Is gene editing human embryos ethical?
The Future of Embryo Selection Website: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381443461/the-pulse
Audio: https://whyy-od.streamguys1.com:443/thepulse/thepulse20220610.mp3
My current thinking is that if it's accurate and has well-understood mechanisms for preventing disease, and, most importantly, it's standard for everyone, then it's probably possible to do it ethically. So, those are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions -- you get to some pretty screwed up places if you rope in so-called disorders and use population statistic to identify traits. It's just not clear that these things can be separated linearly such that we're not systematically throwing out useful variation in the human behavioral range by eliminating based on partial information. Hubris may be our downfall here.
@trinsec it's quoted in the podcast episode.
yeah, there is the aspect of people are still going to have children without gene editing. Would they become second-class citizens? Will parents who conceive naturally be considered unethical or even immoral for doing so? Maybe the only way to have fair and universal access would be germ-line editing through a viral vector that prevents gene-linked diseases for everyone infected -- imagine the political upheaval over that.
I sympathize with the guy in the story trying to do gene editing for IVF wanting a good outcome for his kid, but his certainty that this tech is an unambiguous good makes my skin crawl. Like have you *really* thought about it deeply? Maybe you're a *little* biased?
Much like Communism, eugenics seems like a good idea on paper, until you remember that, inevitably, humans will be in charge.
@nattiegoogie eugenics sounds like a terrible idea even before you write it down. I think there is something besides trying to "perfect" humanity (which, what the frak does that even mean?). If we can reliably tell that a person is going to have schizophrenia, is that something we should just let ride? People with a whole host of conditions have provided inspiration or inspired compassion among millions -- is there utility in that? Is it worth the suffering for those with those conditions? Is that suffering fait accompli or further conditioned on parental and societal reaction to it?
My current position is that although there are good and worthy people with specific diseases (by which I mean, let's not lump them all together), we probably should prevent some of them if we can. We should also provide support for people with incurable diseases so they can live full lives.
Gene editing embryos to remove potential diseases is eugenics, and as you noted, even well-intentioned, it is fraught with potential negative consequences. Plus, humans being humans, personal and cultural biases are always going to intrude.
Is there a way to prevent people being born trans? A decade ago, the vast majority of people would have been all for that; a decade from now, that idea will probably have the same connotation as trying to "cure" homosexuality.
@nattiegoogie you're performing a rhetorical trick in calling all embryonic gene editing "eugenics", uniting the practice with a broad and mostly racist ideology that's generally considered to be unethical. there's more to it, and possibly some good. my position, I stated, but my direction is towards talking more about these questions because they're practically very important and becoming more important every year
Meh. I don't think I am. But I'm tired of the debate. Believe what you like.
In China and India, boys are preferred. For decades, since we've had reliable "what gender is my unborn child" tests, those countries have had a "find out the gender then go next door to abort the girls" pipeline.
Is that wrong? Seems wrong to me, but I don't live in those cultures, plus trying to put a stop to it starts to butt up against legal abortions.
But I do know that, the more control humans have over their children's genetics, the more we will scramble our gene pool.
@2ck Sounds like Gattaca, good movie.