Althouse: "The prospect of genetically eliminating crippling diseases is certainly appealing, but this promise masks a darker reality."

December 1, 2018

"The prospect of genetically eliminating crippling diseases is certainly appealing, but this promise masks a darker reality."

"First, there is a difference between genetic engineering and the extremely promising field of gene therapy, in which doctors use CRISPR technology to repair the DNA of defective nonreproductive cells -- allowing them to treat cancer, genetic disorders and other diseases. In gene therapy, the genetic changes affect only the patient. In genetic engineering, scientists alter the entire genetic structure of the resulting human being -- changes that are then passed on to future generations. Playing with humanity's genetic code could open a Pandora's box. Scientists will eventually be able to alter DNA not just to protect against disease but also to create genetically enhanced human beings. The same techniques that can eliminate muscular dystrophy might also be used to enhance muscles to improve strength or speed. Techniques used to eliminate dementia may also be harnessed to enhance memory and cognition. This would have profound societal implications...."

"Gene editing is here. It's an enormous threat" by Mark Thiessen (reprinted at Fox News, originally in WaPo).

51 comments:

gspencer said...: Waiting to hear from proponents of / searchers for the gay gene.; 12/1/18, 9:15 AM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: They say that like it's a bad thing.; 12/1/18, 9:18 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Lots of enormous threats these days. Usually, the remedy is that we MUST ACT NOW to give more power and control to the state.; 12/1/18, 9:26 AM
William said...: Any possibility that this might be a boon to mankind? Like any expensive product genetic engineering will be adopted first by the rich, but, if it doesn't become a successful product for them, it will never become available for everyone.......There's a good chance that they'll screw things up for the first few generations though. Maybe the gene for male pattern baldness is somehow related to the gene rheumatic arthritis. Well, let them practice the technique on rich people. Rich people have been useful to humanity in exposing the hidden flaws of plastic surgery and psychoanalysis.; 12/1/18, 9:29 AM
Darrell said...: A gun can save your life.
Or end it.
Many things like that. Article rejected.; 12/1/18, 9:29 AM
Unknown said...: gspencer,

If the proverbial gay gene is discovered and this technology is accepted for gene selection I'm sure a lot of tolerant liberals will quietly cull embryos that show a genetic propensity to homosexuality.; 12/1/18, 9:36 AM
traditionalguy said...: Hmmm? The days of Noah seem to be back. IIR messing with the created DNA code of the Human Race is what made our Creator mad enough to end all things with The Flood and to restart the Human Race from with a single family still "righteous in its generations".; 12/1/18, 9:44 AM
mccullough said...: My body, my choice.; 12/1/18, 9:46 AM
Oso Negro said...: Sure! The biggest threat of the 20th century was governments with too much power. What’s changed?; 12/1/18, 9:55 AM
gilbar said...: traditionalguy said...
Hmmm? The days of Noah seem to be back. IIR messing with the created DNA code of the Human Race is what made our Creator mad enough to end all things with The Flood and to restart the Human Race from with a single family still "righteous in its generations".

don't worry trad guy,
GOD Promised us that AS LONG AS we see his Rainbow in the sky, he will not EVER flood us again....
Of, course; the LGBTIFWP crowd has Taken GOD's rainbow and is using it to Mock him... Hmmmmm
Mental note, stock up on boat plans; 12/1/18, 9:57 AM
Fernandinande said...: In genetic engineering, scientists alter the entire genetic structure of the resulting human being -

Not necessarily. In embryo selection (or screening) they just pick the embryo with the best natural DNA, which is just good old fashioned eugenics without having to wait for the phenotype to appear.; 12/1/18, 10:01 AM
Ralph L said...: Mutant Jeopardy!; 12/1/18, 10:03 AM
Fernandinande said...: "This could be a death blow to the American Dream, the idea that anyone who is willing to work hard in this country can rise up the economic ladder."

Thiessen seems concerned that his blank slate fantasies might not be true.; 12/1/18, 10:09 AM
Mark said...: Waiting to hear from proponents of / searchers for the gay gene.

I wonder -- could they genetically engineer someone to be a male or a female?; 12/1/18, 10:11 AM
whitney said...: Has there ever been a technology that people looked at and thought "oh you know what we're just going to roll that one backwards". No. The Japanese briefly tried with Firearms but it was already too late by the time they figured out how bad they were. This is happening. And I'm sure it will end in disaster and progress like all things do; 12/1/18, 10:11 AM
Ray - SoCal said...: Genetic Engineering has a lot of promise, but some peril.

There is so much unknown in how the body works. The interaction of gut bacteria is one. Genetic predisposition vs environmental is another.

And what of nano machines, cybernetic implants?

And what of countries that find they can create 100% loyal workers?

SciFi explores many of these issues.; 12/1/18, 10:14 AM
Big Mike said...: If we could use genetically engineering to improve intelligence would any Democrat ever be elected again?; 12/1/18, 10:19 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: We always go too far; 12/1/18, 10:22 AM
tcrosse said...: We could use genetic engineering to make people stupider and more gullible, but television is already doing an effective job of that.; 12/1/18, 10:23 AM
gspencer said...: Huxley gets his desired workers, each designed for the function which he/she/unknown is assigned to do by the NWO/UN/CFR.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_society,

"From birth, members of every class are indoctrinated by recorded voices repeating slogans while they sleep (called "hypnopædia" in the book) to believe their own class is superior, but that the other classes perform needed functions. Any residual unhappiness is resolved by an antidepressant and hallucinogenic drug called soma.

"The biological techniques used to control the populace in Brave New World do not include genetic engineering; Huxley wrote the book before the structure of DNA was known."; 12/1/18, 10:26 AM
Bill Peschel said...: Realistically, this is not going to be effective for a long time, if ever.

This is what happens when you hang around and read the Internet for about 30 years: you see new technologies boosted as the Next Big Thing. They either never come about (solar power, thorium reactors), or fall far short of their promise (solar power, the Segway).

I remember an old "All in the Family" episode in which the Meathead was praising organ transplants, likening it to a car replacing its water pump. But that doesn't mean we're going to live forever on harvested organs, and it ignores the enormous amount of immuno-suppression drugs one has to take for the rest of your life.

But it's nice to wave your hands Kermit-like in panic over the threat of the Next Big Thing. It saves us from wondering what we're being distracted from, like the growing intolerance for free speech by the left and in the media, the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, the federal and state bureaucrats making it harder to find affordable health care (thank you John McCain), the suspicious vote fraud among Democrats, and Google and Facebook continuing to suppress speech they don't like.

All of the above have far more impact on our lives and happiness than the fever dreams of a future that may never come.; 12/1/18, 10:45 AM
gilbar said...: Big Mike said...
If we could use genetically engineering to improve intelligence would any Democrat ever be elected again?

tcrosse said...
We could use genetic engineering to make people stupider and more gullible, but television is already doing an effective job of that.

I was going to say (before seeing that gspencer beat me to it (but here i go anyway!)
We wouldn't improve ALL intelligence, we'd probably need three or four groups

Democratic leadership and economic planners, science guys, etc
Democratic party members and the dilberts of the world, etc
Farm laborers, lawncare people, maids, pool cleaners, etc

I guess we could call them the A's, B's and C's? it might sound Cooler if we used Greek letters; 12/1/18, 10:56 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Genies never go back into bottles. In any case, I am far less worried about CRISPR being used in humans than I am about the same process in microorganisms and viruses.; 12/1/18, 10:56 AM
gilbar said...: Bill said... They either never come about (solar power, thorium reactors)....

But some things, like nuclear fusion and automatic cars are just a few years away
they're ALWAYS just a few years away!; 12/1/18, 10:58 AM
mockturtle said...: Mary Shelley had something to say about this.; 12/1/18, 11:00 AM
mockturtle said...: I heard on FOX Business News the other day that China is already doing this.; 12/1/18, 11:01 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: “Big Mike said...
If we could use genetically engineering to improve intelligence would any Democrat ever be elected again?”

Since when does intelligence indicate morality? The first use of any new technology is to weaponize it, if possible.; 12/1/18, 11:17 AM
sane_voter said...: I have said for many years that genetic engineering will be done in the US and around the world, unless you want the world taken over by the Chinese. Because they will do it and do it on a massive scale.; 12/1/18, 11:20 AM
rcocean said...: Oh no, its Hitler's Super-children!

But guess what? The Chinese don't give a shit what the NYT says.; 12/1/18, 11:29 AM
sane_voter said...: Imagine genetic engineering for intelligence, which the Chinese seem to value much more than Americans. Easy to see how China having a much larger than average number of geniuses developing advanced weapons and defenses of all sorts will put us at grave risk.; 12/1/18, 11:30 AM
Jim Gust said...: Gattaca. It's coming.; 12/1/18, 11:47 AM
mandrewa said...: We don't have a choice. If you want the human species to continue, we have to do this.

The only choice is as to how.

To understand why there is no choice but to genetically correct problems at conception look at the mathematics of mutation. Most children are born with a large number of negative mutations. The mutations are rarely so serious as to make a huge handicap, but there they are. And then they compound. Most of the children of the children have new negative mutations which are added to those of their parents. And then the children of the children of the children.

The problem isn't linearly; it is exponential. It's an exponential decay.

Nature solves this problem with natural selection. But natural selection is unacceptable to us because natural selection means the greater part of the population dies at a young age. Hunger games are an almost literal metaphor for natural selection. This is how we would literally have to do it if we were to try to manage the problem short of genetic alterations near or just before conception.; 12/1/18, 11:53 AM
Big Mike said...: Since when does intelligence indicate morality?

@Cracker, do you actually regard the Democrats as a source of morality? Perhaps you can put on a MAGA cap and go discuss this with some antifa mob.; 12/1/18, 11:53 AM
Jokah Macpherson said...: Sexual orientation has very low heritability compared to many behavioral traits. You can predict the orientation of one identical twin from the orientation of the other better than random chance, but only slightly better. Plus, like most traits, it is highly polygenic to the extent that it is heritable. So the term ‘gay gene’ is ‘not even wrong’.; 12/1/18, 12:04 PM
Jeff said...: We need genetic engineering for intelligence to counteract the Idiocracy effect wherein stupid people reproduce at a higher rate than smart people do.; 12/1/18, 1:03 PM
n.n said...: Pro-Choice, or selective and recycled-child, life deemed worthy, convenient, or profitable.; 12/1/18, 1:20 PM
mockturtle said...: It may be possible to engineer intelligence but probably not wisdom. Many intelligent folk have been undone by their own lack of wisdom.; 12/1/18, 1:34 PM
Ralph L said...: We need genetic engineering for intelligence to counteract the Idiocracy effect wherein stupid people reproduce at a higher rate than smart people do.

Medicaid will have to change drastically after entitlements bankrupt the government. Subsidized immunizations could go, too. How to reduce the number of well-off stupid people is a more difficult problem. Promote exotic adventure bucketlists and JackAss/FailArmy stunts?; 12/1/18, 1:44 PM
Openidname said...: Sorry, I can't worry about gene editing right now, I'm too busy worrying about the insect apocalypse.; 12/1/18, 2:29 PM
Mark said...: Sorry, I can't worry about gene editing right now, I'm too busy worrying about the insect apocalypse.

Come on. The answer is right in front of you. Human-insect hybrids.; 12/1/18, 4:40 PM
Clyde said...: Anything that human beings can do, they eventually will do. It does not matter if it is illegal or viewed by most people as unethical. Someone will do it. Any competitive advantage will be seized upon. Genetic engineering will be used to short-circuit the next hundred millenia of evolution to create our successors, who will be faster, stronger and smarter than the current unedited version of homo sapiens sapiens that they will eventually replace. Will they be better? Probably not, at least in terms of human nature. Creating a more capable version of ourselves will not create a nicer version of same.; 12/1/18, 5:48 PM
FIDO said...: Would a pre-experience parent fix their 'gay' kid?

It is funny I see this now. I just finished watching a video where one of the bloggers noted that he'd asked a Lesbian couple if they wanted their daughter to be Lesbian and they FIRMLY opposed it, mostly because of the graphic lack of relationship options, never mind whatever social opprobrium still exists.

This seems in stark contrast to 'little people' (is that a PC term? I prefer midgets) or deaf people who stridently defy people 'destroying their culture' with surgeries or growth hormones.

People are funny. There are two limitless resources, human insanity and their ability to be outraged.; 12/1/18, 5:48 PM
red 3215 said...: You may scoff now, but when Khan Noonien Singh and his genetic supermen are ruling a third of the world you may feel differently.

YMMV.

I'm not a robot.; 12/1/18, 8:16 PM
tim in vermont said...: Whatever they do, it will be “hacking” which is changing lines of code in hopes of producing the desired results based only on guesses about what the changes will do.

That’s the original definition of “hacking” anyway.; 12/1/18, 8:41 PM
tim in vermont said...: It goes like this, you edit in the resitance to a virus you have created, then in a gneration or so, you relase the virus and then collect the world.; 12/1/18, 8:44 PM
Zach said...: CRISPR is not accurate enough to ethically use on human embryos yet. It doesn't just make changes in the places you want, it also makes unintended changes elsewhere. That happened on both of the babies that were announced last week. It also happens in the other species they've used CRISPR on, and in nonviable embryos that were never going to be carried to term. So it's not like this was some unforeseen risk.

That's subjecting children to a real possibility of genetic disease for a marginal increase in AIDS resistance that could have been gotten in other ways, like using condoms.

The first time children were subjected to that risk should have been to fix some fatal genetic disorder, where the risk of side effects is unambiguously outweighed by the advantages of the intended effect.; 12/2/18, 4:35 PM
Zach said...: How many nines of reliability would you need before you would be comfortable doing an experiment on a child who is, after all, not an experimental animal, hasn't given any consent, and will live her entire life with the results? Do you have to be 90% accurate? 99%? 99.9%?

Trick question! The answer is zero nines. It's closer to 50-60%. They had to apply the procedure multiple times to make sure that every cell was affected, and neither of the two babies was modified in exactly the way they wanted. It's not even clear that they will end up with enhanced AIDS resistance, since not every cell was affected.

This wasn't a technological advance. It was just a researcher willing to do things that other researchers weren't willing to do.; 12/2/18, 4:44 PM
Zach said...: If you want to see some scathing hot takes, look at the coverage in STAT news or some of the specialist press.

It's one thing to draw an ethical line in a slightly different place than other people. It's another thing to just blatantly use experimental procedures on human beings.; 12/2/18, 4:50 PM
Zach said...: I see the arguments about inevitability, but it seems to me that those arguments assume that the technology works, is safe, is effective, and has no side effects.

The people in the field (I'm not in the field myself) are not acting like any of that is true.; 12/2/18, 5:02 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: How many bioethicists does it take to cure a disease?; 12/2/18, 9:09 PM
Unknown said...: This ability could also be used to create a race of dollards, a group that would accept orders from leaders and perform tasks without complaint.

We could call them Democrats.; 12/3/18, 7:31 AM