News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Eugenics: Chinese researcher claims first gene-edited babies

Started by Sain, November 27, 2018, 03:55:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sain

Chinese researcher claims first gene-edited babies

Link to AP news article that rest of the news sites are copying from.

So, there's lots going on in the politics around the world, but this could potentially be the defining event for something way out there in the realm of scifi. First off let's start with saying that him circumventing peer review with is something that might raise more than a few suspicions. The ethical decisions that led to this experiment are questionable at best and there's apparently no way to tell yet whether or not the gene-editing actually worked fully on the kids (the AP's expert mentioned in the article are referred to saying one of the kids born was a patchwork of edited and unedited cels.)

However, that was apparently the first time humans were gene-engineered with modern science. Seeing as the guy is not in jail one might assume that they're somewhat approving of what this man did in China. If so this might be where active gene-editing eugenics and design babies starts. Effects are obviously going to come at a pretty heavy delay given that the procedures are not really widely available yet, and with how humans tend to need some time to grow up, but what are they going to be? I think regardless of the validity of the research results this announcement is big news. It's the first public coming out by a scientist claiming that they made actual living gene-engineered babies. The reaction to this is by China and rest of the world is something I'm looking forward to seeing. Is China gonna go all out and pour more funds into this, approving further CRISPR gene-engineering projects while rest of the world denounces the practice as unethical?

Would love to hear what you guys think of this development.
PM box is open. So is my discord: Sain#5301

Icelandic

I think gene editing is one of those 'genies out of a bottle' kinda problem. Regardless of the ethics, genetic engineering is something that will not stop, regardless of what kind of potential international pressure is put into place. It simply has far too many benefits for it to be left alone, and doing so would put us at a major disadvantage if we stop while another nation goes at it.

Plus, I do consider genetic engineering to be absolutely moral. In theory, genetic engineering could end disease and even death to a certain extent.

Please, do stay a while, and warm up my icy heart~.

                          (Cuddle friendly)
My O/O's

My main request thread. (Always open!)

gaggedLouise

As long as the editing is restricted to removing serious and painful diseases/defects that some people are born with, and which would normally force them to lead a fairly short life spent under steady medical attention, day and night, I am all for ity - but would it stop there? The spectre of "rogue genetic engineering" to produce new breeds of people with superhuman mental and physical qualities poses some very serious ethical questions. Something the late great Stephen Hawking recognized. If there's a sufficient number of modified "supermen" they would ultimateöy come to see the rest of us as expendable and try to take control and create a world better for themselves - but not for us.  :(

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/stephen-hawking-feared-a-rich-superhuman-species-will-end-humanity.html

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Sain

Personally I'm also in favour and think it's the way to go for humanity, but in the context of our current world and possible inequalities that'll rise from it for the foreseeable near centuries, the way this is handled can go really wrong. Of course, it remains to be seen how impactful the treatments end up being and how big an advantage they would give over traditional babies. While Scifi likes to paint fantastic ideas of superhumans we can't know for sure how feasible it would be to achieve this. Genetics is complex, and applying multiple CRISPR mutations in the same cell successfully without damaging anything is well, easier said than done, though some papers suggest that there are ways to enable it.

Apparently I can't edit the post for some reason so I'll add some related articles here.

Nature News article.

MIT Technology Review: A statement from one of the inventors of CRISPR

In the Nature article there are some references to surveys that might be important for the discussion. Namely, the public (in China too) seems firmly opposed to gene-editing to enhance IQ, athletic ability, or changing skin colour. However, given that this research too was carried out in complete secret until Monday's press release, one has to wonder how much public opinion is going to matter in the end. At the rate some of these Chinese researchers seems to be going away from the Western scientific ethics we might just get another announcement in 9 months where a group comes out, out of the blue, with babies who've received treatment in genes related to IQ. It's the secrecy of this research that is the biggest cause of outrage. Basically the same as if someone had invented nuclear reactor and made one to produce energy, comes out with it out of nowhere, but promises they aren't going to make a bomb with the technology they already have.
PM box is open. So is my discord: Sain#5301

Tolvo

It's very terrifying to me. I get people wanting disease prevention but after that the territory it gets into is something I find to promote inequality and the erasing of people and who they are. Does it end with just making someone HIV resistant or immune? Do we start trying to get rid of Downs Syndrome, OCD, Autism, things that are a part of people and who they are? Do they start trying to erase entire groups, fix things that aren't problems? Search for issues in genes that aren't there? Keep in mind people's obsession with the Gay Gene and Transgender Gene ideas.

Lustful Bride

Quote from: Tolvo on November 27, 2018, 07:46:15 AM
It's very terrifying to me. I get people wanting disease prevention but after that the territory it gets into is something I find to promote inequality and the erasing of people and who they are. Does it end with just making someone HIV resistant or immune? Do we start trying to get rid of Downs Syndrome, OCD, Autism, things that are a part of people and who they are? Do they start trying to erase entire groups, fix things that aren't problems? Search for issues in genes that aren't there? Keep in mind people's obsession with the Gay Gene and Transgender Gene ideas.

+1

And China is really one of the least trustworthy groups to get access to this kind of technology, given their obsession with sticking the Uighur Muslims into camps, keeping absolute control over their people, the death of any sense of privacy. If it were Japan, South Korea, France, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, whatever. I'd be much more comfortable and see more benefits. But right now I cant help but think of how this will likely be used towards more nefarious and immoral ends. The scientists involved already showed a lack of any real ethics.

We might end up with a clone wars in another 70 years or a new version of the one child policy where natural born babies are illegal.

Tolvo

I don't quite know that we'll end up with clone wars, usually that requires the involvement of Kamino and I think we've not found where that planet is yet.

But I don't really trust any government with this. And given the long history of scientific racism, and the use of science to marginalize and exterminate people I don't trust the scientific world really on this either. There are possible ways to do this without veering into dangerous territory, but already this incident is and how people talk about it worries me. I'm very anti-eugenics, especially as someone who depending on where I move in the world would not be allowed to have children and would be forcibly sterilized.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhisubbaraman/hiv-crispr-china-twins

It also looks like people researching HIV and its prevention find it to be unethical and not actually helpful.

Sain

Quote from: Tolvo on November 27, 2018, 07:46:15 AM
It's very terrifying to me. I get people wanting disease prevention but after that the territory it gets into is something I find to promote inequality and the erasing of people and who they are. Does it end with just making someone HIV resistant or immune? Do we start trying to get rid of Downs Syndrome, OCD, Autism, things that are a part of people and who they are? Do they start trying to erase entire groups, fix things that aren't problems? Search for issues in genes that aren't there? Keep in mind people's obsession with the Gay Gene and Transgender Gene ideas.

Iceland I believe is already aborting certain disabilities. However, I would not be too worried about this technology being used for that. It is already very simple to screen the genetic makeup of embryo and do eugenics of the sort that you are worried about and that technology is globally accessible. It's also bit of a misconception to imagine that this would be now some secret technology that is only in the hands of the Chinese. Thing is that CRISPR Cas 9 is available to everyone. You and I could order a kit to start playing with it for a couple thousand dollars. Majority of the scientific community however adheres to pretty damn strict ethical guidelines and regulations that outright ban these types of experiments. Actually, if you check the Nature article, even China themselves had this technology restricted back in 2003 (though not outright banned).

The ethical dilemma of this announcement they made is not so much related to discrimination of minorities as it is to the secrecy of the science, use of highly experimental technology without the full knowledge of long term consequences, and potential downstream implications of superhumans or potentially equally dire consequences of 'what if we let the market forces drive this research and rich people up their IQ by 10'. At this rate of advancement it's really hard to say whether that future is 5 or 10 years away from being possible, and if the Chinese set a precedent of allowing this type of secret research to be carried out then we can be damn sure they'll have a few babies incubating by the time anyone anywhere publishes an article demonstrating multiple gene-editing and some good roadmap to IQ related genes.
PM box is open. So is my discord: Sain#5301

Tolvo

Why are you contradicting yourself? Given that IQ is rooted in very racist science that is still used to this day to discriminate. Why would discrimination not be related? I'm not saying these things were impossible before, but that this is still eugenics.

Sain

Quote from: Tolvo on November 27, 2018, 08:56:34 AM
Why are you contradicting yourself? Given that IQ is rooted in very racist science that is still used to this day to discriminate. Why would discrimination not be related? I'm not saying these things were impossible before, but that this is still eugenics.

I'm not sure I understand what IQ has to do with race. As far as I'm aware IQ, though highly flawed in many aspects, aims to be a quantitative measurement of some form of logical thinking. Trying to edit genes related to it would be more of a transhumanist endeavour and I see the inequalities breeding from that to be more associated with the way that this technology would be available than a question of people's ethnicity or what racial bias the scientists might have. Those with more money and resources, in every country out there, would want to ensure that their families stay competitive and hop on the bandwagon to pay for treatments that increase IQ and other cognitive capabilities. Or do you mean more in a sense that the newly "improved" humans might see themselves as a new race?
PM box is open. So is my discord: Sain#5301

Icelandic

Quote from: Tolvo on November 27, 2018, 07:46:15 AM
Do we start trying to get rid of Downs Syndrome, OCD, Autism

Are you talking about from the onset? Because if you are referring to genetically modifying fetuses so that they do not have those traits, I can't imagine what would be bad about that. You are taking a human and removing an illness from them that can cause considerable hardships for themselves.

Please, do stay a while, and warm up my icy heart~.

                          (Cuddle friendly)
My O/O's

My main request thread. (Always open!)

Lustful Bride

Quote from: Sain on November 27, 2018, 09:05:00 AM
I'm not sure I understand what IQ has to do with race. As far as I'm aware IQ, though highly flawed in many aspects, aims to be a quantitative measurement of some form of logical thinking. Trying to edit genes related to it would be more of a transhumanist endeavour and I see the inequalities breeding from that to be more associated with the way that this technology would be available than a question of people's ethnicity or what racial bias the scientists might have. Those with more money and resources, in every country out there, would want to ensure that their families stay competitive and hop on the bandwagon to pay for treatments that increase IQ and other cognitive capabilities. Or do you mean more in a sense that the newly "improved" humans might see themselves as a new race?

In some countries people have an absolute view of IQ and Race being 100% linked. White supremacist groups love to tout BS figures that non whites are inherently less intelligent than whites, and if they start making ubermench test tube babies they will have their own physical proof of it (even if manufactured)

…….wow I feel like a conspiracy nut now.

Tolvo

The science of IQ is heavily basic in scientific racism and the two have been linked to this day. It is why many tout the difference in IQ scores of different races as evidence of superiority or inferiority. Because IQ tests actually do show a difference. Which isn't because certain races are inferior but are due to education available which is effected by poverty, there are many other factors but that is a very big one.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

Also given that these ideas are still being proposed in the modern day and sterilization still occurs in the world, including in the USA.

There are other concerns with the experiment involving these babies, which certain scientists do find very unethical and dangerous, but discrimination is not unrelated to it.

Sain

Quote from: Lustful Bride on November 27, 2018, 09:08:07 AM
In some countries people have an absolute view of IQ and Race being 100% linked. White supremacist groups love to tout BS figures that non whites are inherently less intelligent than whites, and if they start making ubermench test tube babies they will have their own physical proof of it (even if manufactured)

…….wow I feel like a conspiracy nut now.
Quote from: Tolvo on November 27, 2018, 09:10:57 AM
The science of IQ is heavily basic in scientific racism and the two have been linked to this day. It is why many tout the difference in IQ scores of different races as evidence of superiority or inferiority. Because IQ tests actually do show a difference. Which isn't because certain races are inferior but are due to education available which is effected by poverty, there are many other factors but that is a very big one.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

Also given that these ideas are still being proposed in the modern day and sterilization still occurs in the world, including in the USA.

There are other concerns with the experiment involving these babies, which certain scientists do find very unethical and dangerous, but discrimination is not unrelated to it.

Right, yeah there are always people wishing to bend science to bolster their ideology or politics. However, I would not discredit a field of psychology because of a small subset of questionable scientists with questionable morals just like I would not rush to question the use of CRISPR in general. There's plenty of literature that affirms IQ as a rather alright measure of logical reasoning, and though some may have used it to drive some racist ideology doesn't make it any less useful as a measure for a type of intelligence. Though, for the sake of argument IQ could just as well be substituted with some other measure (not a psychologist so no idea what others there are).

The thing is that if this were to become commercially available market forces will be what directs the usage of this treatment rather than ideologies. Being able to gene tailor the child increase cognitive ability (whether logical reasoning, creativity, or whatever they find to be simplest to edit) or physical fitness is going to be a dilemma of discrimination in a whole new category. Whether one likes it or not those qualities can be determined by genes to an extent, though I do share your criticism towards those people you cited as touting this as some proof of one "race's" superiority over another. It would be more likely that some gene would just for example encode thicker protective layers around neuronal synapses or perhaps somehow determines the optimal ratio of glia cells. With CRISPR Cas 9 it's good to keep in mind that these do not have to be pre-existing genes present in the population.

Like someone mentioned before a government might implement mass eugenics, whilst some might privatise the treatment and let people's wallets determine how superior a start their progeny will get. That's the biggest future threat I see for this myself.

Of course, it remains to be seen how viable the treatment was and how feasible and cheap it will be to implement gene-editing on qualities relying on multiple different genes rather than a single one as was the case in the Chinese announcement.
PM box is open. So is my discord: Sain#5301

Tolvo

Except the market is often decided by who has wealth, who has power, and people's own biases or what the market thinks those people want. So that will still lead to discrimination.

And again valuing people based on cognitive ability and trying to alter it is still a massive problem. Regardless of whether or not you use the IQ model.

Icelandic

I think a really good way to look at genetic engineering is to consider the law in regards to vaccines. Nowhere in the English-speaking world are you forced to get vaccinated. At the most, you are compelled in some cases, but not outright forced.

I cannot imagine that a constitutionally strong country like the US or Australia would suddenly start to kill off it's non-engineered population just because better options are available then going natural. We don't kill off non-vaccinated people when they get the flu, even if non-vaccinated people have the potential to harm others through the spread of disease.

Please, do stay a while, and warm up my icy heart~.

                          (Cuddle friendly)
My O/O's

My main request thread. (Always open!)

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Lustful Bride on November 27, 2018, 09:08:07 AM
In some countries people have an absolute view of IQ and Race being 100% linked. White supremacist groups love to tout BS figures that non whites are inherently less intelligent than whites, and if they start making ubermench test tube babies they will have their own physical proof of it (even if manufactured)

…….wow I feel like a conspiracy nut now.

"We must kill the GM supermen or they'll exterminate us! - No, wait, it's the other way around..." ;)

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

HannibalBarca

Motivation--tenacity--is a much higher indicator of success in life than physical ability or IQ.  If it's more nature than nuture, then whoever finds a gene sequence for motivation is going to produce more successful people if those people's genes are manipulated.

I also don't find a correlation with superior genetics and lack of freedom or rights.  My genes are physically inferior to Diego Maradonna and intellectually inferior to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but no one is saying they should have more rights than me.  They may use their genetic talents (or motivation) to become more successful than me, but that isn't them having more rights or freedoms.  If gene splicing leads to more successful human beings, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.  Neandertals were probably not purposely driven to extinction by homo sapiens, but just couldn't adapt as well as us.  We already do unnatural selection by choosing our mates to a large extent--why not be able to choose a healthier, smarter life for your child?
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu

Conundrum

This is is potentially big news but there is doubt.  The hospital that he claims to have done it at claims to have had no awareness of it.  As a result this is potentially a bogus claim by a man who was recently removed from his university position.  He is claiming that he will release his research on Wednesday, as of yet no information on this has been published in a scientific journal.

If this is a good thing is also debatable since genes are not simple lego blocks.  The CCR5 genes replaced will largely reduce the chances of the subjects getting HIV but there are ramifications.  An adequate comparison is sickle cell anemia.  SCA can cause long term health complications but the genes for it also help combat things such as malaria.  The CCR5 genes used in this situation cause an increased chance of contracting and suffering from diseases such as the flu.

There is currently and investigation by the ethics committee of the hospital this procedure was supposedly performed at.  If it is found that he performed illegal genetic experimentation on humans he will face severe criminal charges.  There is not an explicit ban on genetic experimentation under the Guidelines on Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies, however, researchers generally do not push these guidelines and instead will work with non-viable embryos a permitted under the guidelines.  The guidelines rather explicitly forbid "the manipulation of the genes.. in embryos for the purpose of reproduction."

Furthermore He Jiankui claims to have 400 3PN human embryos which he has performed experimentation on and successfully "cured" various genetic conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5
http://www.bjnews.com.cn/news/2018/11/26/524940.html
http://www.sustc.edu.cn/news_events_/5524
http://wap.sciencenet.cn/mobile.php?type=detail&cat=news&id=420425&mobile=1
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2673894
If I have not responded to a post in 4 days, send me a PM as I may have missed it.

Tolvo

Well we do have evidence that Homo Sapiens did genocide Neanderthals, though we don't know if that was why they fully died out other than them mingling with Homo Sapiens, which is why certain people today have their DNA.

You might not have a law put into effect that makes you be considered legally less of a person. That doesn't mean discrimination won't happen, though in regards to certain groups we have seen such laws in the modern age. Now I'm personally anti-Eugenics, I find it on the level of attempting genocide. Certain groups people feel fine with erasing the existence of like people with various disabilities and disorders that are not life threatening. Those people deserve the right to exist as who they are, if it is something life threatening then they can't live at all without such an alteration but then where to draw that line is questionable.

Also yeah Conundrum I had heard that as well, there was some of it in the article I linked about the possible mutations that may negatively impact the babies. And how there was no peer review or really any aspect of the scientific process or ethical practice done. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a hoax by the Dr.

Vergil1989

Quote from: Icelandic on November 27, 2018, 09:49:38 AM
I think a really good way to look at genetic engineering is to consider the law in regards to vaccines. Nowhere in the English-speaking world are you forced to get vaccinated. At the most, you are compelled in some cases, but not outright forced.

I cannot imagine that a constitutionally strong country like the US or Australia would suddenly start to kill off it's non-engineered population just because better options are available then going natural. We don't kill off non-vaccinated people when they get the flu, even if non-vaccinated people have the potential to harm others through the spread of disease.

Apparently you don't live in the US or see what's become of our 'constitutionally strong government', because I sure as Hell wouldn't trust America with this kind of technology, IF as some have said, this scientist even achieved what he claims to have done, and that's assuming he isn't thrown in jail for playing with genetics on an unethical basis.  Whatever the case, I can safely say that while I'd LOVE for this to be true since I am currently suffering from a very rare form of Muscular Dystrophy, a genetic disorder that has weakened my body to the point I can't breathe on my own, let alone walk, but my youngest brother, who also has MD, is also Autistic, I'm not about to jump on this bandwagon because I can see why Tolvo's worried.  We, as a species, has never been able to live with ourselves as it is due to all the different 'races' and our varied beliefs on EVERY conceivable issue we can imagine.  As such, suddenly we might be on the verge of genetic engineered babies, and some of you seem to think there isn't an inherent danger in that?  No offense, but you're being just a little too hopeful given everything going on these days.  Hate groups like the KKK and extremists in almost every part of the world's popped up thanks to people like Trump and the like, so it's all too easy for me to imagine that something as potentially powerful as Eugenics technology could and likely WILL be used for far less than noble ends, again assuming this is even a thing this guy has achieved.  So I'm sorry to say, but while I'd love for this to be something that ends up becoming a reality in five, ten years tops, I also seriously hope that it hasn't been accomplished with how things are currently.
Taker of the Oath of the Drake
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=85486.0  Absence and Apology...countdown to doom....so to speak.
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=123720.msg5435844#msg5435844  Storyteller Cafe thread.
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=186829.0  Solo thread request thread
IMPORTANT UPDATE as of October 6th 2016 in A/A page

Tolvo

It also like scientists have said is a very extreme method for accomplishing something with way easier methods. Worried about intelligence? Focus on education. Want people with disabilities to not suffer? Focus on better care for and acceptance of those people. Autistic people existing isn't a problem, Autistic people's treatment in our society is the problem. I'd rather change that. Even for preventing HIV there are way better methods than trying to remove genes which can have disastrous effects and bring up serious ethical questions.

Mathim

I figure as long as it's not inaccessible to anyone, there's nothing wrong with it. The only real question is what would be considered the agreed-upon norm once whatever modifications are available have been established. Diversity would no longer be a factor in promoting healthy offspring, and homogeneity would dampen individualism as far as superficial things go, which would be positives since people would have to work on their personalities and not just look a certain way to attract attention from prospective romantic partners. Reproduction wouldn't be a priority if people live longer healthier lives which would preserve resources and spare the environment a lot of strain. I think a pragmatic approach would be best to go into it with, where things external to just humanity would drive a lot of it.
Considering a permanent retirement from Elliquiy, but you can find me on Blue Moon (under the same username).

Icelandic

Quote from: Mathim on November 27, 2018, 08:59:51 PM
I figure as long as it's not inaccessible to anyone, there's nothing wrong with it. The only real question is what would be considered the agreed-upon norm once whatever modifications are available have been established. Diversity would no longer be a factor in promoting healthy offspring, and homogeneity would dampen individualism as far as superficial things go, which would be positives since people would have to work on their personalities and not just look a certain way to attract attention from prospective romantic partners. Reproduction wouldn't be a priority if people live longer healthier lives which would preserve resources and spare the environment a lot of strain. I think a pragmatic approach would be best to go into it with, where things external to just humanity would drive a lot of it.

I think genetic engineering would be closed off to the general public in most cases at first, especially if it's cosmetic matters, like a lot of medications are at first, although this would be significantly lessened if you live in a nation with universal healthcare.

I think a lot of people who are worried about this are not considering that this is a form of preventative medicine. If you would like to know how that might interact with society as a whole, look at vaccines. If you wonder how the cosmetic aspect of this would work, look at plastic surgery.

A lot of people here seem to be thinking that the worst-case scenario is also the most likely scenario, seemingly only due to the fact that forced eugenics was once an acceptable practice for a relatively short while in academia. Our ability to further change humans does not necessarily mean that we will all the sudden decide that we must change humans.
Please, do stay a while, and warm up my icy heart~.

                          (Cuddle friendly)
My O/O's

My main request thread. (Always open!)

Sain

Quote from: Conundrum on November 27, 2018, 08:11:24 PM
This is is potentially big news but there is doubt.  The hospital that he claims to have done it at claims to have had no awareness of it.  As a result this is potentially a bogus claim by a man who was recently removed from his university position.  He is claiming that he will release his research on Wednesday, as of yet no information on this has been published in a scientific journal.

If this is a good thing is also debatable since genes are not simple lego blocks.  The CCR5 genes replaced will largely reduce the chances of the subjects getting HIV but there are ramifications.  An adequate comparison is sickle cell anemia.  SCA can cause long term health complications but the genes for it also help combat things such as malaria.  The CCR5 genes used in this situation cause an increased chance of contracting and suffering from diseases such as the flu.

There is currently and investigation by the ethics committee of the hospital this procedure was supposedly performed at.  If it is found that he performed illegal genetic experimentation on humans he will face severe criminal charges.  There is not an explicit ban on genetic experimentation under the Guidelines on Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies, however, researchers generally do not push these guidelines and instead will work with non-viable embryos a permitted under the guidelines.  The guidelines rather explicitly forbid "the manipulation of the genes.. in embryos for the purpose of reproduction."

Furthermore He Jiankui claims to have 400 3PN human embryos which he has performed experimentation on and successfully "cured" various genetic conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5
http://www.bjnews.com.cn/news/2018/11/26/524940.html
http://www.sustc.edu.cn/news_events_/5524
http://wap.sciencenet.cn/mobile.php?type=detail&cat=news&id=420425&mobile=1
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2673894

Indeed him skipping peer review and going straight to the press places pretty big suspicions on him. Reminded me immediately of the infamous cold fusion experiments and other cases where science was supposedly done and the peer review process was skipped only because the scientist wanted to get some fame on fabricated data. Let's see which is the case though. Interesting to hear that he is potentially facing a jail sentence now even though.

It would be a pretty big blow on the image of Chinese science if the world sees them again performing this kind of research and being entirely OK with it.

Quote from: Icelandic on November 27, 2018, 09:17:25 PM
I think genetic engineering would be closed off to the general public in most cases at first, especially if it's cosmetic matters, like a lot of medications are at first, although this would be significantly lessened if you live in a nation with universal healthcare.

I think a lot of people who are worried about this are not considering that this is a form of preventative medicine. If you would like to know how that might interact with society as a whole, look at vaccines. If you wonder how the cosmetic aspect of this would work, look at plastic surgery.

A lot of people here seem to be thinking that the worst-case scenario is also the most likely scenario, seemingly only due to the fact that forced eugenics was once an acceptable practice for a relatively short while in academia. Our ability to further change humans does not necessarily mean that we will all the sudden decide that we must change humans.

Might be in part my provocative titling of the topic that helped rouse such thoughts, but I think it's still good to acknowledge the more nefarious scenarios as well as the most likely one. If nothing else it has added some nice varying viewpoints to the discussion.

Thinking of it as a preventive medicine really is the best way and likely what most of the world will adapt it as. Of course, it's good to remember that being able to modify genes with CRISPR is not really a breakthrough for most hereditary diseases. In most cases with tube inseminated embryos you can screen for the disease and pick only embryos that don't have it. The technology to screen for diseases is available already. Seeing that an embryo has some specific disease related gene and then deciding whether to use it for insemination or not is already available. You have clinics in US offering the service. CRISPR editing is not massively changing that paradigm, but rather opens a whole new avenue of preventative medicine by allowing genes changed in a way that are not naturally occurring in the human population, or are very rare but beneficial mutations.

But yeah, like HannibalBarca mentioned, it's not so straightforward to determine what is actually a beneficial quality. And, furthermore it's kinda hard to determine which genes would increase person's aptitude for intelligence or productivity in a meaningful way. It will require genetic screening on a whole new level to try determine the actual meaningful qualities or predispositions and a whole bunch of careful application of ethics so as to not overlook some traits that might be more important than we realise. In the end I imagine getting the thing anywhere near reliable would take few generations, but that's probably not going to stop people from trying. In the worst case the kids could end up with some unplanned disability or other side effects.

Hopefully one day the technology will be more developed with proper guidelines to handle it. Would be neat to make sure that your own kids are better than you even before birth.
PM box is open. So is my discord: Sain#5301