This Aint Packers Talk v69

[pollino14]

Protection of our individual freedoms.

[Shanedorf]

28 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

As I said, I have no problem selecting out medically undesirable traits, but aesthetic traits become a problem because that is completely subjective. 

I'd be more willing to hear out an argument for parental choice, but I'm undecided on that point. 

You're going to hear a lot more about the parental choice, eliminating undesirable medical traits etc in the coming years as the CRISPR/cas9  technology advances through the clinic. Rather than making changes by selecting a desirable mate, genes can be edited at the germ line, allowing for a wide variety of manipulations

As usual, our Reach exceeds our Grasp. And given the immense number of truly stupid parents around, it represents a pretty significant ethical issue in the coming years.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/crisprcas9-human-genome-editing-challenges-ethical-concerns-and-implications-2155-9627-1000253.php?aid=65337

"The cost of germline editing technology is very high to the extent that families coming from rich countries could afford it. The developing countries will not be in a position to afford the cost of this technology. This may confer an advantage to children born in developed countries."

[SpeightTheVillain]

14 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

You're going to hear a lot more about the parental choice, eliminating undesirable medical traits etc in the coming years as the CRISPR/cas9  technology advances through the clinic. Rather than making changes by selecting a desirable mate, genes can be edited at the germ line, allowing for a wide variety of manipulations

As usual, our Reach exceeds our Grasp. And given the immense number of truly stupid parents around, it represents a pretty significant ethical issue in the coming years.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/crisprcas9-human-genome-editing-challenges-ethical-concerns-and-implications-2155-9627-1000253.php?aid=65337

"The cost of germline editing technology is very high to the extent that families coming from rich countries could afford it. The developing countries will not be in a position to afford the cost of this technology. This may confer an advantage to children born in developed countries."

Trust me, I know all about this stuff.

My father is a professor of virology and he has been working on genetic manipulation of mosquitoes as a way to eradicate dengue fever.

But yeah, it's a sticky issue. I am not completely decided either way

[ThatJerkDave]

@Shanedorf are you in that field, or just pulled an article that you read? How accurate is the genetic editing? Say I want my kid to have blue eyes, can they get the specific locus and isolate that gene, or is my selection for blue eyes also going to result in only left handed kids (for example).  

It has been nearly 15 years since I was studying this, so I am a bit rusty.  But as I recall the proteins (the name of which is escaping me at the moment) that allowed genetic splicing then were sequence specific, so one needed to find a sequence that cut the DNA around the insertion point and the full gene that they wanted to add.  Is it still the same, or can I just take out blue eye gene and replace it with green eye gene?

 

 

I would also argue that any child born in a developed country is at an advantage to those born in undeveloped counties genetic engineering or not.

[SpeightTheVillain]

42 minutes ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

A voluntary government program or a few individuals agreeing to a marriage pact?

 

 

This is fun.  It is making my work day between tests go by faster!

I just mean two individuals deciding on a baby. Like a consumer decision

[ThatJerkDave]

1 minute ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

I just mean two individuals deciding on a baby. Like a consumer decision

Don't you kind of do that already? You choose a mate based on something you find attractive in them, whatever that is.  Most people don't look at their partner and think, "We'll have tall babies," but they do decide they want to have children with them.  At some level, you are willing to mix genetics, of course there may be unknown factors, say the couple meets at 20 and he goes bald at 24 and she goes grey at 26, but you get my drift.

[SpeightTheVillain]

1 minute ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

Don't you kind of do that already? You choose a mate based on something you find attractive in them, whatever that is.  Most people don't look at their partner and think, "We'll have tall babies," but they do decide they want to have children with them.  At some level, you are willing to mix genetics, of course there may be unknown factors, say the couple meets at 20 and he goes bald at 24 and she goes grey at 26, but you get my drift.

Yeah but there is a lot of uncertainty. Recessive traits. Randomness.

And what if you desire a trait that you don't possess? 

[ThatJerkDave]

Designer babies is a neat idea.  But I wonder what exactly is the rest of the underlying genetic code that is used?  Say you and your wife want a bronze skinned baby, with green eyes, is left handed and you want to take care of that colon cancer gene that hits your family in their late 70s.  So you come over to Daveco to get me to help you out.  So I make the baby you want, but I don't take care of that liver cancer gene that I notice because you didn't tell me about it, or even worse, since Daveco is also the leading manufacturer of liver cancer treatment drugs, I insert that gene in as well, you can't prove that I did it.  

 

Honestly, the problem that I see with genetic engineering is that we will eliminate something that is not a selective issue at the current time, but would be quite advantageous at a different time period and not even know about it.  

[Shanedorf]

2 hours ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

@Shanedorf are you in that field, or just pulled an article that you read? How accurate is the genetic editing? Say I want my kid to have blue eyes, can they get the specific locus and isolate that gene, or is my selection for blue eyes also going to result in only left handed kids (for example).

 

Yes, I work in the field of clinical trials and regenerative medicine. What CRISPR brings to the table is a much more precise and targeted gene splicing - it limits, but does not eliminate the off-target effects. For diseases like Cyctic Fibrosis, its relatively "easier" to make a change, deletion, substitution and provide a cure. For something like eye color, its much more complex and involves more than one gene. Think about the cascade of events and molecules involved in blood clotting for example. Its a synchronized event with multiple molecules in the correct ratio at the exact correct time. Lose one factor or have too much of another and the clotting doesn't happen.

Changing eye color requires a similar cascade of correct genes turning on and off and being expressed/silenced at the right ratios at the exact moment needed. So we can fart around with simple stuff right now, but the same techniques will allow genetic engineering of eye color or other traits in the not too distant future

Its a quantum leap forward, but lots more to learn. The CAR-T immuno-therapies are pretty amazing and there are several in the clinic and one FDA approved for treating (curing) cancer. Those rely on CRISPR technology to edit the genes of T-cells so they recognize and attack cancer cells, while leaving your own cells intact.

 

[ChaRisMa]

I work with birds. We genetically alter them all the time and it only takes a few years to do. We just select birds with desirable traits that help them survive.

We don’t want to aggressively alter humans. We had to reel back how aggressively we did certain things because things we weren’t doing anything to were changing as well.

[Shanedorf]

1 minute ago, ChaRisMa said:

I work with birds. We genetically alter them all the time and it only takes a few years to do. We just select birds with desirable traits that help them survive.

We don’t want to aggressively alter humans. We had to reel back how aggressively we did certain things because things we weren’t doing anything to, were changing as well.

Exactly.

When some men take Viagra, they get blue vision. Why is that ? How can those two things possibly be linked ? There are side effects for every drug we have and Viagra was originally developed as a medicine to reduce systemic blood pressure. Whoops.

Part of the answer is that over millions of years of evolution, biology recycles and re-uses everything. Makes no sense to go to all the trouble of making a molecule and then have it do only 1 thing. That's a waste of limited energy and resources. So when we start editing genes, there are going to be unintended consequences.

Sure, your kids can have green eyes, but that may increase their risk for becoming a vike fan. No sane parent would make that choice

[incognito_man]

This thread turned into a cotton-pickin' disaster.

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

Exactly.

When some men take Viagra, they get blue vision. Why is that ? How can those two things possibly be linked ? There are side effects for every drug we have and Viagra was originally developed as a medicine to reduce systemic blood pressure. Whoops.

Part of the answer is that over millions of years of evolution, biology recycles and re-uses everything. Makes no sense to go to all the trouble of making a molecule and then have it do only 1 thing. That's a waste of limited energy and resources. So when we start editing genes, there are going to be unintended consequences.

Sure, your kids can have green eyes, but that may increase their risk for becoming a vike fan. No sane parent would make that choice

Is that permanent? I think I would like to try that, if it goes away.

Rogaine was also a BP medicine.  A doctor discovered it when a bald test patient started regrowing his hair over the course of the trial.  Didn't help the BP at all though.  

 

[Shanedorf]

24 minutes ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

Is that permanent? I think I would like to try that, if it goes away.

Its a short- term effect that goes away after you stop taking the med and it clears out of your system

There are always side effects with any therapeutic and the FDA and MDs weigh them on the Risk/Reward ratio. For a nasal decongestant, the FDA accepts minimal or no risk ( toxicity) just to clear a stuffy nose.  Conversely, for a cancer treatment, the FDA will accept major toxicity ( nausea, hair loss, bleeding, anemia)  because the alternative is death. Blue vision is transient and non-toxic so both the FDA and consumers are willing to accept that trade-off

[AlexGreen#20]

Wow, time to get trashed and run back about ten pages.