• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would you genetically tweak your unborn child?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< We know that topical acne medications are not going to cause any dramatic side effects: they've been tested and they work fine. >>



Exactly, they were tested. Every piece of medication that is on the US market has gone through years of testing. Why not do the same thing with genetic engineering? You make it sound like once the technology was created, people would start applying it to everyone without thorough testing.



<< It's a much more dangerous process than just putting some cream on your face, and (as you yourself said) the end result is the same >>



LOL, I want to see you take that &quot;putting some cream on your face&quot; attitude while using battery acid. Yes there is some danger involved in genetic engineering, but the payoff is so damn good. Of course there will be thorough testing before it is used on a large scale.



<< That's why genetic engineering is playing God: because you are altering that which defines someone's entire existance. >>



Like I said, the end effect from genetic engineering is no different than using lasik or taking rogaine. If both methods were safe and had the same result, I don't see how either method would be bad.
 
<<We already do genetic engineering in plants and animals and we don't see any of the doomsday problems you are describing.>>

Humans are genetically very different from plants and other animals.

Plus, humans are also socially very different from plants and animals. You don't see plants and animals jumping up and down saying &quot;Please, genetically engineer my offspring!&quot; Yet that is exactly what will happen with humans. That's what will lead to the terrible social situations I described in another post with the &quot;superior&quot; people who are supposedly &quot;perfect&quot; and the &quot;inferior&quot; people that can't break out of the cycle of poverty, low intelligence, and general undesirability.

Bottom line: genetically engineering humans is a quantum leap from genetically engineering plants and animals.

<<And not every gene affects every other gene, so your mathematical example doesn't work.>>

But we don't even know how different genes affect each other!! That's the whole freakin' point!! We don't know how they're all connected. And even if they're not, there are still an enormous number of possibilities that would take us forever to work out. If we can't even figure out how proteins fold, how are we supposed to figure out how the genes that produce them change and interact?

<<People used to say that about just about every revolutionary new technology that came out.>>

And who's to say they weren't right about some of them? But the fact of the matter is -- as I've been saying all along -- genetic engineering is fundamentally different from any other kind of technological innovation. Changing a person's genes is different than a camera, a television, or nuclear power. We're talking about the power to alter our very existance here, not just our society, but us as individuals.

Nick

 
<<So? Even if it takes 100 years in careful testing to make genetic engineering work, the technology will still be worthwhile to apply. IMO, the best way to apply fixes is to cross reference the gene you want to fix with a good, naturally occuring one.>>

But how are we going to test this out? I keep hearing people say that we can just &quot;test&quot; genetic engineering. But who are we going to test it on? Computer simulations are not sophisticated enough to model genetic engineering, and won't be for quite some time. Like I said before, we can't even figure out how a protein folds with modern technology. How are we going to figure out how all these different genes interact?

<<Humanity can choose to spend the rest of it's existence using oxypads, glasses, rogaine, hearing aids, etc. or they can fix it when the technology is proven and available.>>

But why spend all that time researching genetic engineering, a technology that could potentially cause huge problems once applied, when we already have fixes for these problems? The technology to fix these kinds of things is already available.

Nick

 


<< Humans are genetically very different from plants and other animals. >>



Actually, they aren't. The genetic mechanism that powers all life on earth is based on DNA. Except for viruses, some viruses use RNA, but many people would argue that viruses aren't true life because they aren't self replicating.

Genetic engineering has been going on in plants and animals for comfortably over 15 years. Many of which were on creatures with life cycles of a couple days. If there were some huge cascading effect in genetic material, we would have seen it by now.





<< And even if they're not, there are still an enormous number of possibilities that would take us forever to work out. If we can't even figure out how proteins fold, how are we supposed to figure out how the genes that produce them change and interact? >>



So what if it takes 100 years to figure out safely instead of 25? People will get it right some day.
 
What about genetic manipulation to cure a genetic defect of a child that is already born? They are already doing it. I read an article in Scientific America about this two year old boy who's body stopped producing insulin. They removed some cells from his liver, genetically manipulated them, and placed the cells back into his body. His liver now produces enough Insulin where he no-longer needs dialysis. It was a completely experimental treatment that was successful. Without it he would have died within 6 to 8 months. Now you can't honestly tell me that if this was your little boy, you wouldn't give him the treatment. As a parent of a 3 year old girl, I know that I'd do anything medically possible to keep my child alive if she was in a simular situation. If you say you wouldn't, I'll say it right now for the record, YOUR A LIAR! Have a child, be a good parent, and see how your opinion will change.
 
<<Exactly, they were tested. Every piece of medication that is on the US market has gone through years of testing. Why not do the same thing with genetic engineering? You make it sound like once the technology was created, people would start applying it to everyone without thorough testing.>>

Please see my post below for some comments on testing this kind of thing.

In addition, I believe that people will be using this technology before it is fully tested and ready. As I said before, when it comes to their children, people can be incredibly narrow-minded and selfish. There is a good chance that there will be doctors willing to make genetic modifications well before the technology is fully ready. And there will be thousands of people who will want these modifications for their children. Just look at the abortion drug. Before the FDC declared that it was legal to use in the US, women were simply going overseas and taking the medication. The same thing will happen if genetic engineering is allowed to make it out into the market.

<<LOL, I want to see you take that &quot;putting some cream on your face&quot; attitude while using battery acid. Yes there is some danger involved in genetic engineering, but the payoff is so damn good. Of course there will be thorough testing before it is used on a large scale.>>

Haha! I didn't know they used battery acid to treat acne! 😀

Seriously, though, I'm glad to see you admit that there is danger involved in genetic engineering. I think I see the difference in our viewpoints here: you believe that genetic engineering is worth risking the danger, while I do not. Perhaps my viewpoint stems from the fact that I don't think people have the right to be screwing with these things in the first place. It's just not our place to be changing the fundamental essence of our being. I have yet to see anyone offer an intelligent counter-argument to that.

<<Like I said, the end effect from genetic engineering is no different than using lasik or taking rogaine. If both methods were safe and had the same result, I don't see how either method would be bad.>>

I know that the end effect is no different. I agreed with you on that point.

What I find fault with is the means that are used to obtain that end effect. Changing a person's genes is the equivalent of playing God, which is not something that humans have a right to do. Please reread by post at the bottom of the last page: there is a fundamental difference between taking drugs and changing a person's genes.

Nick
 
<<We already do genetic engineering in plants and animals and we don't see any of the doomsday problems you are describing.>>

I thought I read about a case where they genetically engineer a species of corn that produces a pesticide to help control some corn pests that were destroying crops.

But I heard that when they released it, they noticed that it was killing some butterflies.

Also, think about it. Wouldn't the consumption of such pesticide have some sort of long term effects on humans?

I agree that genetic engineering of some sort is ineviatable. But I would only want it to use to cure blantant genetic defects. Not to tweak a kid into becoming taller, or smarter or better looking.

We have already seen what humans produce when we have the tools to tweak things to try to make themselves look better. Take a look at Michael Jackson. He kept tweaking himself with plastic surgery. Now he doesn't look normal.

We have produce tiny dogs that cannot naturally have babies. Their waists are too small and they would die giving birth.
 
Outersquare - We already do genetic engineering in plants and animals and we don't see any of the doomsday problems you are describing.

If you're talking about genetically modified foods, there has been no long term testing and many of the foods have only been introduced in the last 4-5 years. We are all guinea pigs right now whenever we go to the store because we do not know which products contain genetically modified ingredients. Industry doesn't have to tell us. Therefore, there is no public record if certain segments of the population are experiencing allergies or illnesses from eating modified foods. If people have reactions, they might never equate it to eating modified foods and blame it on something else.

I don't like modification because knowing human nature probably the only results which will ever be seen are shallow results. Instead of trying to cure a disease that only affects a small portion of the population, biotech companies will focus on treatments which will sell, like they do in the pharmaceutical industry today. These would be superficial things like preventing aging, cosmetic/aesthetic benefits, etc. I don't believe for a second that because the technology is suddenly there, all the problems will be solved. Vast amounts of money will still need to be devoted to finding and studying the genetic combinations. Because of this, only the things which will make money will see a &quot;cure&quot;. I don't believe Biotech companies will behave any differently than pharmaceutical companies do today.

I think if someone wanted to really slow this process down, the best thing that could happen right now would be for a genetically modified baby to be born so that everyone could see the gross deformities involved and how very imperfect the whole process is. Maybe have an indepth documentary special on primetime about it. Just like with nuclear power after 3 Mile Island, this whole debate would be over for quite some time.
 


<< But how are we going to test this out? I keep hearing people say that we can just &quot;test&quot; genetic engineering. But who are we going to test it on? >>



First on plants. Then insects. Then small mammals. Then small monkeys. Then chimpanzees. Then limited volunteer human beings. Similar to how the FDA tests any major technology. By then any risk in the technology would have been filtered out.



<< In addition, I believe that people will be using this technology before it is fully tested and ready. As I said before, when it comes to their children, people can be incredibly narrow-minded and selfish. There is a good chance that there will be doctors willing to make genetic modifications well before the technology is fully ready. And there will be thousands of people who will want these modifications for their children. Just look at the abortion drug. Before the FDC declared that it was legal to use in the US, women were simply going overseas and taking the medication. The same thing will happen if genetic engineering is allowed to make it out into the market. >>



Ok, that is certainly a valid concern. I don't have an easy answer for that one. Hopefully there will be enough government/international cooperation to prevent such a situation on a large scale. But even if the technology were used too early, as the technology matures, it can be used to correct the earlier mistakes.




<< Haha! I didn't know they used battery acid to treat acne! >>



hehe, my point was that the people who designed the cream had to start somewhere and they didn't know if what the started with was safe or not.




<< It's just not our place to be changing the fundamental essence of our being. I have yet to see anyone offer an intelligent counter-argument to that. >>



Well, that's because that's a subjective/ideological point, not a technological/scientific/mathematical point.


 


<< I thought I read about a case where they genetically engineer a species of corn that produces a pesticide to help control some corn pests that were destroying crops. >>





<< But I heard that when they released it, they noticed that it was killing some butterflies. >>



Man, whoever wrote that article deserves a, &quot;well no sh!t.&quot; That's because butterflies morph from caterpillars. If you kill off the caterpillars that feed off of corn, as was intended, you won't get anymore butterflies.

Either way, that's moot to the argument because that's an environmental cascade effect problem, not a problem internal to the corn plant itself. What Apple seemed to be talking about was how did we know that changing one gene would cause a cascade effect with other genes, not the enviroment.





<< If you're talking about genetically modified foods, there has been no long term testing and many of the foods have only been introduced in the last 4-5 years. We are all guinea pigs right now whenever we go to the store because we do not know which products contain genetically modified ingredients. Industry doesn't have to tell us. Therefore, there is no public record if certain segments of the population are experiencing allergies or illnesses from eating modified foods. If people have reactions, they might never equate it to eating modified foods and blame it on something else. >>



Actually, I was rather annoyed at that legislation also. I don't believe the technology is ready right now either nor should people be unwitting guinea pigs.
 
OuterSquare:

<<Actually, they aren't. The genetic mechanism that powers all life on earth is based on DNA. Except for viruses, some viruses use RNA, but many people would argue that viruses aren't true life because they aren't self replicating.>>

Okay, perhaps I should have said that humans are genetically much more complex than plants and other animals.

<<So what if it takes 100 years to figure out safely instead of 25? People will get it right some day.>>

Yeah, but what happens before we &quot;get it right&quot; is what I'm worried about. Chances are there we will have to try this kind of thing more than once. In my mind it's not worth the risk.

Nick
 
after reviewing the information in this thread, I must say I am VERY thankful that most people in the world (including those in power) are not as reactionary and theocratic as AppleTalk here...
 


<< after reviewing the information in this thread, I must say I am VERY thankful that most people in the world (including those in power) are not as reactionary and theocratic as AppleTalk here... >>



I just think he is scared.

And FYI humans have around 100.000 genes not millions. Human Genome Project page

and the difference between a monkey and a human on genetic level is about 5% of the genes.

-MeliK
 
Wedesdo:

<<after reviewing the information in this thread, I must say I am VERY thankful that most people in the world (including those in power) are not as reactionary and theocratic as AppleTalk here... >>

It's alright to be reactionary about some things. Not all progress is necessarily good or prudent.

Nick
 
<<I just think he is scared.>>

Darn right I'm scared!! I guess only time will tell whether my fears are borne out or not.

edit: BTW, thanks for the information about the number of genes! I guess my figures were a little bit off. Still, you have to admit that there are a huge number of ways that changing just one gene could affect others.

Even if we could know everything about the human genome, that still doesn't mean it's right for people to go around changing their genes.

Nick
 


<< <<I just think he is scared.>>

Darn right I'm scared!! I guess only time will tell whether my fears are borne out or not.

Nick >>



thats what I ve been sayin all the time, give it some time. Nothing is going to happen tomorrow.
Come time come wisdom.

-MeliK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top