Playing God - Editing DNA and RNA

[Quantum]

Potentially, germline editing could be performed on in vitro fertilized embryos to prevent disease.

Would you do it?


(Pictures of the genetically modified embryos (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40802147))

See also:
’Incredible’ editing of life’s building blocks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-4172...

[Mehreen]

Clearly, this maps the human destiny, which way it is heading. The first building blocks were shed from the sky with asteroids that crashed into earth and so on. Then evolution, now this. It is shaping up to be something unimaginable, for sure. Who made whom or rather, has the divine power been handed over?

[J.J.]

I know there's been discussions on the whole "designer baby" thing for a while, and though I'm taking a bit of a break from writing sci-fi at the moment, I have been brainstorming a universe for a project that uses the idea. The thing is, because genetic modifications are artificially expensive, only those with money can afford to "modify" their children. As such, the society exists at a point where you easily tell someone's social status by the way they look because the modifications are obvious within the society. Because of that, there is no financial/social mobility as people are permanently "marked" by those modifications or lack of.

[Eldon]

My concern here would be do we really understand enough about DNA and all its inner workings to attempt modification of this sort. Could a parallel be drawn to the classic Frankenstein story?

[Nik]

What's really the difference breast enlargement and germline editing? Isn't it same-same to a degree?

[Eldon]

Nik wrote: "What's really the difference breast enlargement and germline editing? Isn't it same-same to a degree?"

Not even close Nik. Breast augmentation is a personal choice a woman makes for herself but germline changes will affect all that come after in the line. Those that follow after will be altered without having a say in it.

[Ian]

There are two issues at least - first who decides what should be done and why, and second, can they actually do it without adverse consequences? For guess for the second is no, but I think the first is worse. Designer soldiers, designer drainlayers, do you really want that? Me, I don't.

[Matthew]

I think that the majority of people, when faced with the possibility that their child could have genetic diseases, would prefer to have the option. It does raise the issue of consent and the consequences of biological intervention, but at present, no human has any control over their genetic makeup.

And it stands to reason that ongoing developments in gene-editing will mean that people can undergo changes later in life. Whatever their parents do, they could probably undo them once they reach the legal age.

[Ian]

I agree with Matthew if the genetic failure is awful; basically there isn't much to lose and I see no reason to condemn a newborn to many years of misery somewhere in the future. However I would be against it if it were only to change the colour of the child's hair, say.

[Matthew]

Mehreen wrote: "Clearly, this maps the human destiny, which way it is heading. The first building blocks were shed from the sky with asteroids that crashed into earth and so on. Then evolution, now this. It is sha..."

Actually, its the current consensus that life emerged on Earth indigenously, rather than the Panspermia hypothesis (i.e. it came here). The smart money is on it emerging around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, since this is where the oldest fossils of microbes can be found.

[Mehreen]

Matthew wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Clearly, this maps the human destiny, which way it is heading. The first building blocks were shed from the sky with asteroids that crashed into earth and so on. Then evolution, now..."

Yes, that's another theory that life originated in the water. I am aware of that one too. But what happens subsequently is more interesting. Now that life has given birth to humans, what is the Creator's role, if ever there was one in the first place.

[Mehreen]

Ian wrote: "I agree with Matthew if the genetic failure is awful; basically there isn't much to lose and I see no reason to condemn a newborn to many years of misery somewhere in the future. However I would be..."

At this stage it is just that change the colour of the eyes and the hair. But I do not believe this would stop here.

[Graeme]

Insitu editing of human genetics will become a fact of life.

Get an upgrade - for a price.

Competition at all levels in society will drive adoption of the technology.

Human beings will cease to be determined by their inherited genetics.

[Ian]

Matthew, in my biased opinion, summarised in my "Planetary Formation and Biogenesis" (which his a bit technical and not a light read) life did not start at hydrothermal vents. The most compelling reason is there is no way that without special protection that phosphate esters could form there and be stable. No phosphate esters, no nuclei acids. Phosphate esters are the most difficult to form without special catalysts, because they need high vibrational energy in the reaction state to form them, but they then need to be kept in cold water to prevent hydrolysis. The only energy source known to meet these conditions is light.

[Matthew]

Mehreen wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Clearly, this maps the human destiny, which way it is heading. The first building blocks were shed from the sky with asteroids that crashed into earth and so on. The..."

Yes, you're right, that's just the origin story. It is the path this will set us on and what it says about us. And in that respect, its right up their with nanotechnology, biotechnology, AI, cybernetics and robotics, and every other way that humanity is going to use to cheat death and play God in the future.

Collectively, its what is described as the Technological Singularity, where we are about to pass through a change so profound that its like entering into a black hole. You can't possible see what's beyond it (hence the name).

[Matthew]

Ian wrote: "I agree with Matthew if the genetic failure is awful; basically there isn't much to lose and I see no reason to condemn a newborn to many years of misery somewhere in the future. However I would be..."

That's why we need to have a legal framework in place beforehand, kind of like with "killer robots" and the like. Ensure that genetic modifications are only legal (or covered by medical plans) if they are health-related and not cosmetic. Of course, it won't be long before people argue on constitutional grounds that people should be allowed to engage in whatever modifications they want.

[Graeme]

Blackmarkets. Illegal mods. Different jurisdictions with different rules.

Anything goes.