Should we allow designer babies?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Brian Howell

unread,
May 6, 2016, 1:09:22 PM5/6/16
to Ipse Dixit
Ever heard of CRISPR? It's a developing technology that allows easy insertion of genes into cells. It is revolutionizing the field of genetic engineering. Wired's August 2015 cover was captioned "No hunger. No pollution. No disease. And the end of life as we know it. The Genesis Engine." (Yes, that is a little hyperbolic.) The entire issue was basically about CRISPR. But CRISPR has already reduced the cost of some forms of gene-splicing from around $5,000 per attempt to just $75.

Hardcore details on the science can be found in this recently published Nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-gene-editing-is-just-the-beginning-1.19510

Much to the dismay of ethicists and scientists around the world, Chinese scientists have already used CRISPR to insert genes for AIDS resistance into (non-viable) human embryos: http://www.nature.com/news/second-chinese-team-reports-gene-editing-in-human-embryos-1.19718 

Although only a small percentage of the manipulations were successful, they'll—we'll—get better at it.


But the technology is improving fast—very fast: 

Molecule by molecule, the transformational genome-editing technology called CRISPR-Cas9 is getting so many upgrades so quickly it’s like scientists are changing a flip phone into a Galaxy S7 overnight. — https://www.statnews.com/2016/04/27/crispr-energizer-bunny-problem/


Last year, RadioLab, an NRP-affiliated podcast, did a 'cast on CRISPR which I think is worth a listen: http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr

During it, science writer Carl Zimmer suggested that using CRISPR, we could regress a modern pachyderm (elephant) to its Wooly Mammoth forebear. 

Zimmer also raised concerns over designer babies. Among them was whether we should manipulate embryos in the first place, since the persons they become have no choice in whether they want the (beneficial) changes being made to them. And that those changes would then become part of their lineage—in effect, we'd be altering human evolution—if not effectively stopping altogether. And then there is the marketing issue: "Okay, so we've got a 6'1" brown-haired, blue-eyed male, with superior build and genius IQ. That'll come to $23,295. Now before we finish, let me make a few suggestions: For only an extra $1,000, I can remove the gene responsible for Alzheimers. For $2,300 I can add AIDS resistance. Or I can give you both for the low price of just $3,000...." Think of the up-sells!

Should we bring back the mammoth? Or a t-rex? (Hey, we really could have Jurassic Park!) Or create homo sapiens praegressus or perhaps homo sapiens mutandus? Should we engineer embryos, if only stave off AIDS or to rid the world of Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and other congenital auto-immune disorders? Or perhaps just eliminate allergies? (All children could enjoy peanut butter and have puppies, kittens, or bunnies!) 

Plus we could extend the human lifespan significantly; slow the aging process. Who wouldn't want to feel like they're 25 to 35 for perhaps forty years? Of

Now that we can—almost—play God, what are the moral, ethical, economic, and environmental issues? 

Following is Radiolab's published summary of the key points of its CRISPR podcast. (But do listen to it.)

The Promise of CRISPR: Cheap, Precise, and Possibly Universal

  • CRISPR is the sort of thing that gets drunk biologists at parties overly excited
  • CRISPR is a breakthrough approach to gene therapy that can turn Chihuahua into a Great Dane (and much much more).
  • CRISPR was first referenced in 1987 by Japaense scientists.
    • They noticed something strange was noticed in e.coli, which is bacteria, containing DNA.
  • Scientists found a strange stretch of DNA.
    • 5 identical sequences in a row, separated by very short sequences in between that were all different.
  • It was unusual, but they didn’t know what to think of it at the time
  • Scientists began seeing the repeats often in bacteria, and a name was given to the phenomenon: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats: CRISPR
  • Nature preserved this pattern, sometimes in creatures hundreds of millions of years old
  • In 2005, databases of sequences were available and searches were done to match these repeated patterns with other species’
    • Breakthrough: The bits between the repeats matched virus DNA
      • Bacteria had virus DNA inside them, but why?
    • The origin is unknown. It was first thought that there was virus DNA in particular places of the bacterial genome, like a human finding a segment of mosquito DNA
      • Scientist Eugene Kuman declared it to be a defense system.
        • A virus makes life bad for bacteria.
          • The oceans are full of viruses, and they kill up to 40% of bacteria everyday.
        • It was hypothesized that bacteria were storing pieces of DNA from viruses to recognize them later, like a “most wanted poster” or mug shot.
      • It was thought that the bits of virus was for the bacteria to defend itself by figuring out the virus’
        • A virus comes into a cell, explodes and releases “naked”
        • Usually, multiple “weapons of defense” – enzymes – attack viruses, like ground troops, they fight hard.
        • Usually, they fail and the virus takes over the cell and the bacteria dies.
          • There is some non-zero probability that the cell can survive, though. If so, new enzymes are sent to clean up the stray virus and cut it up into little bits of virus that are then shoved into the bacteria’s own DNA between the patterned repeats.
        • The spaces in the cell’s own DNA act as a storage facility and a memory device, so that next time the virus is there and its DNA spreads, the cell can send out its “big guns” and destroy the virus.
          • The cell manufactures special “molecular assassins” that recognize the virus DNA. A protein “attacker” looks like a clamshell (misshapen Pacman) and has a copy of the virus “mugshot”
          • When it bumps into the virus RNA, it pulls it apart, reads it and if it is not a match to the “mugshot”, it moves on, if it is a match, it locks in, the DNA is trapped and molecular blades chop it up

The Promise of CRISPR: Cheap, Precise, and Possibly Universal

  • What is most exciting, is if we could find a way to use this ability to precisely edit DNA!
    • CRISPR could be used to target genes we know cause awful diseases such as Huntington’s Chorea or hemophilia.
    • It has already been demonstrated in a mice
      • Their cells were given a “mugshot” for a bad gene, and it found the gene and chopped it out.
      • A good gene was then put in its place pretty easily
        • The new, good gene was placed near where the old gene was. It didn’t need to be precisely placed because repair enzymes continually check for breaks and they saw the break in the DNA and saw the good gene and then put it together
      • This is a natural repair pathway
      • From assassination to engineering, from killing to refashioning.
  • Genetic engineering and genome editing technologies have been around for 30 years, but none as potentially powerful as CRISPR
    • Biologist Beth Shupiero from UC Santa Cruize says that two years ago, a gene editor was put into a cell, given instructions to go somewhere, but it might have gone somewhere near where it was supposed to but not actually where it was supposed to.
    • The old technology took a lot of time and money, about $5,000.
      • Now, it is super easy to do
      • The enzyme finds the specific and precise place, and the laboratory method is cheap, about $75.
      • CRISPR can be used in any living thing, from corn to cockroaches.
    • CRISPR hasn’t been found to not work with anything.
      • This is big news for scientists. There are now usable “molecular scissors” programmed to cut DNA wherever they want.
    • CRISPR has the potential to:
      • Treat/prevent disease
      • Resurrect/reconstruct long lost creatures (hello Jurassic Park!!)

Concerns with “Playing God” and Designer babies:

  • Where does the sacred begin and end?
  • Is it tinkering with someone’s body, altering their own cells? – We already do this…
  • We’ve had test tube babies (In Vitro Fertilization) for decades already
    • 60,000 kids a year…some parents could have chosen boy or girl
  • Should we outlaw this? Won’t people just go to other countries that haven’t? – Probably China
    • Should we draw the line at sperm cells egg cells or embryos…
      • How about permanent changes to your DNA that will then be passed on your your children without their consent?
    • Researchers in China have already begun experimenting on non-viable human embryos…
      • They had limited success, but this is just the beginning
        • CRISPR is still considered “dangerous” and not usable on human embryos
      • 4 other Chinese labs doing this work too
    • Could this be a historical moment? What are the risks?

Craig Good

unread,
May 6, 2016, 1:11:53 PM5/6/16
to Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit

> On May 6, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Last year, RadioLab, an NRP-affiliated podcast, did a 'cast on CRISPR which I think is worth a listen: http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr

Ditto. I recommend the episode.



--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

"Wear your learning, like your watch, in a private pocket, and do
not pull it out and strike it merely to show you have one. If you
are asked what o'clock it is, tell it, but do not proclaim it hourly
and unasked, like the watchman."
--Lord Chesterfield

Scott Hotes

unread,
May 6, 2016, 2:08:24 PM5/6/16
to Craig Good, Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
The ethical questions raised here focus primarily on manipulating the human
species.  I find the quote "where does the sacred begin and end" to be particularly
alarming.  Also, to suggest that the unborn child had no say in the decision, 
immediately brings up complete disregard for other forms of life on our planet
(I'd include flora, but this question was mostly asked and answered on this
forum during the conversation on GE overhauling out ecology...)

Also, I think there's a slur against China there "...probably China".  Can we stop
holding up the west as having any moral authority here?

Scott



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/BD455547-60B9-4AAC-A6F6-B1A1F7E79ABC%40me.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

jack saunders

unread,
May 6, 2016, 3:08:19 PM5/6/16
to Scott Hotes, Craig Good, Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
Hasn't genetic engineering of non-human species become a staple of livestock and wildlife management?
Pretty much uncontroversial?  Bigger beef cattle.  Less intrusive weeds.  Things of that sort.
Gene editing is a new and higher leverage tool for selective breeding.  But I thought all the
controversy was over human subjects.

 


From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
To: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>
Cc: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Should we allow designer babies?

Brandon Gates

unread,
May 6, 2016, 3:57:20 PM5/6/16
to Ipse Dixit
I wouldn't say uncontroversial, see the row over GM crops.  There are special considerations for human genetic engineering of any kind, a complete summarization would be difficult without me doing a bit of refesher research ... and it's far too early in the "morning" for me to expend that sort of effort.  So I limit to two questions:

1) What if it goes wrong and isn't detected until the third trimester, or worse: after a live birth?
2) Despite the touted promise of this technology being "cheap", well ok, I can believe that from the providers' standpoints.  The sale price will be what the market will bear, or more to the point, that which maximizes profits, not availability.  It's the ultimate rich getting richer.  If you thought income inequality was a problem, what about genetic inequality?

That all said, I have some deleterious alleles I really could have done without.  I was very much not selectively bred.  There is at least some promise that wiser future generations would do such things equitably and for the common good of all.  I would not wish to be the generation that stifled it.

Vince Koloski

unread,
May 6, 2016, 4:37:27 PM5/6/16
to Scott Hotes, Craig Good, Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
Equally troubling as far as the "sacred" label is concerned is that defining issues in those terms often leads to either attempts to ban research or successful bans an research. In both cases the result is to drive research underground or at least outside the purview of mainstream science. If we are beginning to manipulate our own genome effectively we need the research to be in the open. We need the experimental directions publicized and the results widely disseminated. If we do that we can attempt to mitigate the stigma of "breeding superhumans in secret" "violating the laws of nature" and other sorts of labels that will be instantly attached to research outside the public or scientific eye. We can also maximize and potentially universalize any potential benefits. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAC7%2BDABrNmedSu9HZ1NcNRL%3Dyq%2B2c7H2-rqyJHv6264aQuG49w%40mail.gmail.com.

jack saunders

unread,
May 6, 2016, 5:54:39 PM5/6/16
to Brandon Gates, Ipse Dixit
Very astute point, Brandon -- when you consider that this is not about us, but about the future beings yet unborn.  There was a time when mankind did not bathe regularly, or cut his hair.  That changed, all around the world, for the better one comfortably presume.  There will surely evolve agreement around a class of genetic underbrush everybody wants cleared.  But there surely be sharp disagreements on the margins.  The news industry has a great, long-running new controversy on the horizon.  Good territory for an ambitious young writer to colonize now.

 



From: Brandon Gates <brando...@gmail.com>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Gene editing for non-human species


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

Brandon Gates

unread,
May 6, 2016, 10:04:07 PM5/6/16
to Ipse Dixit
On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 2:54:39 PM UTC-7, Jack Saunders wrote:
Very astute point, Brandon -- when you consider that this is not about us, but about the future beings yet unborn.  There was a time when mankind did not bathe regularly, or cut his hair.  That changed, all around the world, for the better one comfortably presume.  There will surely evolve agreement around a class of genetic underbrush everybody wants cleared.  But there surely be sharp disagreements on the margins.  The news industry has a great, long-running new controversy on the horizon.  Good territory for an ambitious young writer to colonize now.

Thanks, Jack.  I in turn like your reference to the genetic underbrush -- one man's weeds are another woman's floral arrangement after all.  Or survival even.  Genetic predisposition to violence is arguably a useful trait in military application as well as more mundane and local urban conflicts.  How would Constitutional originalists such as the late Justice Scalia reconcile the genetic ability to kick someone's ass with the 2nd Amendment?  I can hear it now, "Genes don't kill people, people kill people ... um ... er, well ... you know what I mean, it's one of those 'I know it when I see it deals'."

Even without the spectre of arguably oppressive gummint meddling, there would surely arise some genetic Gold Standard for the healthy, intelligent, socially well-adjusted child -- at the likely expense of genetic diversity.  Even with advanced powers of genetic manipulation, that could be a Bad Thing indeed.  You think antibiotic-resistant superbugs are scary?  Standardized immune systems could be an immense problem when Zika's nth great-grandprogeny figure out how to beat it.

There are some potentially humorous aspects.  Legion are today's awkward teens who lament to their parents, "If you really loved me, you wouldn't have given me this nose!" as if -- other than the reproductive act itself -- the big schnozz was an intentional choice.  In an age when this year's school fashions are so last year before the end of the first semester, think about body fashions.  Bell bottoms go out of style and come back.  Try doing that with your entire body.  [1]

I agree with you; young journalists could make a career out of this.  Much has already been written of course, but it's mostly been academic to this point.  I might give similar advice to young med students in the perhaps not so distant future: if there's a glut in genetic body designers but you still want to cash in -- we here in the 21st century used to do this thing called "cosmetic surgery".

---------------------

[1] The moral outrage against miniskirts and halter tops which bear the midriff might pale in comparison to the furor at the designer laboratory-sculpted bodies bred to reside within their future equivalents.

jack saunders

unread,
May 7, 2016, 4:43:33 PM5/7/16
to Brandon Gates, Ipse Dixit
For sure -- there will be more arguments than agreement.  How about scrapping the gene for nose hairs?  I know damn well there are scientists prepared to warn that they're linked to lung cleansing cilia.  And the nose hair trimmer makers would sue in seconds.  Cosmetics should be kept to individual choice, not species-wide clean ups.

 


From: Brandon Gates <brando...@gmail.com>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Gene editing -- Young journalists alert: this is a great story shaping up

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages