Weeding out diseases from the gene pool seems good. Thwarting evolution seems highly dangerous, though. In particular, I think certain phenotypes will become so overwhelmingly dominant that if they are selected out due to environmental pressures, it could be a massive hit.

I suspect the cost will prevent its widespread usage.

(September 15, 2017 at 7:42 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Weeding out diseases from the gene pool seems good.  Thwarting evolution seems highly dangerous, though.  In particular, I think certain phenotypes  will become so overwhelmingly dominant that if they are selected out due to environmental pressures, it could be a massive hit.

Genetic engineering is hardly thwarting evolution. Humans evolution has been dominated by phenotype selection based on sexual attractiveness of a type that could have no direct survival benefit whatsoever since before we were humans.

---

(September 15, 2017 at 7:42 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Weeding out diseases from the gene pool seems good.  Thwarting evolution seems highly dangerous, though.  In particular, I think certain phenotypes  will become so overwhelmingly dominant that if they are selected out due to environmental pressures, it could be a massive hit.

The flip side is genes for disease that tend to kill before the victim reaches reproductive age almost certainly convey hidden but substantial benefits strong enough to make the gene survive despite its evident direct effect in reducing the reproductive success of its carrier.

This is an interesting ethical question. I think it would be great to modify genes that cause diseases, but to take it past that would be immoral I think. I can definitely see this as easily becoming a slippery slope.

You should watch the movie Gatacka. It's great, and deals with this issue.

I'm disabled, and my worry is that by trying to eradicate a disability, you may have complications that cause worse, more complicated, disabilities that we don't even know about yet.

(September 15, 2017 at 8:46 pm)c172 Wrote: I'm disabled, and my worry is that by trying to eradicate a disability, you may have complications that cause worse, more complicated, disabilities that we don't even know about yet.

You disability is not a genetic syndrome though. But I see what you are saying. It's a valid concern.

(September 15, 2017 at 8:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I suspect the cost will prevent its widespread usage.

CRISPR Cas9 is cheap. And this is how they'll do it. Once they improve the accuracy, it will be available to almost everyone.

---

The ethical implications are not easy to solve, but I think the biggest thing is that we cannot allow any changes or modifications enter the genome. This is something that medical ethicists are agreed on.

(September 15, 2017 at 8:59 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(September 15, 2017 at 8:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I suspect the cost will prevent its widespread usage.

CRISPR Cas9 is cheap. And this is how they'll do it. Once they improve the accuracy, it will be available to almost everyone.

---

The ethical implications are not easy to solve, but I think the biggest thing is that we cannot allow any changes or modifications enter the genome. This is something that medical ethicists are agreed on.

GMO corn is planted next to fields of "regular" corn, and those modifications are gradually spreading through the rest of the genome from the pollen being free and easy on the wind. Think "killer bees", and you get the idea. There is no way that the modifications will be kept out of the rest of the gene pool. The modifications will eventually spread.

I once took a genetics class and the teacher pointed out that we've been modifying genes since the days where we figured out how to make those little grasses grow bigger until they became the wheat we know and love today, and that, honestly, it's more than a little hypocritical to be against it only when we've figured out how to do it directly.