Khaaaaaaaannnn!!!

I agree, this is sketchy, both morally and ethically, although the stated goal (correcting defective genes that cause inherited diseases) might be noble.

With such 'germline engineering', a genetically modified child would then pass the changes on to subsequent generations via their own germ cells. I'm not sure this should be deemed a worthy pursuit.

Nice Khan reference. _{He tasks me...}

I vaguely remember reading about a rule of thumb for scientists doing this kind of research: do not let the organism grow beyond 32 cells. Or maybe don't keep it alive more than 30 days. Does this ring any kind of bell with anyone?

Time for ethicists to chime in. I agree with Bayes and Sue: this is scary.

Scary? What about two parents that know they carry the gene that will result in Cystic Fibrosis in at least 1 of 4 offspring? Could they turn off this gene in an embryo, and thereby save the couple from a lifetime of heartache, worry, and trips to hospitals?

I have also heard of supposed gene therapy after the child is born to help with this disease.

Often time, I will side with the side of caution, however, as sometimes the cure might be worse than whatever is being combated.

There are tremendous bioethical concerns surrounding germline engineering.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

I thought about this point, too: would we be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we (whoever "we" are) shut down experimentation of the sort reported in Bayes' post? My brain is racing with pros/cons/assorted unclassified thoughts. I'm glad I don't have to figure this out.

As pointed out in the link from Solar Eagle's post, apparently the gene discovery, and gene therapy/stem cell therapy went nowhere for cystic fibrosis. Now they are using small molecule therapy that targets the protein that affects chloride channel conduction. Slowly but slowly do the gears and wheels of progress turn. Ever so slowly, but inevitably they do move, and do turn over the course of time, so that someday we may find that glorious day when the worst diseases from birth can be rectified toward a happy, productive, and lengthy life.

It really hurts to lose someone as Heather was.

Genetic mutation is an attack on humankind, we did not choose it, we were attacked and wounded, and the wounds linger still....I would keep the doctor's that attempt a cure, on a very short leash....I think this 'superhuman' crap, is just a fantasy....Now for those that would stray beyond just attacking genetic mutations, I would caution that they would be responsible for anything that went wrong in the entire lifetime of any altered DNA humans they facilitated...A sure source of cautionary tales of liability and consequences to haunt the dreams of any adventurous 'mad scientist in training'....

It might be the cystic fibrosis "cure" was more of a stem cell therapy, I can't freaking remember right now.

https://cysticfibrosisnewstoday.com/2015/01/29/undeniable-hope-recent-cf-breakthroughs-show-cure-can-found/

Unfortunately for one member of my extended family, even after two lung transplants, the answers came too late, as so for very many over the generations.

While we breathe, we have hope.

Anther word for Genetic Mutation is Evolution

Not exactly, genetic mutations are random...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_18

It's not a stretch to imagine human evolution is no longer in the hands of random genetic mutation...but is beginning now to be self-determined....either by genetic manipulation or machine implants or more likely a combination of both....perhaps biological machines is the evolutionary goal of humankind, and we just don't know it yet....Nothing that slows down scientific progress has ever been proven to be a good thing....has it?

It's not a stretch to imagine human evolution is no longer in the hands of random genetic mutation...but is beginning now to be self-determined....either by genetic manipulation or machine implants

Or natural radiation or chemistry intervention or influence.

I had posted this before, but the University of Wisconsin-Madison is one of the leaders here. Most in Animal science.

Not only in embryo (for cattle), but they been playing around in turning Genes on and off, to a point of turning on a gene that was dormant (actually a genetic mutation) in Chickens to have them actually grow teeth.

From Scientific America (gator-like teeth)

Actually doing these types of experiments actually sheds light on evolution. As well as finding the answers to todays problems may lie in the past.

I've heard hens' teeth are quite rare.....

I agree that this is scary stuff that should cause us all to pause and reflect on what we are doing.

Nonetheless I do believe a "devil's advocates" perspective should be brought to this discussion. Isn't this manipulation of genes already naturally happening. The difference here is that nature does this in a random, uncontrolled fashion without regard to how it affects a person, patient, parent or their descendants. This random process of gene mutation is both a cornerstone of the evolution that made us and how genetic diseases came about. So instead of just hoping for the best outcome, some attempts at steering can occur.

(Leaving the devil's podium behind.) The crux of the ethical paradox (yet to be crossed AFAIK ) is what one does when one detects an unexpected aberration in a fetus, infant or adult with manipulated genes. Remember this aberration need not be a lethal condition. It could be merely a nuisance. Then there's the added complication of who decides what should be done when an aberration becomes apparent. Do the parent(s), the individual afflicted, the genetic manipulator, a society council (courts and/or politicians) or a frightened mob decide how to proceed. There's also the question if the individual has the same rights as those not manipulated. (Remember, the US started with unequal citizens.)

Most of the time a divergent mutation results in failure of the individual to survive.

Most of the time a divergent mutation results in failure of the individual to survive.

Or an edge for Survival.

What I said is true. 99% of mutations do not carry down in subsequent generations, let's say, as an arbitrary number. OK, then, out of 200 mutations of the type encountered, only 2 will survive and pass down the gene to a subsequent generation, and whether or not the trait related to that gene is expressed, depends upon whether it is a dominant or recessive trait, and "who" the individual mates with on the next go around.

Not only that, there is compelling evidence that "evolution" has never been expressed as a continuum, but is markedly punctuated and possibly related to events taking place within the environment. Thus the real advantage of a particular mutation may not be evident at all, until something drastic changes in the environment, or some population killing event reduces the mating choices as per an evolutionary "bottleneck".

I'm not disputed that.

its that 1% of mutations,... it probably more like 0.0001% that gives the edge to better survive or compete.

There are many different kinds of mutations.....

..."As might be expected, cells that divide many, many times in a lifetime are more at risk of errors and mutations than cells that divide less frequently. In a human female, egg cells are fully formed at birth, and they never divide thereafter. By contrast, sperm cells are being produced constantly, and the older a man is, the more frequently his sperm-producing cells have divided. By age 20 they will have divided 200 times and by age 45 about 770 times. This has led scientists to hypothesize that when a baby is born with a congenital disorder caused by an error in cell division, the father is the parent more likely to have contributed the gene with the mutation."...

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/genetics-and-genetic-engineering/mutation

That an interesting bit of information... which explains older men having children a more likely hood of a possible deformity in the child.

i had taken some night classes a few years back, one class was an ecology class. The discussion got off topic (just like CR4) and what was discussed is that if you did something just once could trigger a mutation, like a cancer developing, whether it's just having one drag on a cigarette or even being exposed to a chemical for just a short time that for some people, it's just has to be exposed tas something that triggers a change.

Well you could also argue that most genetic mutant sperm cells never make it to the egg, cuz' they're going around in circles or something, and that a super sperm mutant is most likely to succeed, producing a kid with superpowers....so it could go either way, good or bad, as always....

Yep, it's survival of the fittest... and sometimes just plain fate.

Also, some of the sperm are programmed to NOT seek the egg. their mission is to crowd around the cervix and tangle up with the other 'blockers,' forming a wall to stop the 'second wave' (if any) from getting by and competing with the 'first wave.'

There are also sperm who are programmed to find a knot of 'blockers' and shoulder their way through, burning out their energy to 'breach' the wall the blockers have set up.

It's kind of like a football game, only each team is playing offense and defense at the same time, and there's only one end zone they're all racing for.

This cannot be.

That's not what I was taught in elementary school nearly half a century ago. Life hasn't at all changed and therefore Biology must remain exactly the same way it was when I was schooled.

<sarcasm generator OFF>

I wonder how the news of sperm level dropping will play into this scenario. Will we end up with the reverse of the story in The Handmaid's Tale where women will have to have multiple partners to assure the next generation.

"I wonder how the news of sperm level dropping will play into this scenario. Will we end up with the reverse of the story in The Handmaid's Tale where women will have to have multiple partners to assure the next generation. "

No, the demagogues whipping up the hate of the uneducated masses will still blame women for it, and building up 'secret harems' for themselves. They're not concerned with assuring the next generation, all they want is to keep women, non-whites, and the poor oppressed so they can 'maintain power' and coddle their fragile little egos.

There can be 'Just one'.

"Not only that, there is compelling evidence that "evolution" has never been expressed as a continuum, but is markedly punctuated and possibly related to events taking place within the environment. Thus the real advantage of a particular mutation may not be evident at all, until something drastic changes in the environment, or some population killing event reduces the mating choices as per an evolutionary "bottleneck"."

Not sure if I agree with your exact choice of words there, but you hit on some salient points:

Mutation is a means to increase Genetic Diversity. Mutations that cause the organism to fail in the current environment get weeded out of the gene pool.

Evolution is the change in a species over time as a combination of Genetic Diversity and Environmental Stress. Sometimes the stress is a quick change, such as the meteor that put the entire planet under an effective 'nuclear winter' and wiped out the giant sauropods while the tiny mammals survived; sometimes it takes a few generations to cause a noticeable shift, as when the early hominids migrated to the chilly European continent and needed to consume milk well into adulthood in order to avoid starvation, many died because their bodies could not process lactose at such a late age, but some carried the mutant gene for lactose tolerance, and they thrived in the new area.

We have examples of human evolution living today. Ozzy Ozborne has had his DNA sequenced, and researchers discovered that he is a mutant. His body produces an enzyme that breaks down Opioids. His 'mutant power' (to borrow a trope from Marvel comics) is an extremely high resistance to the effects of many recreational drugs, and his kids each has a 50-50 chance of carrying this gene. We don't know yet if it's a dominant or recessive gene, but in either case, we as a species have the diversity to survive if the planet gets enshrouded in Opium clouds.

Some may even consider Autistics and people with Asperger's Syndrome to be another branch in this Diversity. While some seem unable to communicate we;; by any means, others show such remarkable aptitude with computers, and a marked ability to communicate eloquently through electronic interfaces, that they may be looked at as a 'mutant branch' of machine-empathic humans. With the growing prevalence of computers everywhere in the Industrialized world, this might be an important trait to deal with the Environmental Pressure from that direction.

No!

Most mutations are benign changes that make no visible difference in an organism. These benign mutations allow some scientists to track population movements. The most well known of this is tracking ones ancestry with a genetic test.

Or another mechanism for prejudice.

OK ginger fred.

'.... There's also the question if the individual has the same rights as those not manipulated. ....'

Ooooh! If a modified person is not a natural person, Citizens United v FEC might confer additional rights. Specifically the ability to donate unlimited amounts to PACs, limited liability, and additional options for deciding how much tax to pay.

Wouldn't that be outrageous? Should cause quite the uproar. Wonder why there is no uproar so long as the unnatural citizens don't closely resemble ourselves.

The bulk of the human species is no longer being beneficially refined through meaningful selective pressures. Most are reproducing offspring who eventually reproduce. Very little in the way of fitness or lack thereof has much effect in most of the world.

There is nothing keeping the race on a path of improvement and visibility of what lies ahead isn't that great.

With a lack of meaningful helmsmanship there is no other ethical choice except to take command and attempt to steer the genetics as best we can.

.

We knew this was coming - just missed the timing by 20 to 40 years or so. (no super race in the 1990's - no SS Botany Bay)

We can cry about it all we want, but we know someone somewhere will develop a "super human" and there is little we can do to stop it. Laws and sanctions won't stop what is to come.

I can see the Olympics and Le Tour de France in 2040 checking athlete's genes to be sure there is no one "gene doping".

Heck, why not? Why not live forever? Actually, I would not want to live past 200, because I would have forgotten all my loved ones of my family by then, and that is not a happy place to be.

Why would someone forget? We're not talking about those of us here now, we're talking about the future here, and if all are gene doped to live to 200 and older age brain malfunctions are also removed, why not? And with even the current recording technologies, loved ones who finally get past the age limit, which there still would have to be, will have been very well recorded for posterity.

On the other hand, we join the French Foreign Legion in order to forget...

LOL - I cannot ever forget those I lived nearest to in my youth, and never will. I love them now more than ever, and look forward to seeing them again in the hereafter.

By the way, the dead know nothing, nor remember from whence they came, as they sleep.

"We're not talking about those of us here now, we're talking about the future here, and if all are gene doped to live to 200 and older age brain malfunctions are also removed, why not?"

Well, for one thing, cultural attitudes change over time not in individuals changing their minds, (it does happen, but it's not a significant factor) but in the people holding the 'old' attitude dying off, leaving the younger people with the 'new' attitude to prevail. Multi-century lifespans would mean cultural change happens slower, as the 'old' attitudes stick around much longer, perhaps even grossing generational lines that would have been barriers before.

I'm sure we all had at least one grandparent (or grand-uncle, etc) who had a strong opinion on some topic or demographic group that today we would call 'offensive' or 'backward,' but that's just what that relative was taught when (s)he was a kid. You go back a mere 80 years and the mere concept of a woman CEO was ridiculous, "Women belonged in the kitchen" back then, and a black person being the leader of ANYTHING was an idea that could get you lynched in a number of states.

Before we subject ourselves to CENTURIES of Rush Limbaugh, we need to make sure we have the cultural tolerance and acceptance to live and let live with our neighbors for so long.

The desire to live over 100 years old depends greatly on the quality of life one can get in these older years. When I was 50 I wished for the body I had at 40. When I was 60 I wished for the body I had at 50. If I reach 120 I very well might wish to be dead.

I've replied to other peoples' comments so far, but haven't voiced my own opinion on the main topic yet.

I am all for experimenting with genetic manipulation, and gene therapy, however, this is something that needs to be moved forward cautiously. We need to properly evaluate the risks, and avoid the extremist camps of 'progressive eugenics' (the sort of program that led to Kahn Noonian Ningh) and of 'Thou Shalt Not Play God.' We need to chart this course carefully, lest we accidentally create monsters⁽¹⁾ or waste this rare opportunity to improve ourselves as a species in ways not yet imagined.

Very few branches of research simultaneously excite and terrify me, but when they do, it's a good indication that this is something we must to, but do with caution.

Notes:

1. Not necessarily Mary Shelley style creatures, such as Adam⁽²⁾, but along the lines of accidentally making a new 'supergerm' that our immune system would not perceive as a threat, or
2. Yes, in the book, the creature names himself 'Adam,' as a way to mock Victor Frankenstein for 'playing God.'⁽³⁾ The Pre-Victorian Era reading audience was not as sophisticated as modern consumers of Literature, and needed a bit more 'hand-holding' to understand the underlying themes.
3. Adam is also an intelligent, articulate being, not the lumbering 'child-minded' brute as shown in the Universal movies.

On one hand is the fictional Adam, on the other hand is the very real possibility of a modern Adam that is superior to you and I in every way imaginable, save one.

I will let you all figure that one thing out.

"I am done with humankind."

Not me personally, but it does feel that my entire generation lost its mind sometime during the Vietnam War, and never recovered.

No everyone lost their mind in that generation.

Just in time to cure the problem in Solar Eagle's latest post about dropping sperm counts.

Now there's an unhappy looking fellow!

Baby Jabba, haha!

That's poorly lighted. Not sure exactly which one that is...

Is it...?

.

The similarity is uncanny, but no.

Maybe it is.... ?

Wow, that is really close. But there are subtle differences.

.

How about....

Ding!Ding!Ding! We have a winner!

It is an insult to whatever the poor grayish white creature is to compare to the latter one!

Seems to be headed towards the development of the "Master Race" aka Nazi-socialism.

How often do we have to remind people that Fascism and Communism are complete opposites.

It's like having a Republican Democrat, the very concept makes no sense.

Low informational minions doing the masters bidding.

You mean like John McCain?

"I have serious reservations regarding the morality of what they did. I understand they are trying to cure genetic diseases, and certainly that would have wonderful benefits. I just am a little disturbed by how they did it, but maybe I'm being overly sensitive here. I don't know. Anyway, if you can start editing DNA I guess we can't be too far off from this:"

The true face of Kahn. Betrayal in the flesh!