Privately funded designer babies
87 views
Skip to first unread message
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 13, 2019, 3:13:21 PM2/13/19
to diybio
Has anyone here seen this article?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612838/the-transhumanist-diy-designer-baby-funded-with-bitcoin/
It seems most of the ethicists rejecting this are working under a
government-funding framework, and since the government has a funding
ban on this sort of work, their guidelines waterfall from there.
I haven't found any good rebuttals that are specifically from a
private/industrial standpoint, at least in terms of technicalities.
Perosnally, at this point, I'm pro-choice on utilizing such a
technique... And I wonder if these ethicists/scientists who are
rejecting such ideas are simply worried about harassment ala abortion
clinic personnel, and losing their government welfare funding stream.
--
-Nathan
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612838/the-transhumanist-diy-designer-baby-funded-with-bitcoin/
It seems most of the ethicists rejecting this are working under a
government-funding framework, and since the government has a funding
ban on this sort of work, their guidelines waterfall from there.
I haven't found any good rebuttals that are specifically from a
private/industrial standpoint, at least in terms of technicalities.
Perosnally, at this point, I'm pro-choice on utilizing such a
technique... And I wonder if these ethicists/scientists who are
rejecting such ideas are simply worried about harassment ala abortion
clinic personnel, and losing their government welfare funding stream.
--
-Nathan
cathal...@cathalgarvey.me
Feb 13, 2019, 4:10:10 PM2/13/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
There are tried-and-tested ways to make babies more intelligent and socially successful: give money to poor parents, helping to alleviate poverty and its associated symptoms, addiction, pollution, and violence.
With the wealth that society has accumulated over the last few centuries, we could afford to roll out a programme in virtually any "developed" nation to ensure a minimum standard of early life for virtually all citizens, collectively raising the societal IQ and EQ by double-digit scores.
Imagine living in a society that was double-digits more intelligent and socially competent than what you have now. That's what we've been able to achieve now, for decades.
But the research money, scant as it is, and the news coverage and hype, all goes towards designer babies instead.
And why is that? Because the target audience is not "society", for whom a solution without labs, needles, or expensive degrees is already available and ignored. The audience is "rich people" like you and I, who could conceivably, though possibly with some significant economic discomfort, afford a service to jab our embryos full of superpowerz. And, afford to care for them if/when they turn out to suffer serious, life-long debilities as a result.
Heck, even if you succeeded in making the classic "designer baby" which was avg. 20 IQ points higher than baseline and suffered no obvious side-effects, you're still facing a problem we haven't actually resolved yet after centuries of trying: intelligent people seem to be more prone to depression and becoming ineffectually existential*. It would be far preferable to boost a person's EQ, but there's no quick fix for that.
That's the ethical issue I would _hope_ inspires other scientists to reject this. Of course, you could be right: it could just be "cowardice" (a calculated desire not to be harassed in exchange for money) or government regulation on speculative, unproven research on future citizens.
...sorry. A bit crabby this evening, and worn out on this stuff.
* https://www.learning-mind.com/intelligence-and-depression/ (Probably the "cure" is a few more centuries of philosophy combined with the end of the modern overwork-culture, which drags everyone down)
February 13, 2019 8:13 PM, "Nathan McCorkle" <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone here seen this article?
>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612838/the-transhumanist-diy-designer-baby-funded-with-bitcoin
>
> It seems most of the ethicists rejecting this are working under a
> government-funding framework, and since the government has a funding
> ban on this sort of work, their guidelines waterfall from there.
>
> I haven't found any good rebuttals that are specifically from a
> private/industrial standpoint, at least in terms of technicalities.
> Perosnally, at this point, I'm pro-choice on utilizing such a
> technique... And I wonder if these ethicists/scientists who are
> rejecting such ideas are simply worried about harassment ala abortion
> clinic personnel, and losing their government welfare funding stream.
>
> --
> -Nathan
>
> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post
> to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA+82U9KnDSLWXtf64YUwFGxU...@mail.gm
> il.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
William Heath
Feb 13, 2019, 5:21:41 PM2/13/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Nathan the argument is one the Catholics have made. If u have a malfunction do u throw away the child? I think they have a point. Human beings are not animals and should have default worth, making humans a commodity in this way can be ethically dangerous. Do not get me wrong, I would love to see it happen, just do not know how to cross the moral chasm to get there.
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9KnDSLWXtf64YUwFGxU8JFEoMB7ahSi38C_yg5aj7YkSQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Rikke Rasmussen
Feb 13, 2019, 5:47:37 PM2/13/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Human beings *are* animals.Kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Mammalia.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAAcUL6n%3D-%3DWkBidP9sCfMGkDD1A_zWjh8iFsiQYmV5L4bGbxGA%40mail.gmail.com.
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 13, 2019, 8:02:56 PM2/13/19
to diybio
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 2:21 PM William Heath <wgh...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan the argument is one the Catholics have made. If u have a malfunction do u throw away the child?
Well the idea posed in the article says nothing about abortion or throwing away a child, it is about choosing alleles so the question of abortion or reduced fitness decreases over time.
I think they have a point. Human beings are not animals and should have default worth,
I believe humans are animals, and I believe all animals have default worth. Seems most people do too, which is why societies have valued them for everything from food to labor to [forced] companions (I think having pets is an ethically questionable practice).
making humans a commodity in this way can be ethically dangerous.
Commodity? You mean like the slave trade? I don't see how reducing personally/socially undesirable characteristics comes anywhere close to that. This is about reducing disease, enhancing fitness, and personal choice. I see it simply as an extension of dating 1000s or more partners, having to do 23andme or sequencing on them all, and finally choosing the one that fits best genotypically and phenotypically as a mate. (And yes before I mated, my partner and I both had SNP analysis done years before, as well as early-stage next-gen sequencing on the fetus using maternal blood to check for chromosomal imbalance)
Do not get me wrong, I would love to see it happen, just do not know how to cross the moral chasm to get there.
Seems the moral chasm is wrong though. It seems harmful to reduce peoples' choice to rid their spawn of known bad traits. Like what if two mates were both carriers for a malady, it seems morally wrong to prevent access from them to correct this. Or if some poor farmer could benefit from a double-muscle child, to help raise the family from poverty through easier labor on the farm. My guess is one stronger child would be less metabolic/calorie strain on the family than two normal strength children, not to mention less mental strain to raise them.
Cost seems like a bogus rebuttal, the answer is to make costs for treatment low enough for anyone... This IS biology which already is super cheap. Big pharma is expensive because it's all about treating symptoms, not fixing root cause issues.
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 13, 2019, 8:05:28 PM2/13/19
to diybio
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 1:10 PM <cathal...@cathalgarvey.me wrote:
There are tried-and-tested ways to make babies more intelligent and socially successful: give money to poor parents, helping to alleviate poverty and its associated symptoms, addiction, pollution, and violence.
That's just one tiny aspect... You can improve lives in countless other ways besides making it easier for people to learn/remember stuff.
qetzal
Feb 13, 2019, 9:29:08 PM2/13/19
to DIYbio
I don’t have a fundamental objection to germ line modification. But I think these guys are either incredibly naive or delusional. If they wanted to try to correct monogenic conditions like hemophilia or muscular distrophy, that would be one thing. But we don’t have nearly enough understanding to justify trying to introduce traits like “growing muscles without exercising,” or extending lifespan. Keep in mind any problems that might arise wouldn’t impact the consenting parents. They would affect the offspring.
Proposing to test in dogs first is at least something. The problem is that dogs and humans aren’t identical. Genes that have one effect in a dog (or mouse or rat) won’t necessarily have a similar effect in humans.
Sorry, but I see no indication that these guys have an adequate understanding of what is and isn’t possible and safe.
Proposing to test in dogs first is at least something. The problem is that dogs and humans aren’t identical. Genes that have one effect in a dog (or mouse or rat) won’t necessarily have a similar effect in humans.
Sorry, but I see no indication that these guys have an adequate understanding of what is and isn’t possible and safe.
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 13, 2019, 9:59:44 PM2/13/19
to diybio
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:29 PM 'qetzal' via DIYbio
<diy...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t have a fundamental objection to germ line modification. But I think these guys are either incredibly naive or delusional. If they wanted to try to correct monogenic conditions like hemophilia or muscular distrophy, that would be one thing. But we don’t have nearly enough understanding to justify trying to introduce traits like “growing muscles without exercising,”
Actually double-muscling is a well known genetic trait, and
<diy...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t have a fundamental objection to germ line modification. But I think these guys are either incredibly naive or delusional. If they wanted to try to correct monogenic conditions like hemophilia or muscular distrophy, that would be one thing. But we don’t have nearly enough understanding to justify trying to introduce traits like “growing muscles without exercising,”
commercialized in certain mammals too, encoded by a single gene:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin
The main issue with introducing this trait has primarily been
birthing, but the trend in 'westernizing' countries (note I didn't say
western) is to have C-sections... which seems to stem purely from
convenience to the medical system and people's whims... yet there's
hardly any pushback at a large scale level (most people who push back
are labelled naturalists or hippies).
> Keep in mind any problems that might arise wouldn’t impact the consenting parents. They would affect the offspring.
making things harder for the kids would definitely make things harder
for the parents.
>
> Proposing to test in dogs first is at least something. The problem is that dogs and humans aren’t identical. Genes that have one effect in a dog (or mouse or rat) won’t necessarily have a similar effect in humans.
with mice and canines, and not humans. But that is to prove the
technique of gene transfer, not genotype implying a phenotype. My
guess is they don't want to put the cart in front of the horse, also
there are enough proven SNPs and other simple things that could be
introduced to begin with. You need not jump to "super" designer babies
before initial preliminary designer babies is a real thing. The rest
of the world studying genetic correlations will keep churning out data
in the meantime, to aide the second round.
>
> Sorry, but I see no indication that these guys have an adequate understanding of what is and isn’t possible and safe.
uninformed to me
qetzal
Feb 13, 2019, 10:23:53 PM2/13/19
to DIYbio
I base my comments on the slides that are supposedly taken from their presentation. They’re the ones saying they want to start with muscle growth and longevity. No mention of starting with SNPs or other simple things.
I can also assure you that the plan in their Use of Funds slide is ludicrous. $0.5-2m to set up a lab, do testing in 12 dogs, using a single scientist, then move into humans and create the first man with transgenic sperm? $5-10m to make the procedure “as safe as possible” and maybe build their own IVF lab? I’ve been working in biotech for 30 years, I promise you that’s not remotely realistic.
So unless those slides are fakes, I stand by my assessment: these guys are either very naive or delusional.
I can also assure you that the plan in their Use of Funds slide is ludicrous. $0.5-2m to set up a lab, do testing in 12 dogs, using a single scientist, then move into humans and create the first man with transgenic sperm? $5-10m to make the procedure “as safe as possible” and maybe build their own IVF lab? I’ve been working in biotech for 30 years, I promise you that’s not remotely realistic.
So unless those slides are fakes, I stand by my assessment: these guys are either very naive or delusional.
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 13, 2019, 10:41:51 PM2/13/19
to diybio
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM <cathal...@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
> But the research money, scant as it is, and the news coverage and hype, all goes towards designer babies instead.
I have to disagree, in this country at least (USA), I've seen more
> But the research money, scant as it is, and the news coverage and hype, all goes towards designer babies instead.
time and money spent on anti-abortion efforts that seems to be a total
waste. For the same reasons as you mentioned above... that money and
effort and concern, if redirected to education, could alleviate
countless minutes of suffering for children and people. But they
quibble over a few minutes of suffering, and ignore the remaining
lifetime worth of toil that legally may be inflicted.
>
> And why is that? Because the target audience is not "society", for whom a solution without labs, needles, or expensive degrees is already available and ignored.
without labs, needles, or degrees. The latest fad is organic food,
which is more expensive, but uses less "modern stuff" (like labs and
needles). There are tons of school aide programs to support poor
students, most of which come from charging a higher tuition fee to...
the rich people (and the people who get caught in the middle).
On top of that, poor people suffer at the hand of the modern medical
system all the time because they lack funds for one thing or another.
Fixing problems at the root-cause, rather than treating symptoms will
be cheaper in the long run.
> The audience is "rich people" like you and I, who could conceivably, though possibly with some significant economic discomfort, afford a service to jab our embryos
> full of superpowerz. And, afford to care for them if/when they turn out to suffer serious, life-long debilities as a result.
people with money? That's like criticizing big corporations or
governments for being required to spur modern electronics. PCs came
30-40 years after the transistor was invented, laypeople weren't the
target market, nor would they have been satisfied throwing their money
at pie-in-the-sky far-off technology. Now you can get a smartphone for
$20 at the local grocery store or pharmacy.
> Heck, even if you succeeded in making the classic "designer baby" which was avg. 20 IQ points higher than baseline and suffered no obvious side-effects, you're still facing a problem we haven't actually resolved yet after centuries of trying: intelligent people seem to be more prone to depression and becoming ineffectually existential*. It would be far preferable to boost a person's EQ, but there's no quick fix for that.
> That's the ethical issue I would _hope_ inspires other scientists to reject this. Of course, you could be right: it could just be "cowardice" (a calculated desire not to be harassed in exchange for money) or government regulation on speculative, unproven research on future citizens.
>
> ...sorry. A bit crabby this evening, and worn out on this stuff.
>
> * https://www.learning-mind.com/intelligence-and-depression/ (Probably the "cure" is a few more centuries of philosophy combined with the end of the modern overwork-culture, which drags everyone down)
could very well be that these smart people simply saw the world in
nearly on the brink of chaos and social implosion, and had to suffer
the majority of their peers being less intelligent and felt
existential loneliness. This pushed them in some way to attempt to do
"great" things they thought would help advance the human condition
toward a better state (or they got exhausted and killed themselves or
buried their depression with various distractions). Or they were just
smart and somehow that *magically* (err, genetically) makes them more
depressed. I tend to believe something closer to the former rather
than the latter.
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 13, 2019, 10:57:48 PM2/13/19
to diybio
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:23 PM 'qetzal' via DIYbio
<diy...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I base my comments on the slides that are supposedly taken from their presentation. They’re the ones saying they want to start with muscle growth and longevity. No mention of starting with SNPs or other simple things.
Well sure, that's the aim. An elevator pitch isn't going to elaborate
<diy...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I base my comments on the slides that are supposedly taken from their presentation. They’re the ones saying they want to start with muscle growth and longevity. No mention of starting with SNPs or other simple things.
on a detailed process of de-risking or how to achieve a
proof-of-concept.
>
> I can also assure you that the plan in their Use of Funds slide is ludicrous. $0.5-2m to set up a lab, do testing in 12 dogs, using a single scientist, then move into humans and create the first man with transgenic sperm?
lab, working to transform sperm with the exact technique mentioned...
and doing so on a shoestring budget while he works a completely
unrelated day job (in an oil refinery or something like that). I see
no reason to doubt those numbers as a low-estimate, but business plans
are well known to run over budget, especially for bleeding edge
projects. Seems like a non-issue to be as dismissive as you are being.
Additionally, they already mention three scientists being paid (the
dog guy, the mouse guy, and Max... presumably the human guy, maybe
test subject #1 himself???).
>$5-10m to make the procedure “as safe as possible” and maybe build their own IVF lab? I’ve been working in biotech for 30 years, I promise you that’s not remotely realistic.
"as safe as possible" would be assumed (by startup investors) to mean
within Series A budget... as long as progress is demonstrated, you
then move on to additional rounds of funding:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102015/series-b-c-funding-what-it-all-means-and-how-it-works.asp
> So unless those slides are fakes, I stand by my assessment: these guys are either very naive or delusional.
company that has lofty goals.
If anything, it sounds like you'd be OK with this if they just bump up
their numbers, which obviously would mean more quality control, etc...
qetzal
Feb 14, 2019, 10:30:15 AM2/14/19
to DIYbio
I worked in biotech startups for 30 years. A big chunk of that has been in gene therapy. So I think I can reasonably claim a fair understanding of the challenges. And no, I wouldn’t be OK if they just bumped up the numbers. I would be OK if these guys showed an adequate appreciation for what they’re trying to do before they start trying to generate engineered babies who might have to suffer terrible consequences due to their naivete and hubris.
And frankly, I find your previous comment a bit horrifying: that the parents would suffer too from having to take care of affected infants. How would that in any way justify any of this?
Let me be clear, however. If we can get to the point where engineering babies has sufficiently low risk, I have no general objections to doing it. I just don’t see any evidence that these guys have enough of an understanding to a) reach the point of sufficiently low risk, or b) restrain themselves until then.
And frankly, I find your previous comment a bit horrifying: that the parents would suffer too from having to take care of affected infants. How would that in any way justify any of this?
Let me be clear, however. If we can get to the point where engineering babies has sufficiently low risk, I have no general objections to doing it. I just don’t see any evidence that these guys have enough of an understanding to a) reach the point of sufficiently low risk, or b) restrain themselves until then.
John Griessen
Feb 14, 2019, 12:05:19 PM2/14/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
On 2/14/19 9:30 AM, 'qetzal' via DIYbio wrote:
> If we can get to the point where engineering babies has sufficiently low risk, I have no general objections to doing it. I just don’t see any evidence that these guys have enough of an understanding to a) reach the point of sufficiently low risk, or b) restrain themselves until then
Life is short for restraining oneself unless restrained by the accountants in a big company setting
> If we can get to the point where engineering babies has sufficiently low risk, I have no general objections to doing it. I just don’t see any evidence that these guys have enough of an understanding to a) reach the point of sufficiently low risk, or b) restrain themselves until then
and enjoying that milieu. These folks working unrelated jobs to have freedom to do back yard science
deserve respect and they will hit success soon with such a determined attitude. If not in this country, then somewhere else
they can operate with fewer alarmist reactions like yours. From what you've said, I have a feeling you want to alert some kind of
police to stop them. I hope you do not -- they'll put out a good detailed plan for investors when the time comes, and
investors won't want risk, so you have little to worry over.
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 14, 2019, 12:56:26 PM2/14/19
to diybio
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:30 AM 'qetzal' via DIYbio
<diy...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I worked in biotech startups for 30 years. A big chunk of that has been in gene therapy. So I think I can reasonably claim a fair understanding of the challenges. And no, I wouldn’t be OK if they just bumped up the numbers. I would be OK if these guys showed an adequate appreciation for what they’re trying to do before they start trying to generate engineered babies who might have to suffer terrible consequences due to their naivete and hubris.
Bryan's participation on this DIYbio mailing list for the last decade
<diy...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I worked in biotech startups for 30 years. A big chunk of that has been in gene therapy. So I think I can reasonably claim a fair understanding of the challenges. And no, I wouldn’t be OK if they just bumped up the numbers. I would be OK if these guys showed an adequate appreciation for what they’re trying to do before they start trying to generate engineered babies who might have to suffer terrible consequences due to their naivete and hubris.
seems pretty adequate for me to think he's well intentioned and
concerned about quality control. It looks like you've only
participated in 6 discussions here, so it's understandable that you
are not familiar with his general style and approach. Some folks on
here originally thought he was a bot because of how much information
he collects, reads, reviews, and regurgitates with annotations and
insights. That media article seems to inherently have a negative view
of this idea and wants to appeal as clickbait, so it's understandable
that the whole situation hasn't been presented.
>
> And frankly, I find your previous comment a bit horrifying: that the parents would suffer too from having to take care of affected infants. How would that in any way justify any of this?
bring it up, parents already have it hard enough raising a normal kid,
they aren't going to step ignorantly into making more work for
themselves.
>
> Let me be clear, however. If we can get to the point where engineering babies has sufficiently low risk, I have no general objections to doing it. I just don’t see any evidence that these guys have enough of an understanding to a) reach the point of sufficiently low risk, or b) restrain themselves until then.
understanding... it will take some time though, as after me, he's the
second most-active poster of all time (having 2352 posts):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!aboutgroup/diybio
Max Berry
Feb 14, 2019, 1:12:13 PM2/14/19
to DIYbio
First, Cathal, I don't think designer babies are mutually exclusive with a social program to alleviate poverty and provide an enriched childhood for everyone. Alas, I am a biologist and not a politician.
We don't mention anything about intelligence in the article, because at the moment I don't think there are modifications we can make that would strongly influence it upward. Obviously the lay public thinks designer babies = super-intelligence but, for now, I am hesitant to mess around with brain chemistry. It remains to be seen whether companies like Genomic Prediction provide a worthwhile service.
The "rich" (as we both mean, middle class or above in the developed world) already provide for their children as much as they can, and always have; it's a fact of society. I would prefer not to reject technology simply because it gives their children an additional advantage, when they already have a staggering advantage vs. someone born in a developing country. Encouraging research is the only possibility we have for providing it to everyone.
If something goes wrong...the natural birth defect rate is ~3% and society already provides for those children as best it can. Some people seem to assume that even the most banal genetic modification will cause a child to sprout an extra head. We are sticking with modifications that are either already present in a human sub-population, or have been studied extensively enough that we think they're defensible in an actual, reasonable debate.
Regarding the accusation that we are naive and/or delusional...yeah we probably are, at least in our optimism that society and regulators will embrace the technology. If the argument is that we simply don't know what will happen when we try it in humans, that's true for most every medicine in history and yet, somehow, we progress.
The idea that we should instead be curing diseases like hemophilia or muscular dystrophy...that's what PGD is for, which should be obvious to anyone who understands biology. Any case where PGD wouldn't work, gene editing wouldn't work either, outside of some extreme (and often theoretical) edge cases. We aren't starting with SNPs because that's a.) that's mostly embryo selection and b.) I can't think of a singular SNP that provides such an amazing advantage to justify undergoing a procedure like this.
Our estimated funding numbers seem low because, as Nathan pointed out, seed stage investment is usually up to ~2m, Series A up to ~10m, and that was a slide deck for VCs. I can't guarantee it'll be up to FDA standards at that point, not that the FDA can even look at such a project legally. We will do as much as we can with what we have.
I'm rather tired of people saying 'oh, once it's safe I have no problem with it'. We don't get there by hoping on a dream. I think the current technologies for gene insertion, sequencing, micromanipulation etc are already sufficient.
qetzal
Feb 14, 2019, 9:29:16 PM2/14/19
to DIYbio
@John Griessen:
Life is short for restraining oneself? These are infants who would be put at risk. If someone wants to try to transhumanize themselves, or another consenting adult, I have no objection. But I think the welfare of infants is worth some serious restraint.
@Nathan
The number of my posts is irrelevant, as is the number
qetzal
Feb 14, 2019, 9:43:11 PM2/14/19
to DIYbio
Sorry. Hit post by accident.
@Max Berry,
That fact that you’re trying to dismiss risks to infants with trivializing language like “sprouting an extra head,” and citing birth defect rates makes it even more clear to me that you have no business attempting this. And please stop with the ‘all new medicines have risk’ baloney. What you want to do ISN’T MEDICINE!
@Max Berry,
That fact that you’re trying to dismiss risks to infants with trivializing language like “sprouting an extra head,” and citing birth defect rates makes it even more clear to me that you have no business attempting this. And please stop with the ‘all new medicines have risk’ baloney. What you want to do ISN’T MEDICINE!
John Griessen
Feb 14, 2019, 9:57:12 PM2/14/19
to 'qetzal' via DIYbio
On 2/14/19 8:29 PM, 'qetzal' via DIYbio wrote:
> @John Griessen:
>
> Life is short for restraining oneself? These are infants who would be put at risk.
Everyone is at risk all the time.
> @John Griessen:
>
> Life is short for restraining oneself? These are infants who would be put at risk.
--
John Griessen
industromatic.com Austin TX building lab gear for biologists
John Griessen
Feb 14, 2019, 9:59:36 PM2/14/19
to 'qetzal' via DIYbio
On 2/14/19 8:43 PM, 'Quetzalcoatl' via DIYbio wrote:
> Sorry. Hit post by accident.
So you're rapidly sending emails with emphasis on people in the world and we don't know a
> Sorry. Hit post by accident.
damn thing about you, since you anonymize yourself...
Cathal Garvey
Feb 15, 2019, 2:56:07 AM2/15/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
oi, don't shame anonymity, this is the internet. We are nameless!
Besides, apparently post count is a proxy for knowledge and validity in these degenerate social-media days.
Besides, apparently post count is a proxy for knowledge and validity in these degenerate social-media days.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 15, 2019, 3:31:14 AM2/15/19
to diybio
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:56 PM Cathal Garvey
<cathal...@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
>
> oi, don't shame anonymity, this is the internet. We are nameless!
> Besides, apparently post count is a proxy for knowledge and validity in these degenerate social-media days.
I was going more for proxy of peer-review and web-of-trust.
<cathal...@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
>
> oi, don't shame anonymity, this is the internet. We are nameless!
> Besides, apparently post count is a proxy for knowledge and validity in these degenerate social-media days.
cathal...@cathalgarvey.me
Feb 15, 2019, 4:41:54 AM2/15/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Volume is a poor proxy for quality, though. Not to disparage list old-timers like you or Bryan of course, but if someone posts less or arrived more recently, it really has no bearing on the validity of an ethical argument or a well-sourced/well-reasoned scientific argument.
Anyways, on the core subject I've said my piece, and my view is unlikely to change only by-the-numbers. The ethics of meddling in embryos' genomes ultimately comes down somewhere similar to abortion, in that the fulcrum is whether you consider an embryo to have personhood yet. If it does have personhood, then it has rights that must be weighed against the other agents in an ethical discussion. If it does not have personhood, then it has no rights (yet) and any future evils visited upon it can be waved off as speculative or the costs of progress.
This discussion puts that fulcrum less in focus, because with abortion you are writing off the entire future of an embryo in one case (so, in effect, there is only one circumstance where the embryo goes on to experience a future at all), whereas with gene editing you are trying to alter the future of the embryo (so there are two futures, and you may be called to account by the person whose future you wrote).
This then brings another fulcrum into play, which is, I think, what Quetzal was getting at. It's well-trodden turf in ethics that if you interfere in someone's life or health without consent, then there is a distinction to be made between "medical" or "remedial" interventions, and everything else. So, when you are called to account for why you made a designer baby with double-muscling, and that baby ends up having severe issues giving birth naturally to her own children.. the question is, did you do this for the child's own good (medically/remedially) or for reasons more frivolous?
And this, then, raises an even greater, more intractable question of whether you can even say with any seriousness that you know what's "better" and what's not. For a big span of recent history, it was considered "better" to have a penis and pale skin.
Today, it would still be considered "better" by many to have a better-than-mean IQ, and to have more muscle mass, and to be neurotypical, and to see into infrared and ultraviolet..
Some parents will want their kids to be immune to alcohol, cannabis, cocaine. Some will want their kids to have no sex drive, to reduce risk of sin. Some will want their kids to be cis-heterosexual, and will happily buy into someone's scam to make it happen even in the absence of a scientific basis. Some will want their kids to have animalistic features because uwu furry babies.
None of these are medically or remedially justifiable things. "Designer Babies" invites people to make these life altering decisions for other people. That's why this debate is not new. It started with the Eugenics craze, reignited with PGD, and with gene editing it's appearing again. But the technology improving doesn't actually change the underlying ethical quandary, which is that outside of limited cases (where a harm or loss or failure to thrive can be identified), you and I have no right to decide another person's fate without their consent.
So bring on your perfect gene editing that doesn't ever lead to unintended consequences or scores of discarded embryos, sidestep all the other ethical questions around this, and you're still left with a question of authoritarianism versus personal agency and liberty, with a mucky mix of temporal ethical discounting, scientific egoism, implicit racism/ablism/exceptionalism, and parent/child rights.
But, it's a startup so I guess ethics is for the C-round.
> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post
> to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA+82U9J7JW7Y4FKZjehvgHJk...@mail.gm
Nathan McCorkle
Feb 15, 2019, 4:37:39 PM2/15/19
to diybio
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 1:41 AM <cathal...@cathalgarvey.me wrote:
Volume is a poor proxy for quality, though. Not to disparage list old-timers like you or Bryan of course, but if someone posts less or arrived more recently, it really has no bearing on the validity of an ethical argument or a well-sourced/well-reasoned scientific argument.
Checking the archives, they've posted 6 times since 2009, and the quality seems high, but statistics requires high sample numbers to have well backed-up p-values. My point was, in this forum, we have a small sample size to draw on.
This then brings another fulcrum into play, which is, I think, what Quetzal was getting at. It's well-trodden turf in ethics that if you interfere in someone's life or health without consent, then there is a distinction to be made between "medical" or "remedial" interventions, and everything else. So, when you are called to account for why you made a designer baby with double-muscling, and that baby ends up having severe issues giving birth naturally to her own children.. the question is, did you do this for the child's own good (medically/remedially) or for reasons more frivolous?
But this is no different than with traditional selective breeding that everyone already practices and is legal and not talked about negatively in politics or religious/ethics circles... I mean, I could procreate with some quite diseased person and no one is waving a finger (publically anyway). Why is editing an embryo (and in fact the prosposal under discussion is not that, it's gamete editing) with good intentions but potential negative effect worse than intentionally mating with known less-fit people?
And this, then, raises an even greater, more intractable question of whether you can even say with any seriousness that you know what's "better" and what's not. For a big span of recent history, it was considered "better" to have a penis and pale skin.
Sure, I assume hybrid vigor is going to be better for my offspring, thus I mated with someone from around the globe, but I am *only* going on past evidence (and our SNP data). I don't know for sure he won't have some weird disease that stops him from living a long healthy life.
Today, it would still be considered "better" by many to have a better-than-mean IQ, and to have more muscle mass, and to be neurotypical, and to see into infrared and ultraviolet..
Some parents will want their kids to be immune to alcohol, cannabis, cocaine. Some will want their kids to have no sex drive, to reduce risk of sin. Some will want their kids to be cis-heterosexual, and will happily buy into someone's scam to make it happen even in the absence of a scientific basis. Some will want their kids to have animalistic features because uwu furry babies.
I don't think anyone here is recommending or supporting non-scientific procedures. At least furry kids can always go to a barber or get electrolysis. Scams of any sort are already supposed to be protected against by the powers that be, like the FDA. Scams != Ethical quandries.
None of these are medically or remedially justifiable things. "Designer Babies" invites people to make these life altering decisions for other people.
Again, people already do that all the time when they choose mates with less-fit characteristics... Or choose to perform (legal) genital mutilation, or other legal unrecoverable mutilation like pierced ears. Not to mention all the psychological trauma or simply misguided lifestyle training.
That's why this debate is not new. It started with the Eugenics craze, reignited with PGD, and with gene editing it's appearing again. But the technology improving doesn't actually change the underlying ethical quandary, which is that outside of limited cases (where a harm or loss or failure to thrive can be identified), you and I have no right to decide another person's fate without their consent.
We already did that when we engaged in o
procreation... Maybe you never were depressed as a child and screamed in pain "why did you even have me???" "Why didn't you just abort me???" But I sure have.
So bring on your perfect gene editing that doesn't ever lead to unintended consequences
Having kids the good old fashioned way also has tons of unintended consequences... This is a boring rebuttal.
Chris Santos-Lang
Feb 15, 2019, 5:35:07 PM2/15/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
I am aware of a couple of relevant ethical arguments:
My own is that allowing enough parents to choose their type of child might dramatically increase the relative frequency of a few "desirable" types of human being, and that could unbalance our social ecosystem. This argument also applies to allowing humans to mass produce a "desirable" type of machine, rather than build machine ecosystems:
On the flip side is the argument that our current method of procreation is destroying our species via lack of selection pressure:
Together these arguments imply that genetic engineering of our offspring may be important, but that any such process should be tested in smaller ecosystems (measuring the impact on the ecosystem, not just on the individual humans) before unleashing it globally.
To this I want to add a complaint about the way this journalist treats the term "DIY". The journalist seems intent on associating the term with other things that scare people. It's sensationalistic fear mongering. Is there real statistical evidence that DIY bio is more dangerous than corporate bio? If so, cite it. Furthermore, the journalist is watering-down a term we find useful: This particular case is about someone investing millions of dollars and hiring a team--that sounds more like corporate bio to me.
Best Wishes,
Chris Santos-Lang
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9KL8A-0Zn9B2PykAsaxtsSp%2B%2BmaX9mB5BUA214NBU7XEQ%40mail.gmail.com.
John Griessen
Feb 15, 2019, 9:27:41 PM2/15/19
to diy...@googlegroups.com
On 2/15/19 4:34 PM, Chris Santos-Lang wrote:
> Together these arguments imply that genetic engineering of our offspring may be important, but that any such process should be
> tested in smaller ecosystems (measuring the impact on the ecosystem, not just on the individual humans) before unleashing it globally.
>
There is no person or country with that level of control over people yet, and that's a good thing. Unleashing it globally is the
> Together these arguments imply that genetic engineering of our offspring may be important, but that any such process should be
> tested in smaller ecosystems (measuring the impact on the ecosystem, not just on the individual humans) before unleashing it globally.
>
normal sexual reproduction way we are used to...
Jonathan Cline
Feb 16, 2019, 2:26:20 AM2/16/19
to DIYbio
Chernobyl and Fukushima, both considered standard engineering projects (not landmark projects), what could possibly go wrong? Or alternatively, a faulty research study claims to link vaccines to autism, what could possibly go wrong by publishing prior to further review, surely not a large, damaging social movement to not vaccinate children?
""Church allows that the sperm approach “is technically feasible,” although he says that “it will require significant debugging.” ""
Males intentionally (and ignorantly) modify their sperm prior to mating all the time- with often drastically poor results- it's called drinking alcohol. Bugs in biology are bad.
""Some DIY biology enthusiasts also don’t think governments should have much say in what happens to people’s genomes, and a few have already self-administered untested gene therapies. ""
Are these 'enthusiasts' pro-choice or pro-life?
Are they for mandated-vaccination or anti-vax?
Those positions would be illustrative of their actual philosophies of government.
MIT is way behind where they should be regarding ethics education for these technologies which they have hyped into the stratosphere. Undergrads in engineering don't get hyped to build nuclear reactors in their garage because they know it is a very unstable project to attempt, learned from early engineering training. Bio types go into these areas because of MIT's failures to educate, while MIT's media unit fuels every effort to increase the hype.
--
## Jonathan Cline
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################
Jonathan Cline
Mar 24, 2019, 12:38:55 AM3/24/19
to DIYbio
Why don't you guys grow an authentic Neanderthal baby instead, I'm sure there would be far fewer ethical objections plus it avoids the Frankenstein-ian experimentation on a human genome. The genomic data is solidly available and many of the 'improvements' you're going for are already characteristics of Neanderthals (+30-50% muscle strength, higher bone mass, better looking to a Ms. Shrek, etc).
I'm sure every bro-idiot in Texas would love the idea of having a beefier Neanderthal body part, so the market opportunity is definitely there.
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:12:13 AM UTC-8, Max Berry wrote:
I'm sure every bro-idiot in Texas would love the idea of having a beefier Neanderthal body part, so the market opportunity is definitely there.
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:12:13 AM UTC-8, Max Berry wrote:
First, Cathal, I don't think designer babies are ...
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:13:21 PM UTC-8, Nathan McCorkle wrote:Has anyone here seen this article?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612838/the-transhumanist-diy-designer-baby-funded-with-bitcoin/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages