first genetically modified baby born in China

Poll

Do you support genetically modified babies?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist

Do you support the scientist who did or not?

No he didn't apply for "ethical approval" and he just did it. But I think that's brilliant because we need more people like him to push the boundaries of science. Lack of human experimentation is holding back progress.

One of the largest jumps in human biomedical understanding came from Nazi scientists experimenting on Jews. The data was invaluable and we all benefited from it.

----

edit: one day, I hope genetic editing at birth won't merely be "acceptable", it will be unacceptable not to as other parents shudder in disgust that some other parents would let chance dictate the maximum potential of their offspring instead of making sure before they are born. governments too, i hope would frown upon randomly born babies because genetically edited babies less susceptible to disease, more productive etc, better for society and everyone.

(edited 5 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

adam277

It's IN very early stages so I support it at the moment.
But caution needs to be taken.

I think there is a good sci-fi movie that relates to this a lot Gattaca (1997)

Basically it shows that the richest in society can have genetic superbabies that have so many more advantages over the people born from poor families that can't afford to remove defective genes. So you get a societal division of genetic superhumans and the average human based on wealth alone.
OR something like that it's been a few years since I've seen that movie.

Reply 2

nonotyoutoo

I don't believe in universal human rights. There exists nothing in nature such that it accords rights to a particular kind of ape.

What we do have is a convention of a bill of rights that is ratified by various nation states, should they wish. There is no such a thing as a "right" across every nation state or culture.

I actually believe more people should be killed. Bring back capital execution and harvest the organs or experiment on the condemned. They can chose to consent, or die early.

Otherwise, I do believe people should be given the right to consent and be adequately compensated.

As for human experimentation , ethical approval are man made shackles to progress. Science must be bold.

Clearly our views are on opposite ends of the soecfrum.

Reply 3

jackcade

Original post by nonotyoutoo

One of the largest jumps in human biomedical understanding came from Nazi scientists experimenting on Jews. The data was invaluable and we all benefited from it.

That is not the most persuasive possible argument for your position.

Reply 4

jackcade

The last one isn't like the others. Why do the approvers occupy any superior moral position to the experimenter? Obviously it should be illegal for scientists to murder or commit battery but that is true of non-scientists as well. Why should ordinarily legal actions be subject to professional ethicists? Is "professional ethicist" actually a valid category?

Reply 5

jackcade

Your post strongly implied that you supported a system of review of human experiments. Perhaps you do not. OK.

Reply 6

fallen_acorns

Not a fan - its a pandoras box.

I fear a good-willed but naive scientist will open the door hoping only to ensure every baby is born without desease, but then the implications of the technology and the possibilities of desiging babies would warp and be taken advantage of, and not be a good thing for humanity as a whole.

Reply 7

jackcade

All of that is true. And yet I do not need approval to dump my girlfriend.

Reply 8

adam277

I'm massively ignorant on the history of Nazism but a blind man could see that there is definitely a 'winning' side view of history prevalent about the Nazis.in all schools. I don't want to expand on this too much as I suspect that I've already dug myself a big hole but it's not all black and white.
Sun Tzu "Know the enemy and know yourself."

Reply 9

IQuitTSR

OMG NOW BABIES ARE IMMUNE TO DISEASES

now vulnerable to an even worse then-unknown disease and/or other weird side effects

antibiotics were thought to be great at first but now bacteria are getting resistant to those (while the good ones still get eradicated)

you can't play with this stuff

Reply 10

jackcade

Dumping my girlfriend is much more potentially harmful than a wide class of human experiments (see e.g. this blog post describing ethics bureaucracy sinking a human study that involved filling out a questionnaire).

Performing an invasive study without consent is ordinarily illegal, just as if you committed battery against me in the street. It does not need to be made somehow more illegal by the actions of a board composed of people who are neither law enforcement officers nor jurists.

Reply 11

jackcade

I am not an expert on what the law is. What I am saying is that medical ethics has become much more restrictive than personal ethics. So listing the requirement to submit to the approval of these boards alongside a moral requirement to not advocate genocide or commit murder is perhaps not reasonable.

Reply 12

adam277

The babies get genetically modified while still in a test tube no?
I assume that's the case and no trials are actually being done on actual babies.

Reply 13

jackcade

There is no question whether OP would be allowed to make decisions alone to experiment on people invasively without their consent. This was illegal before the existence of medical ethics boards. The purpose of medical ethics boards is to restrict ordinarily lawful intercourse between people.

Reply 14

jackcade

Maybe, but who cares what he thinks? You are talking like if there are no medical ethics boards OP could genocide whole races with impunity. He would still be subject to the law of the land.

(2) In fact, medical ethics boards do more than what you claim. Again, try looking into medical law and ethics.
Obviously I will not do so for the sake of this discussion. I made an attack on them in outline. I would be interested to see a defence in outline. But the time I'm willing to commit to this is limited. I freely grant there is a possibility I would change my mind if I did commit a very large amount of time. Surely not fully though - see the questionnaire study example.

Reply 15

jackcade

I said that I found the list of things that you made to be incongruous. I did not say you were wrong in whatever broader disagreement you have with the OP.

Reply 16

jackcade

I don't know what you are talking about. You seemed to be suggesting that the OP (or at least the audience watching the two of you debating) should find those things obviously correct and desirable. I can agree on murder and nonconsensual violence being wrong; I can pretty much agree on being a Nazi being wrong (some concession to freedom of conscience aside). But ethics boards are not inherently reasonable in this way and there are many strong reasons why. This doesn't depend on your personal philosophies.

Edit: (3) I could very easily give you an argument that, in fact, they aren’t incongruous because they’re based on concepts of bodily autonomy, consent and due process.
Incorrect. Ethics boards are not based on consent. They exist to prevent consensual acts; even if they affect to also prevent non-consensual acts, this function is redundant.

Reply 17

jackcade

Presumably in a way so as to render the first two meaningless.

Reply 18

jackcade

The position to which you are fumbling is Orwellian. You are suggesting that if my girlfriend sleeps with me because she hopes I will respond by buying her a nice dinner without making her plan clear in writing that she has raped me.

Reply 19

jackcade

I call it Orwellian because the effect of this line of argument is to use a verbal trick to invert the ordinary meaning of concepts while using the ordinary words for those concepts to sell them to a gullible public.