Despite CRISPR baby controversy, Harvard University will begin gene-editing sperm

[Fojos]

And then a single disease will wipe us out due to having too similar genome.

Why would we have similar genomes just because we edit miniscule parts? The rest is still differentiated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...nce_to_malaria

In modern life sickle cell is much worse than not having it, even if it practically makes you immune to malaria. Actually, not just in modern life. Sickle cell is horrible. It only survived because people still lived long enough to still spread their genes.

[Walross]

As someone who has a daughter with Autism, I am both fascinated and horrified by what this research will mean.

Fascinated, because it means future generations won't have to suffer as current ones did.

Horrified, because (from their point of view) it literally sends the message that they were a mistake, and we just didn't fix it before them.

Yeah, it's totally better to let people continue to die.

[Byleth]

Well of course they need to push forward with the research, you don't want to fall behind.

While I agree that a Gattaca type society needs to be prevented, the potential benefits to the human race outweigh this.

[melodramocracy]

I'm not sure what to think really. Eradicating "flaws" in humanity really is almost inevitable, to the point that parents will eventually be able to dictate numerous traits of their child, beyond said flaws.

[bowchikabow]

Yeah, it's totally better to let people continue to die.

Sure.. take my sentiment and make a 100% hyperbolic assumption. That is all it was, a sentiment.

[Techno-Druid]

Well they are. Genetic defects are by definition mistakes in Genetic code. As much as people want to coddle Physically and Mentally challenged HUmans at the end of the day they are genetically inferior Humans. Just how Pugs are genetically inferior Dogs with genetic fuckups yet people still love and care for them.

Autism isn't exactly a genetic defect nor are people with autism intrinsically genetically inferior, your brain is simply different, it is not inherently positive nor negative condition.

I also wouldn't consider any dog breeds go be genetically inferior either, we just bred them to fulfill specific roles, although certain breeds have conditions which may make things difficult for them.

Simply put, the world isn't so black and white.

[Goldielocks]

Horrified, because (from their point of view) it literally sends the message that they were a mistake, and we just didn't fix it before them.

I find this half of your POV to be very selfish. The only reason you’re thinking this is because the scenario has affected you personally, and it makes you feel like your own child is inadequate due to their genetic troubles. You haven’t detached bias from the equation.

I’m not trying to be offensive here, but anything that hinders survival doesn’t need to remain just because some parents have found their parental instinct overpowering their own logical reasoning. No person deserves to live a life that is more than likely to be filled with pain and misery. Genetic disease has no place in a scientifically advancing society.

[Techno-Druid]

sperm editing is far less of an issue than human engineering. the latter is going to affect lives, the former is gonna dry out in a special sock or rag.

They're genetically modifying sperm...to fertilize eggs...to produce gene edited humans...

[Draco-Onis]

And then a single disease will wipe us out due to having too similar genome.

There is no reason for that to be the case editing out certain traits doesn't make us homogeneous, the fear right now is that we don't know the long term effect on lifespan and quality of life when we change certain genes. At this moment gene editing is very much in its infancy, once we have one to two lifetimes worth of data we will be able to tweak it a lot more than this.

Also bad news for you a single disease can wipe us out now modified flu virus, various cultures of bacteria etc basically 98-99% of the human race would be wiped out.

[Goldielocks]

Autism isn't exactly a genetic defect nor are people with autism intrinsically genetically inferior, your brain is simply different, it is not inherently positive nor negative condition.

I disagree. Autism is a wide spectrum and any person who requires outside help to live a fulfilling life (according to their own point of view) is a negative condition. On the more severe end, many people just aren't productive in society. On the weaker end (Aspergers), many find themselves depressed due to their lack of social skills.

It's not fun to have this condition.

[Vash The Stampede]

OK, but how would eliminating genes that cause diseases make humans more likely to have diseases? It's completely baffling to me, but then again, I don't have a PhD in genetics. If you do have that PhD, feel free to educate me.

He's specifically talking about infections like viruses and bacteria. Though to be frank it'll be awhile before most humans have the same exact DNA. Ain't something that'll happen over night, and by the time we do have that kind of mass penetration we'll probably have edited bacteria DNA too.

[Pu3Ho]

They're genetically modifying sperm...to fertilize eggs...to produce gene edited humans...

And there's nothing wrong with it unless you are still believing in "god created everything" it's just another step into an evolution, i'l say natural thing... but it should be used for good things, althou that will be hard to control ;P And yeah, i fully understand that it is actually a pandora box, but it was inevitable that someone will open it oneday, that's how we humans are.

[Super Kami Dende]

Autism isn't exactly a genetic defect nor are people with autism intrinsically genetically inferior, your brain is simply different, it is not inherently positive nor negative condition.

I also wouldn't consider any dog breeds go be genetically inferior either, we just bred them to fulfill specific roles, although certain breeds have conditions which may make things difficult for them.

Simply put, the world isn't so black and white.

What you consider and what is real are 2 different things. Pugs are a genetically fucked breed with many issues due to their creation.

[Vash The Stampede]

Autism isn't exactly a genetic defect nor are people with autism intrinsically genetically inferior, your brain is simply different, it is not inherently positive nor negative condition.

I would think that autism is epigenetic in nature but I could be wrong. In this day in age anything is considered a disease. Lots of people will tell you that being a white male is intrinsically genetically inferior. It's all from a perspective really. ADHD is considered bad today but was actually very useful long ago for humans.

[Goldielocks]

I would think that autism is epigenetic in nature but I could be wrong. In this day in age anything is considered a disease. Lots of people will tell you that being a white male is intrinsically genetically inferior. It's all from a perspective really. ADHD is considered bad today but was actually very useful long ago for humans.

It's the context that's key here. Autism can have its benefits but it depends on the severity. Humans are social creatures, so if one's brain is too cut off from that skill, it won't do the person any good. I think a better reference to something that was once considered a disease but has no actual effect on life is Homosexuality. Nothing about being attracted to the same sex has any effect on day to day life, and gay men/women can live full lives with no issues. Yet there is a reason why attraction to the same sex exists and it's fair to assume the genes are involved.

I think the reason why ADHD is bad now is because of how we use our brains. Being hyperaware was helpful for survival but for coherent thought it's actually really damaging since attention spans are ripped to shreds.

[Vash The Stampede]

I think a better reference to something that was once considered a disease but has no actual effect on life is Homosexuality. Nothing about being attracted to the same sex has any effect on day to day life, and gay men/women can live full lives with no issues. Yet there is a reason why attraction to the same sex exists and it's fair to assume the genes are involved.

Not all genetic traits have to be beneficial. As far as evolution is concerned as long as you make babies it doesn't care what the trait is. Being bald for example could have came about to deal with lice but would have negated the benefits of protecting your head from sunlight and keeping your brain warm, and the human brain likes a particular temperature. So more than likely the male bald gene came about because women weren't the ones selecting the men, and as a result the bald gene persisted. The gene doesn't have much effect on women, which may suggest that any woman born with missing hair didn't get a chance to reproduce. Hence the bald trait persisted with men only.

The gay gene (or epigenetic) could have risen the same as the bald gene. Men could have selected women who liked women (cause straight men do like lesbians) and the gene moved onto men, at least that's my hypothesis. The gene persists because society pushes men and women to be together. So the homophobic nature of society could actually be helping the "gay gene" to persist because those who are attracted to the same sex are too afraid to be found out and just live normal lives having children as society expects. Kinda funny that societies hatred of homosexuality is what helped it thrive in a way. But it shows that society plays a role in what genes persist, whether intentional or not.

I think the reason why ADHD is bad now is because of how we use our brains. Being hyperaware was helpful for survival but for coherent thought it's actually really damaging since attention spans are ripped to shreds.

Goes to show that something as minor as being able to focus is already considered a disease. It was only recently that humans need to be able to sit down for long periods of time to think and read. Was only 100 years ago that high school was required. Something like dyslexia is only a problem now because everyone is expected to read and write, which very few people in the world could do. Something like 15-20% of people have dyslexia.

In a way we're already forcing certain genes or traits in people to have. If you have an issue then we have drugs to correct these problems. Not particularly different than gene editing. The only difference is that gene editing is direct and precise while selection by society can have unforeseen consequences. We already abort fetuses if we find down syndrome, so what's the difference with gene editing? You are determining which gene stays and which gene goes.

[Fojos]

Not all genetic traits have to be beneficial. As far as evolution is concerned as long as you make babies it doesn't care what the trait is. Being bald for example could have came about to deal with lice but would have negated the benefits of protecting your head from sunlight and keeping your brain warm, and the human brain likes a particular temperature. So more than likely the male bald gene came about because women weren't the ones selecting the men, and as a result the bald gene persisted. The gene doesn't have much effect on women, which may suggest that any woman born with missing hair didn't get a chance to reproduce. Hence the bald trait persisted with men only.

Some girls can't grow hair either, but are you talking about hair loss or born bald? Because genetic hair loss wouldn't be very affected by sexual selection since most have it long after they had children.

[Arrashi]

That doesn't prove your point that having too similar of a genome, will allow a disease to wipe us out. In fact, the opposite. If that particular genotype/s wasn't spread to more people, less people would be resistant.

You do realise that this proves that having genetic flaw makes people immune to some disease therefore proving that having as wide genome as possible is best way for species to survive.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would we have similar genomes just because we edit miniscule parts? The rest is still differentiated.

Unless we "edit" all flawed "miniscule" parts.

In modern life sickle cell is much worse than not having it, even if it practically makes you immune to malaria. Actually, not just in modern life. Sickle cell is horrible. It only survived because people still lived long enough to still spread their genes.

Beats dying to malaria.

[Najnaj]

Here is a very quick and really entertaining take on basic knowledge on gene editing.

[Vash The Stampede]

Some girls can't grow hair either, but are you talking about hair loss or born bald? Because genetic hair loss wouldn't be very affected by sexual selection since most have it long after they had children.

Hair loss when one reaches adulthood. There are some men at the age of 20 who are going bald. Some lose their hair when they reach 30 which is long past sexual maturity. Some need to wait as far as the age of 50 to go bald. But it's only recently since humans started to have children in their 30's, but I'm talking about men who reach 20 and clearly going bald.