Ladder. Both him and Pulaski got cloned and Riker took a phaser to said clones.

[Total Crica]

She actually makes quite a lot of sense. Here is a paper which touches the ethical side of genome editing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251934/

An important part (though I'd advise to read everything under that section):


Basically, by choosing CRISPR editing on a germline level (that passes on to future generations, which somatic doesn't, hence it's less of an issue) you will subject your offspring to possibly a life long of inspection, tests, unforeseen medical circumstances and prejudice.

Seeing some reactions here, it's fully understandable why these high-level discussions are only being conducted with actually knowledgeable people...

Nope, no different then choosing who you have sex with. Except CRISPR can be used to be pickier then sex can.

[Sting]

Don't get your panties in a twist yet, the human genome is more resistant to changes than most people think.



- - - Updated - - -

I respectfully disagree about us reaching 10B. We will reach it. Overpopulation will be a problem. Now, we have an issue with mortality vs natality. Mortality rates will go down, and natality rates will stay the same, or increase. This causes an inflation of the number of humans, who have the possibility to have more children, versus dying.

Mega fuck.

You're wrong though (maybe not about the 10b part). Check out this video:



The UN estimates the 12th billion person will never be born. This is because the development of a region correlates to the amount of children people get, with underdeveloped regions typically having more children. As societies develop, the population levels out.

In western Europe, the population (without immigration) is pretty stable. That's also why I'm against mass immigration. The solution is not having people immigrate en masse to greener pastures, but to help them build a better country.

[Arenis]

Nope, no different then choosing who you have sex with. Except CRISPR can be used to be pickier then sex can.

It is extremely different. When choosing a partner to produce offspring with, you do not know their genetic make-up. You can only assume several things based on some phenotypical traits, but that's about it. The rest is 'natures' business', aka how live evolves.

With CRISPR you can, in theory, to a certain extent build up a baby like it's made of lego. But we have never done such extreme experiments on humans before. We do not know the long-lasting effects on humans. And as with everything, there will be unforeseen negative circumstances. That is why the first few generations with heavily modified genomes will be monitored to the extreme (hence the 'consent' part). We would be engineering the human future. And as this might result in either eternal anthropogenetic prosperity or a fucked up mess, it's extremely important to discuss this very thoroughly.

You can have your opinion and all, but for goodness sake put some effort in objectively forming one.

[Daedius]

For some reason I read the thread title as needing consent for CPR...

[Poopymonster]

For some reason I read the thread title as needing consent for CPR...

I was torn between what putting a fetus in the lower drawers of my refrigerator would do, and how long do I have to deep fry to get it crisper.