Gene editing of humans

[ZiprHead]

Just saw a chyron scroll on CNN saying the Chinese government have suspended the activities of the gene-editing scientists. Nothing on the website yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course it is exactly like creating a master race. Or can be.

Genetic engineering can be used to correct genes which cause disease and disability.

Genetic engineering can be used to create human beings with enhanced potential abilities and characteristics, including height, athletic ability, pigmentation of hair, eyes, skin, certain talents, intelligence.

What about the second set of characteristics is not like what the Nazi's claimed they were pursuing? Technology did not exist during the 30's and 40's to be able to specifically select characteristics. It doesn't quite exist now--not yet. But yes, it is coming and yes, it is very much like what the Nazi's claimed they were doing: creating a master race.

Just because you can find a parallel with the Nazis doesn't mean it's automatically evil. The big difference here is that any baby can be given the characteristics, not only selected ones.

Not that you are not an expert on luddites but disruption of society is not the real risk or concern. The real concern is whether it is moral or right to select characteristics such as height, athletic ability, intelligence, coloration, etc. The Nazis did not think it was wrong. They intended to do so, using the technology at their disposal which was exterminating anyone who did not measure up to their standards of racial purity and physical and mental fitness. The only difference here is the technology.

The extermination of the inferior is a separate issue.

However, in this particular case I agree with you. They deleted a protein to give HIV immunity--but what other changes will that cause? This is not something that we should be doing in humans yet! (Now, if they had edited it to replace it with the HIV-immune version that would be another matter.)

Yes, if the gene that codes for the receptors that allow HIV to enter a cell is disabled, what other ways is that cell altered? What will be the unforeseen and unintended consequences?

I'm not sure it was a gene allowing it to enter, but it is a gene without which HIV can't do evil. You're exactly right about my objection, though--what legitimate reason does that protein serve? What else did they inadvertently knock out?

Then, there is the entire question of whether or not we believe that this person has done what he says he has done. It would hardly be the first time that someone has lied about data or accomplishment, nor the first time that someone in China has done so.

In time it will be easy enough to test. Sequence his DNA, does he have the gene?

Well, the individuals are girl babies so there is no HE involved. You can sequence HIS DNA all you want and you won't find out anything. HE does not carry the altered gene. Maybe those baby girls do. Maybe they do not.

I had never heard the gender of the baby so I was using "he" in the generic sense. And it's not an altered gene, it's a removed gene. Had they altered it to the HIV-resistant form I wouldn't be objecting.

Of course that creates the situation whereby what right does the world have to access these children's DNA and sequence it and utilize the results? If their DNA can be examined on demand, why cannot yours or mine?

There would be no utilizing, simply sequencing to confirm/deny the claims.

And of course, does anyone really, truly know what specific gene codes for those particular receptors on T cells? Would we know enough to be able to identify the specific gene? We have not yet identified every gene and its purpose in the human genome. How would the effectiveness be tested? Would we really expose individuals to HIV to test the hypothesis?

We do know enough in this case. For some years now we have known of a gene that is essential to HIV infection. If you have the mutated form of it you appear to be immune. (Obviously, this can't be proven other than statistically.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Intelligence is not a simple matter.

It is not the result of the work of a few genes.

It is the result of hundreds maybe thousands of genes working together.

Many things happen in a developing nervous system. Massive migrations and massive die off of cells. These are spatially dependent, not gene dependent. It is more than genes.

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

It is not something that a person can choose for.

It is not an outcome that can be guaranteed.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

Just because we don't know enough now to gene edit for intelligence doesn't mean it will never be possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, they don't. It depends what we're measuring. If we're measuring IQ, then, no. It's highly heritable.

IQ is a score on a test. And test scores are highly dependent on test-taker motivation and exposure to the concepts tested at an early age.

There are two aspects to intelligence--innate ability and how that ability is developed. Poor circumstances can keep people from reaching their potential, it doesn't appear to change their potential.

People can score highly and be completely lost in the real world which requires emotional and social intelligence.

I don't believe "intelligence" is the right word here. I do agree there are other important skills besides intelligence.

All it means is you are good on a test.

In practice there's a strong relationship between IQ and what sort of job you do. Since this applies even to those who haven't had any sort of IQ test the causation can only run in one direction.

A test that does not measure emotional or social intelligence.

And it is absurd to think that geniuses are only born to people with high IQ test scores.

Why do I get the strong suspicion you got a score you were unhappy with on an IQ test?

 

[untermensche]

Intelligence is not a simple matter.

It is not the result of the work of a few genes.

It is the result of hundreds maybe thousands of genes working together.

Many things happen in a developing nervous system. Massive migrations and massive die off of cells. These are spatially dependent, not gene dependent. It is more than genes.

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

It is not something that a person can choose for.

It is not an outcome that can be guaranteed.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

Just because we don't know enough now to gene edit for intelligence doesn't mean it will never be possible.

It most certainly means it is not possible now.

The nervous system does not develop based just on genetic information.

There is massive migration of cells which is an event governed by spatial dynamics, not just genes.

There is massive dying off of cells, another event dependent on where the cell is, by spatial information, not genetic information.

The building of a brain is a somewhat random event because of these factors.

The result can never be controlled just by monkeying with some genes.

 

[Toni]

Just because you can find a parallel with the Nazis doesn't mean it's automatically evil. The big difference here is that any baby can be given the characteristics, not only selected ones.

Loren, surely you realize that zygotes were selected for gene editing, right? That this isn't the same thing as a vaccination that could indeed be given to any individual.

No, these zygotes were selected according to....who knows what criteria.

Nazis selected according to a variety of criteria as well. They used certain criteria to select who would go immediately to gas chambers; they used a different criteria to select individuals for medical experiments. Coincidentally, twins were also their favorite subjects for medical experiments.

The extermination of the inferior is a separate issue.

How interesting that you chose to introduce the extermination of the inferior into this conversation. That's a Nazi thing, I believe? Believing that one can identify 'the inferior' and for the benefit of society, exterminate those determined to be inferior. Like Jews, Gypsies, some other religious groups, gay people, 'mental defectives' and so on. Is that what you meant, Loren?

However, in this particular case I agree with you. They deleted a protein to give HIV immunity--but what other changes will that cause? This is not something that we should be doing in humans yet! (Now, if they had edited it to replace it with the HIV-immune version that would be another matter.)

Loren, you clearly don't understand what the scientist claims to have done.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...crispr-babies-has-been-suspended-without-pay/

He said the girls had been conceived using IVF but that his team had added “a little protein and some information” to the fertilized eggs. That was a reference to the ingredients of CRISPR, the gene-editing technology he apparently employed to delete a gene called CCR5.

FWIW, I don't believe the article has it correct, either.

Here's this link which I know you won't read but it discusses the basis for natural immunity to HIV. Here are some highlights:

CCR5 deletion
C-C chemokine receptor type 5, also known as CCR5 or CD195, is a protein on the surface of white blood cells that is involved in the immune system as it acts as a receptor for chemokines. This is the process by which T cells are attracted to specific tissue and organ targets. Many strains of HIV use CCR5 as a co-receptor to enter and infect host cells. A few individuals carry a mutation known as CCR5-Δ32 in the CCR5 gene, protecting them against these strains of HIV.

In humans, the CCR5 gene that encodes the CCR5 protein is located on the short (p) arm at position 21 on chromosome 3. A cohort study, from June 1981 to October 2016, looked into the correlation between the delta 32 deletion and HIV resistance, and found that homozygous carriers of the delta 32 mutation are resistant to M-tropic strains of HIV-1 infection.[12] Homozygous carriers of this mutation are resistant to M-tropic strains of HIV-1 infection. Certain populations have inherited the Delta 32 mutation resulting in the genetic deletion of a portion of the CCR5 gene.[13][14][15][16][17][18]

Cytotoxic T-lymphocytes
Cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs) provide a protective reaction against HIV when consistent exposure to the virus is present. Sex workers are found to have these CTLs within genital mucus, preventing the spread of HIV within heterosexual transmission. While creating a protective seal, CTLs become ineffective when lapses in HIV exposure occur, which leads to the possibility of CTLs only being an indicator of other genetic resistances towards HIV, such as immunoglobulin A responses within vaginal fluids.[8][19]

I'm not sure it was a gene allowing it to enter, but it is a gene without which HIV can't do evil. You're exactly right about my objection, though--what legitimate reason does that protein serve? What else did they inadvertently knock out?

How....religious of you but none of the HIV viruses can and do not 'do evil.' HIV virus impairs the ability of certain CD4+ T cells to proliferate, which decreases the number of T cells available to fight infection and also inhibits the production of B cells, another important component of the immune system.

I had never heard the gender of the baby so I was using "he" in the generic sense. And it's not an altered gene, it's a removed gene. Had they altered it to the HIV-resistant form I wouldn't be objecting.

Really? That's interesting. The gender of the twins is mentioned in every single article about this supposed technique, including the one in the OP.
Removal of that gene likely will cause serious effects in those individuals.

Of course that creates the situation whereby what right does the world have to access these children's DNA and sequence it and utilize the results? If their DNA can be examined on demand, why cannot yours or mine?

There would be no utilizing, simply sequencing to confirm/deny the claims.

Really? By what right does anyone get to access these children's DNA in order to sequence it? And how exactly do you suppose they will know if the gene has been edited? I really want you to tell me because you really don't know what you are talking about.

And of course, does anyone really, truly know what specific gene codes for those particular receptors on T cells? Would we know enough to be able to identify the specific gene? We have not yet identified every gene and its purpose in the human genome. How would the effectiveness be tested? Would we really expose individuals to HIV to test the hypothesis?

We do know enough in this case. For some years now we have known of a gene that is essential to HIV infection. If you have the mutated form of it you appear to be immune. (Obviously, this can't be proven other than statistically.)

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. At all.

 

[Toni]

Intelligence is not a simple matter.

It is not the result of the work of a few genes.

It is the result of hundreds maybe thousands of genes working together.

Many things happen in a developing nervous system. Massive migrations and massive die off of cells. These are spatially dependent, not gene dependent. It is more than genes.

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

It is not something that a person can choose for.

It is not an outcome that can be guaranteed.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

Just because we don't know enough now to gene edit for intelligence doesn't mean it will never be possible.

It most certainly means it is not possible now.

The nervous system does not develop based just on genetic information.

There is massive migration of cells which is an event governed by spatial dynamics, not just genes.

There is massive dying off of cells, another event dependent on where the cell is, by spatial information, not genetic information.

The building of a brain is a somewhat random event because of these factors.

The result can never be controlled just by monkeying with some genes.

Loren doesn't understand much about biology or genetics. He doesn't understand that possessing a gene is not the same thing as expressing a gene, for example, much less what factors influence genetic expression. Nor does he understand basic childhood development.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Intelligence is not a simple matter.

It is not the result of the work of a few genes.

It is the result of hundreds maybe thousands of genes working together.

Many things happen in a developing nervous system. Massive migrations and massive die off of cells. These are spatially dependent, not gene dependent. It is more than genes.

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

It is not something that a person can choose for.

It is not an outcome that can be guaranteed.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

Just because we don't know enough now to gene edit for intelligence doesn't mean it will never be possible.

It most certainly means it is not possible now.

The nervous system does not develop based just on genetic information.

There is massive migration of cells which is an event governed by spatial dynamics, not just genes.

There is massive dying off of cells, another event dependent on where the cell is, by spatial information, not genetic information.

The building of a brain is a somewhat random event because of these factors.

The result can never be controlled just by monkeying with some genes.

Despite your eternal denial of reality intelligence is heritable. Thus it can be changed by genetic editing.

 

[Elixir]

Trump is exactly what these people would try to create.

Well, they better be prepared to give the kid $2m when he's 3 years old, a ton of conditioning toward racism and xenophobia, and over $400m by the time he's in his twenties. Otherwise they'll never be able to create an aberration quite as horrid as Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, surely you realize that zygotes were selected for gene editing, right? That this isn't the same thing as a vaccination that could indeed be given to any individual.

No, these zygotes were selected according to....who knows what criteria.

So?

Nazis selected according to a variety of criteria as well. They used certain criteria to select who would go immediately to gas chambers; they used a different criteria to select individuals for medical experiments. Coincidentally, twins were also their favorite subjects for medical experiments.

Nazis drank water. I suppose you consider drinking water evil?

How interesting that you chose to introduce the extermination of the inferior into this conversation. That's a Nazi thing, I believe? Believing that one can identify 'the inferior' and for the benefit of society, exterminate those determined to be inferior. Like Jews, Gypsies, some other religious groups, gay people, 'mental defectives' and so on. Is that what you meant, Loren?

The point is the culling is what made the Nazis evil, not their attempt to improve people.

 

[Elixir]

The point is the culling is what made the Nazis evil, not their attempt to improve people.

"The lynching is what made Southern racists evil, not their attempt to make their communities safe!"

 

[untermensche]

It most certainly means it is not possible now.

The nervous system does not develop based just on genetic information.

There is massive migration of cells which is an event governed by spatial dynamics, not just genes.

There is massive dying off of cells, another event dependent on where the cell is, by spatial information, not genetic information.

The building of a brain is a somewhat random event because of these factors.

The result can never be controlled just by monkeying with some genes.

Despite your eternal denial of reality intelligence is heritable. Thus it can be changed by genetic editing.

Intelligence is undefined and undefinable. It is a multitude of things and most of them are not tested on an IQ test.

It is like the concept "personality". A concept that is a multitude of things.

And intelligence mostly comes from experience. It is a mind's reaction to the world.

Almost all humans have very similar capacities for developing intelligence.

There are a few very rare outliers. The modern world rests on the shoulders of these incredibly rare geniuses.

Where humans differ mainly is experience, beginning in the womb.

What is inheritable is experience. You inherit the experiences of your parents as those experiences have shaped your parents.

A person is not born into a vacuum. They inherit fully formed parents and a fully formed world.

 

[Elixir]

It most certainly means it is not possible now.

The nervous system does not develop based just on genetic information.

There is massive migration of cells which is an event governed by spatial dynamics, not just genes.

There is massive dying off of cells, another event dependent on where the cell is, by spatial information, not genetic information.

The building of a brain is a somewhat random event because of these factors.

The result can never be controlled just by monkeying with some genes.

Despite your eternal denial of reality intelligence is heritable. Thus it can be changed by genetic editing.

Intelligence is undefined and undefinable. It is a multitude of things and most of them are not tested on an IQ test.

It is like the concept "personality". A concept that is a multitude of things.

And intelligence mostly comes from experience. It is a mind's reaction to the world.

Almost all humans have very similar capacities for developing intelligence.

There are a few very rare outliers. The modern world rests on the shoulders of these incredibly rare geniuses.

Where humans differ mainly is experience, beginning in the womb.

What is inheritable is experience. You inherit the experiences of your parents as those experiences have shaped your parents.

A person is not born into a vacuum. They inherit fully formed parents and a fully formed world.

The capacity to learn definitely has a genetic component. Your notion that "What is inheritable is experience" reeks of Lamarckism, and is mostly (but not 100%) wrong.

 

[untermensche]

The capacity to learn definitely has a genetic component. Your notion that "What is inheritable is experience" reeks of Lamarckism, and is mostly (but not 100%) wrong.

Of course it has a genetic component.

But most people have the same capacities.

What differs is experience.

Beginning in the womb.

You are baffled by the statement "What is inheritable is experience".

You "inherit" the experience of your parents, what they have learned, and all people around you by experiencing your parents and all the people around you. You acquire their vocabulary and learn their ideas and how they reason.

If your father is a professor you inherit something different through the experience of interacting with him than if your father is in jail addicted to meth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The capacity to learn definitely has a genetic component. Your notion that "What is inheritable is experience" reeks of Lamarckism, and is mostly (but not 100%) wrong.

Of course it has a genetic component.

But most people have the same capacities.

What differs is experience.

Beginning in the womb.

So the identity of the sperm donor should have no effect. It does, though.

 

[untermensche]

So the identity of the sperm donor should have no effect. It does, though.

Give the same sperm to a rich married woman living in suburbia and a poor single woman in an inner city slum and you will have two different children.

But experiments like this are not carried out.

 

[Toni]

The capacity to learn definitely has a genetic component. Your notion that "What is inheritable is experience" reeks of Lamarckism, and is mostly (but not 100%) wrong.

Of course it has a genetic component.

But most people have the same capacities.

What differs is experience.

Beginning in the womb.

You are baffled by the statement "What is inheritable is experience".

You "inherit" the experience of your parents, what they have learned, and all people around you by experiencing your parents and all the people around you. You acquire their vocabulary and learn their ideas and how they reason.

If your father is a professor you inherit something different through the experience of interacting with him than if your father is in jail addicted to meth.

Yes, what happens while gestating in the womb is important to fetal development and overall health of the resulting child--and to some extent, also the intelligence of the child. This is true of the mother's health months or even years leading up to conception. If she is in optimal health, she has the best chances of giving her child advantages in health and intelligence, not during gestation or early childhood but also throughout their life. It's one of the reasons that it is so shortsighted of society to not provide an easy means to excellent nutrition to all its citizens.

Other environmental factors that the mother experiences also affect the health and intelligence of her unborn child. Drugs/alcohol leap to mind but stress affects mother and developing child. So does pollution, adequate clean water, and of course, any violence she might experience. Domestic abuse accounts for a significant portion of stress and ill health for pregnant women and their children.

Only someone who is ignorant would assert that highly intelligent individuals always produce highly intelligent offspring. The most obvious and well known example of this being false is Albert Einstein's child, who, despite being born to exceptionally intelligent parents was probably developmentally delayed.

Children of migrant workers or janitors or homeless people are often quite intelligent although this is also quite often overlooked by schools who see: poor kid and think dumb kid with lousy parents who don't care--which is not any more true of the child of a janitor than it is of the child of a CEO.

People often assume that the child of a professor or doctor or lawyer or CEO is intelligent.

Those assumptions that one child is more intelligent and the other is less intelligent affect how that child is treated at every step of their lives. Unfortunately.

Children who were removed from very neglectful home circumstances when very young were found to have lower intelligence scores when tested while in foster care. Years later, children who were adopted by loving families showed significant gains in their intelligence scores, with a high correlation to the socio-economic status of their adoptive families--the more well to do and well educated the adoptive family, the more the adopted child's scores improved.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Almost all humans have very similar capacities for developing intelligence.
.

What are you basing that opinion on? A hunch? You've already robbed yourself of the only tool we have of measuring intelligence. Yet you have an opinion on this? Isn't the logical conclusion of your beliefs that you have no idea?

Perhaps you are thinking of extremely poor countries with chronic malnutrition? When the malnutrition is fixed IQ skyrockets for a couple of generations. But then again... that's IQ. Which you don't want to measure

 

[untermensche]

Almost all humans have very similar capacities for developing intelligence.
.

What are you basing that opinion on? A hunch? You've already robbed yourself of the only tool we have of measuring intelligence. Yet you have an opinion on this? Isn't the logical conclusion of your beliefs that you have no idea?

Perhaps you are thinking of extremely poor countries with chronic malnutrition? When the malnutrition is fixed IQ skyrockets for a couple of generations. But then again... that's IQ. Which you don't want to measure

It is based on the fact that human diversity is not that large because humans have not been around that long.

It is called genetics.

What an IQ test does is exaggerate very small differences.

Insignificant differences in the real world.

Except in systems where test scores not total abilities are rewarded.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Almost all humans have very similar capacities for developing intelligence.
.

What are you basing that opinion on? A hunch? You've already robbed yourself of the only tool we have of measuring intelligence. Yet you have an opinion on this? Isn't the logical conclusion of your beliefs that you have no idea?

Perhaps you are thinking of extremely poor countries with chronic malnutrition? When the malnutrition is fixed IQ skyrockets for a couple of generations. But then again... that's IQ. Which you don't want to measure

It is based on the fact that human diversity is not that large because humans have not been around that long.

It is called genetics.

What an IQ test does is exaggerate very small differences.

Insignificant differences in the real world.

Except in systems where test scores not total abilities are rewarded.

I work in IT. The job itself can be seen as an ever ongoing intelligence test. It's quickly pretty damn obvious who's smarter. At any IT job I've had I could easily rank them all by intelligence. Easy. It's always apparent. And it's got nothing to do with age or experience. Or gender.

I don't think you've been out much in the real world