A few years ago, my friends and I started a discussion of gene editing’s impact on humanity. It was decided that it will be all about good/bad non enhanced actors’ decisions. So the same as AI use.
Irrational emotions will drive law makers to try and limit the perceived down sides. The effort will fail as the baby will be tossed with the bath water. But people with $ and interest will use editing for their offspring regardless of legality to whatever ends they desire.
"Innovation drives down costs". It does on the technological side but not it seems on the treatment side. Shrinking microprocessors drove computers down from $2500 for a very basic Atari setup in 1981 to about $500 for an exponentially more powerful computer today, even with inflation over 40 years. Hospital and pharmaceutical costs have only gone skyward though. Something goes awry when nimble small biotechs invent novel treatments and then get bought out by Big Pharma. I think that's a topic that needs to go hand in hand with the technological optimism--what scenario gives reasonable outcomes for the populace and at low cost (Medicare for All?).
Eliminating the majority of private insurers would make for a more simple, efficient system of paperwork. Volume pricing. Elimination of ACA, Medicaid, Workman's Comp and auto insurance medical premiums, downsizing HR departments---businesses are relieved of the burden of providing medical benefits. Plus the elimination of literally thousands of other federal, state, and county medical subsidy programs. All he while keeping the doctors in the private sector so you are free to chose. The tough spot is the hospital networks, how to reduce some of the ridiculously high costs they charge at times. Were the last holdouts on going with a national system and it's costing us dearly.
That’s the theory, but it never seems to work out that way. It just produces perverse incentives that end up making everything cost more until no one can afford it.
My wife suffers from Progressive Supra Nuclear Palsy (PSP). A terrible disease with no treatment and no cure. I would try gene editing in a second if it were available to help her.
I'm sure there are millions of people suffering from a variety of illnesses who will someday be treated in ways we can't even imagine today. That day can't come soon enough for many.
We already have loads of comments re abuse by governments and individuals, so I won't put my two cents worth in. We're supposed to be optimists, right? How did people view nuclear after Hiroshima & Nagasaki? If handled & funded correctly, this has the potential to save countless lives and long-term suffering. Is it worth it? I believe so. Are we 'playing God' or possibly creating a future society of us and them? In many ways, we are already doing that....
Maybe this is a perspective: When science makes it possible for children to be born healthy and for adults to become heathy, we are acting in a civilized manner by creating an equal playing field (health) for all. We also - at least in theory - substantially lower healthcare costs for all and the savings can be put to productive use for all. When the few can gain advantage over the many and produce a super class, we create a decidedly uneven playing field or even a situation that excludes the vast majority of people and that is the definition of uncivilized.
For several years I lived in and was treated by the medical system in Spain. They are single payer (but multiple feeds). The system worked so much better than here in the US. Almost all of the cost went to doctors, treatments, and patients. Here I expect almost 50% of the costs go to management middlemen, insurance companies, etc. Moreover, the doctors that treated me spent more time and effort at prevention of current and future disease and future costs, something that I do not see here at all.
FWIW - I was free to choose my doctor and change whenever I. There was minimal waiting for procedures because they ran their instruments, and some services, 24 hours a day. I was scheduled for a non-emergency MRI at midnight about 40 hours I requested it. I could have asked for day only but wanted it done. My Spanish doctor had the report when he showed up the following morning. By running 24 hours a day they needed fewer instruments and shared facilities across hospitals. Efficient!
Treating a congenital condition in utero is one thing; everybody wants their baby to be healthy. But what if the "condition" revealed by your spouse's blood test is something that can't be fixed, or is something that you just don't want - like a baby girl? Sex selection abortion is already an issue in some societies, and this may magnify the moral quandary for parents. Pre-conception manipulation takes us to Lake Wobegon "where all the children are above average..."
However, an issue about IQ is that they are all centered at 100. So if many others opted to do the same, then the IQ points will be lost, as the "average" is gradually raised.
View from a Rational Pessimist: Dollars to doughnuts it won’t take long for authoritarian governments like China to realize they can “improve” their future population with this technology. All they need to do is set up embryo factories to pre-screen the attributes to eliminate traits they don’t want and keep the traits they think are desirable. They then require all prospective parents to select an embryo from the pool and check into a “free” IVF clinic to have it implanted. After that, likely regular checkups to monitor the fetus development and discourage any abortion attempts, until the child is born. Alas, as has been noted, all technologies have a bright and dark side.
omg, in just reading the comment below, one sees the complexities of decision making in this arena.... to me, avoiding possible future medical emergencies is the first order of business e.g. strokes, heart attacks, leukemia, diabetes and similar maladies that arise from genetic predisposition, after that I will have to think long and hard ....
Great technology. Sure to be screwed up by US healthcare and insurance. I am sure those that can find, pay and travel to obtain such tech will do so. The rest will just have to live with insurance denials.
The thing is, the ethics of gene editing aren't up to you and I. Assuming you're reading this from the perspective of a top 10% (or 1%er) you're already at the top and therefore can have a moral opinion. There's entire continents full of people who don't just want what we want for our children, they realize they have to "want it more." These highly motivated people will do whatever they can to give their children advantages. We who are reading this will have to do the same thing just to match their actions.
Not to mention those of us with more psychopathic tendencies.
Ever since I first saw the film GATTACA, the one thing that stuck with me wasn't the story of the protagonist Vincent, but his younger brother, Anton. Mom and dad realized their mistake and ordered up a raft of customized genes for Anton, who really didn't do much with his engineered talent. Imagine if Anton had Vincent's drive as well.
While all of this is wonderful - and the rich will do as they wish... we must remember that these special order babies will grow up in the same world as the rest of the babies born naturally. Until we start to value every life with methods already proven to improve the life of everyone - through universal health care, and universal child care and school lunches for all - none of this will matter in making the world a better place.
That's the problem, babies are seldom "perfect" and will be subjected to an enormous range of diseases and other risks. Parent's who are not prepared to protect children from such risks because of some sentimental or philosophic nonsense are irresponsible, which is OK when it's your own life, but not that of a helpless infant entrusted to your care.
There is a moral downside to many technologies but societies tend to overcome moral qualms over time. We are living after all, and uncomfortably if you will, with several nuclear armed countries whose governments and leaders are not paragons of morality. Genetic innovation will triumph over time and designer babies will come into being. If cosmetic surgery to improve the profile of one’s nose is acceptable, why not genetic surgery to do the same?
A few years ago, my friends and I started a discussion of gene editing’s impact on humanity. It was decided that it will be all about good/bad non enhanced actors’ decisions. So the same as AI use.
Irrational emotions will drive law makers to try and limit the perceived down sides. The effort will fail as the baby will be tossed with the bath water. But people with $ and interest will use editing for their offspring regardless of legality to whatever ends they desire.
"Innovation drives down costs". It does on the technological side but not it seems on the treatment side. Shrinking microprocessors drove computers down from $2500 for a very basic Atari setup in 1981 to about $500 for an exponentially more powerful computer today, even with inflation over 40 years. Hospital and pharmaceutical costs have only gone skyward though. Something goes awry when nimble small biotechs invent novel treatments and then get bought out by Big Pharma. I think that's a topic that needs to go hand in hand with the technological optimism--what scenario gives reasonable outcomes for the populace and at low cost (Medicare for All?).
I’m guessing that Medicare for all would only make the problem infinitely worse.
Eliminating the majority of private insurers would make for a more simple, efficient system of paperwork. Volume pricing. Elimination of ACA, Medicaid, Workman's Comp and auto insurance medical premiums, downsizing HR departments---businesses are relieved of the burden of providing medical benefits. Plus the elimination of literally thousands of other federal, state, and county medical subsidy programs. All he while keeping the doctors in the private sector so you are free to chose. The tough spot is the hospital networks, how to reduce some of the ridiculously high costs they charge at times. Were the last holdouts on going with a national system and it's costing us dearly.
That’s the theory, but it never seems to work out that way. It just produces perverse incentives that end up making everything cost more until no one can afford it.
My wife suffers from Progressive Supra Nuclear Palsy (PSP). A terrible disease with no treatment and no cure. I would try gene editing in a second if it were available to help her.
I'm sure there are millions of people suffering from a variety of illnesses who will someday be treated in ways we can't even imagine today. That day can't come soon enough for many.
We already have loads of comments re abuse by governments and individuals, so I won't put my two cents worth in. We're supposed to be optimists, right? How did people view nuclear after Hiroshima & Nagasaki? If handled & funded correctly, this has the potential to save countless lives and long-term suffering. Is it worth it? I believe so. Are we 'playing God' or possibly creating a future society of us and them? In many ways, we are already doing that....
Maybe this is a perspective: When science makes it possible for children to be born healthy and for adults to become heathy, we are acting in a civilized manner by creating an equal playing field (health) for all. We also - at least in theory - substantially lower healthcare costs for all and the savings can be put to productive use for all. When the few can gain advantage over the many and produce a super class, we create a decidedly uneven playing field or even a situation that excludes the vast majority of people and that is the definition of uncivilized.
For several years I lived in and was treated by the medical system in Spain. They are single payer (but multiple feeds). The system worked so much better than here in the US. Almost all of the cost went to doctors, treatments, and patients. Here I expect almost 50% of the costs go to management middlemen, insurance companies, etc. Moreover, the doctors that treated me spent more time and effort at prevention of current and future disease and future costs, something that I do not see here at all.
FWIW - I was free to choose my doctor and change whenever I. There was minimal waiting for procedures because they ran their instruments, and some services, 24 hours a day. I was scheduled for a non-emergency MRI at midnight about 40 hours I requested it. I could have asked for day only but wanted it done. My Spanish doctor had the report when he showed up the following morning. By running 24 hours a day they needed fewer instruments and shared facilities across hospitals. Efficient!
Treating a congenital condition in utero is one thing; everybody wants their baby to be healthy. But what if the "condition" revealed by your spouse's blood test is something that can't be fixed, or is something that you just don't want - like a baby girl? Sex selection abortion is already an issue in some societies, and this may magnify the moral quandary for parents. Pre-conception manipulation takes us to Lake Wobegon "where all the children are above average..."
Would I? Yes.
However, an issue about IQ is that they are all centered at 100. So if many others opted to do the same, then the IQ points will be lost, as the "average" is gradually raised.
View from a Rational Pessimist: Dollars to doughnuts it won’t take long for authoritarian governments like China to realize they can “improve” their future population with this technology. All they need to do is set up embryo factories to pre-screen the attributes to eliminate traits they don’t want and keep the traits they think are desirable. They then require all prospective parents to select an embryo from the pool and check into a “free” IVF clinic to have it implanted. After that, likely regular checkups to monitor the fetus development and discourage any abortion attempts, until the child is born. Alas, as has been noted, all technologies have a bright and dark side.
Probably be born with the barcode already on the forehead!
omg, in just reading the comment below, one sees the complexities of decision making in this arena.... to me, avoiding possible future medical emergencies is the first order of business e.g. strokes, heart attacks, leukemia, diabetes and similar maladies that arise from genetic predisposition, after that I will have to think long and hard ....
Great technology. Sure to be screwed up by US healthcare and insurance. I am sure those that can find, pay and travel to obtain such tech will do so. The rest will just have to live with insurance denials.
The thing is, the ethics of gene editing aren't up to you and I. Assuming you're reading this from the perspective of a top 10% (or 1%er) you're already at the top and therefore can have a moral opinion. There's entire continents full of people who don't just want what we want for our children, they realize they have to "want it more." These highly motivated people will do whatever they can to give their children advantages. We who are reading this will have to do the same thing just to match their actions.
Not to mention those of us with more psychopathic tendencies.
Ever since I first saw the film GATTACA, the one thing that stuck with me wasn't the story of the protagonist Vincent, but his younger brother, Anton. Mom and dad realized their mistake and ordered up a raft of customized genes for Anton, who really didn't do much with his engineered talent. Imagine if Anton had Vincent's drive as well.
While all of this is wonderful - and the rich will do as they wish... we must remember that these special order babies will grow up in the same world as the rest of the babies born naturally. Until we start to value every life with methods already proven to improve the life of everyone - through universal health care, and universal child care and school lunches for all - none of this will matter in making the world a better place.
That's the problem, babies are seldom "perfect" and will be subjected to an enormous range of diseases and other risks. Parent's who are not prepared to protect children from such risks because of some sentimental or philosophic nonsense are irresponsible, which is OK when it's your own life, but not that of a helpless infant entrusted to your care.
If having healthy babies was a priority, then people should stop jabbing them. Particulary at birth when they are perfect.
There is a moral downside to many technologies but societies tend to overcome moral qualms over time. We are living after all, and uncomfortably if you will, with several nuclear armed countries whose governments and leaders are not paragons of morality. Genetic innovation will triumph over time and designer babies will come into being. If cosmetic surgery to improve the profile of one’s nose is acceptable, why not genetic surgery to do the same?