/sci/ - Science & Math

No.
This is why experimental studies should be allowed on prisoners and their off-spring.

>>11200657
that doesnt seem very ethical

>>11200652
you probably should have quoted the article for the part where there is side effects of CRISPR use

>>11200652
Your English is fucking dogshit, buddy.
You could do with some intelligence enhancement, too.

>>11200652
Human body is the disaster. Intelligent design is the true future, not the religious meme of course, but artificial bodies designed from scratch with clear purpose in mind

>>11200752
Based. Fuck you OP. You ignorant fuck, I bet you don't even know what a TALEN is.

>>11200757
Natural evolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>11200757
The problem is that our body and genetic is a perfect example of a chaotic system.
We simply cannot predict the outcome of modifying a gene. Therefore, any intelligent design is, at best, a scam.

However, I am sure the humanity will go this way soon or later... The consequences might be disastrous.

>>11200664
China cares not for your ethics.

>>11200664
>be non ethical
>scientifically advance at the speed of light
>be ethical
>get destroyed by advanced non ethical aliens
hmmm

>>11200664
>ethics
not math or science
>>11200752
kek
>>11200652
>OOOPS
>we China ACCIDENTALLY enhanced these kids brains
>it was an accident I swear
>>11200757
mainly due to natural selection no longer being active in society, it's important to intelligently design humans as to avoid dysgenic traits summing over time.

Natural mutations affect every human at a rate higher than crispr produces

>>11201018
we are doing pretty well actually

Step 1 is to make a population immune to a bacterial weapon
Step 2 is to unleach said bacterial weapon
Step 3 ????. (harvest organs)
Step 4 Live forever

>>11201033
>We simply cannot predict the outcome of modifying a gene
That's why I said "designed from scratch". Human body (and natural evolution in general) is the perfect example of what happens when you repeatedly renovate a mud hut to keep with changing demands by slapping new floors on top of old ones until it becomes an enormous clusterfuck of a skyscraper where you can never tell that fixing a leak on one side won't take out power somewhere completely different and swapping a broken lightbulb in the bathroom won't set off a 1MT nuke nobody even knew was there.
At some point it's easier to scrap the whole thing and build a new one properly, too bad we don't know yet how to make one big enough to house all the important inhabitants (and tell which ones should leave while at that)

>>11201033
>>11200652
>We simply cannot predict the outcome of modifying a gene, so eugenics will be a disaster.
Right.

And we simply cannot predict the outcome of administering drugs so pharmacy must be a disaster.

Or alternatively testing can replace predicting to avoid disasters...

>>11201169
>Or alternatively testing can replace predicting to avoid disasters
Yes I agree with you (even if the impact of temporally taking a drug is largely lower than modifying a gene)!
We do test a drug before putting it on the market...

Now, how do you test the impact of engineering the genome? Can we run a clinical trail during a life time on a small group of people? For example to check if a mutation increase cancer...
No we wont...
Or how do you assess if your genome editing technique will impact the survival of a group/specie on long term? We test the genetic modification on a few generation of Chinese?

We will never perform the required human testing to evaluate the impact of genetic modification. Never!

>>11200652
>china spends decades researching IQ increasing genes
>their HIV resistant gene editing "accidentally makes IQ increase"
WOAH (((COINCIDENCES)))

>>11201210
>the impact of temporally taking a drug is largely lower than modifying a gene
Not for long term treatments of chronic diseases.
We don't need a lifetime of observation. A few years is enough to ensure significant problems are unlikely to appear.

Now the problem is that drug trials can be interrupted if things go wrong, genetic modifications cannot, so the first dozens or hundreds of people affected will have to be sacrificed (until gene therapy is possible). That's not catastrophe level but I admit it sounds pretty bad.

But there's another way to test gene modifications, that is impossible with most drugs and makes it much safer.
It's to observe their effects in individuals already possessing that gene naturally.
In the foreseeable future, gene modifications will indeed consist in duplicating genes found in living (and healthy) individuals, not in making up new genes from scratch. For example this Chinese experiment consisted in duplicating genes that were observed to make people immune to HIV.

So just by examining these people and ascertaining that they do not present particular medical conditions in significant numbers compared to the rest of the population, you can tell that such conditions are unlikely go arise in individuals to whom you give those genes.

Rather than directly editing genes and suffering potentially catastrophic developmental consequences you can, firstly, utilize epigenetic-‘’enhancing’ methods to play around the genome while avoiding total biological collapse that may occur via unforeseen consequences

Intelligent population is dangerous. You only need a small group of non retarded people to keep them in line but sufficiently stupid so they don't revolt against you efficiently.

>>11200652
>Look at this case of genetic engineering making people even better than intended
>Omg what if bad stuff is magically caused

The genes involved
ALREADY
EXIST
IN
THE
HUMAN
POPULATION
THAT
IS
HOW
THEY
KNOW
IT
IMPROVES
HUMAN BRAIN RECOVERY AFTER STROKE YOU FUCKING RETARD!!!!!

>>11200664
Your opinion on what is ethical is your opinion on what is ethical. No more significant than which type of pizza you think tastes the best.

>>11201043
there is no advancement without ethics

>>11201305
>Trying to reify morality by calling it “ethics”

Still just opinion devoid of truth.

>>11201045
we have a problem that a certain group wants to encourage dysgenic traits for everyone else

>>11201389
Please tell me exactly who that group is.

>>11201253
The parentheses is to be used only with joos, no chinks.

>>11201408

>>11201288
>We don't need a lifetime of observation. A few years is enough to ensure significant problems are unlikely to appear.
We do need a long term observation! Cancers occur in advance age... you need that the group reaches this age to know if they have higher risk of cancer.

Let's take a concrete example. In-vitro procreation is a technique widely used... However, we still have no idea if a person created with this method might have higher risk of cancer. I cite:
"In brief, the evidence of cancer risk in children after ART is still very limited. Further studies and long-term follow-up are necessary to determine whether ART had an impact on cancer occurrence."

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3650450/
I took cancer as an example... but many more problems might occurs.

>in duplicating genes found in living (and healthy) individuals, not in making up new genes from scratch.
Still, if you implement this technique on large scale, you will strongly reduce the genetic pool of human population. What are the consequences of that? We simply don't know.
But viruses and bacteria might spread more easily. The population might also be less able to survive to environmental changes. We might even influence the diversity of the population behavior/character, which might impair the social cohesion...
It is all open question and, I strongly believe, genetic manipulation will be largely implemented before we have any answers.

>>11201437
>Muh social cohesion

Fuck off /pol/

>>11201441
>Fuck off /pol/
Yeha... /pol/ strongly believe that a large genetic pool is important for social cohesion.
Right to the point buddy.

>>11201441

>Disregarding that entire post because he said the phrase social cohesion

Chill out kid

>>11201033
>However, I am sure the humanity will go this way soon or later... The consequences might be disastrous.
A few designer babies will be born with three arms and drooling retardation. But so fucking what? Just keep on trying until you get it right.

>>11201423
god damn it I knew it was the trees, those green leafy fuckers were always up to something just standing there growing away

The funny thing is if China makes a breakthrough, every country will throw ethics to the wind in order to play catch up.

>>11201305
sounds like some sjw bs your professor forced down your throat. Just give it a couple seconds of rational thought and realize why its wrong. If you still can't come to your own conclusions, ask us and we'll provide real world historical scenarios where unethical practices contributed to huge advancements.

>>11201521
clearly it's the Canadians, those fucking leafs...

>>11201043
Luckily there doesn't exist any actual aliens in reality.

>>11201423
who cares about those loser's opinion.
THEY don't have to do it.

>>11201782
I mean, the Europeans were the non ethical aliens to those bead trading casino gooks

>>11200652
Why would they try to make them immune to HIV?

>>11201791
...same reason people go to the hospital and get treatment for HIV. It's undesirable

>>11201389
jews

>>11201791
Because HIV is bad?

>>11201805
>>11201808
No shit what I mean is do they foresee a scenario where they get exposed to a ton of HIV?

>>11201791
HIV is a bad and deadly disease so it’d be better for human wellbeing if we didn’t get HIV at all. Should be obvious.

>>11201815
It was just a small-scale experiment. The results could be applied en masse to eradicate the disease entirely.

>>11201815
>do they foresee a scenario where they get exposed to a ton of HIV
Yes, the dad had HIV.

>>11201821
but does removing the pathway that makes them vulnerable to HIV have another role that could reduce their fitness if removed?

>>11201834
CCR5Δ32 homozygotes, people that naturally have the mutation that the babies were given, are perfectly healthy as far as we can tell, so probably not.

>>11201872
>https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614764/chinas-crispr-babies-read-exclusive-excerpts-he-jiankui-paper/

>None of the embryos got the 32-base-pair deletion to CCR5 that is known in millions of humans. Instead, the embryos/eventual babies got novel variations, whose effects are not clear. As well, what does “partial resistance” to HIV mean? How partial?

Oh and anyone thinking that they tested only one variant is fooling themselves.
This clearly looks well planned and they probably edited multiple genes only to play it off as "off target" later in the paper so they dont get more heat than planed.

>>11201782
How would you know that?

>>11201437
>Let's take a concrete example. In-vitro procreation is a technique widely used and we still have no idea if a person created with this method might have higher risk of cancer.

Good example. Despite not knowing for sure, we established early on that there was no outstanding risk, and it became a common procedure. And this is not a catastrophe or a disaster.

A few years of observation is enough to avoid grave large-scale issues.

>if you implement this technique on large scale, you will strongly reduce the genetic pool
What is strongly ? That's an arbitrary judgement on your part.
>But viruses and bacteria might spread more easily.
Or less, since we would spread resistant genes
>The population might also be less able to survive to environmental changes
Or more, since we would be able to adapt ourselves
>We might even influence the diversity of the population behavior/character, which might impair the social cohesion.
Or improve it, since we could spread favorable genes

More generally, your stance could be applied to any and all changes that happen. Industrialization, education of the poor, information technologies, antibiotics, fertilizers and pesticides... everything carries risk, and the end result can never be known in advance, and we go on anyway.
We usually survive.
That's life, get used to it.

>>11201970
this whole gene editing/screening approach can only do spot changes, from livestock breeding studies we've observed that there is a very real misalignment, you have to impose a selection gradient on the population or you end up with a poorly adapted population.

>>11201791
cause they are jealous of people who are immune for real

>>11200652
CCR5 homozygous here, yet my IQ is 85. This is bullshit, they have no proof.

>>11201043
It's spelled "asian" not "alien"

>>11200652
>You modify something that is ment to help with memorization and it turns out it also makes your language capticy go to nill.
Yep, we're fucked. A few generations from now everyone will be malformed sociopaths.

>>11200652
Genetical modification is still sci-fi for the reasons you mentioned but old fashioned eugenics works. Sterilize criminals and other genetical scum and make succesful people to produce as many babies as possible.

>>11202356
What about bankers?

>>11202356
>>11202356
>Sterilize criminals and other genetical scum and make succesful people to produce as many babies as possible
That's sure to create a better world.

>>11202425
>three traitorous puppets
it's arguably one of the benefits of religion that you can hold the leaders accountable to the tenets of the faith.

>>11200757

>muh purpose built sex dick meatsack

>>11202432
You're not aware of this thing called history ? You should look into it.

>>11202425
>A member of the Conservative party is a “leftist” in your imagination

Wheeze

>ethics
What is ethics?

>>11202486
That's sarcasm. I usually use this picture on /pol/.

>>11202484
I said arguably.

>>11202425
You have to remember this is after 150 years of dysgenics including the 2 world wars that generally took out the better soldiers first and fed them into the meat grinder of industrial war without leaving offspring behind.

>>11200802
The Chad Talen

>>11202433
man I just want my size adjustable over-under ribbed double penises.

>>11200664
Shut up moralfaggot.

>>11200664
>0.0001% chance of harm on a criminal and saving millions of lives is bad

muh ethics can't do basic balancing of risk vs reward

>>11201210
>We will never perform the required human testing to evaluate the impact of genetic modification. Never!
Watch me

>>11201210
this is what the ethical humanities cancer wants to spread

>We can't do that without knowing what will happen
>No you can't experiment in any way to know what will happen
>No we can't solve cancer now, what about colonialism and access to the cure in The Congo?

Science is infected by do-nothing retards afraid of breaking eggs. Guess what, humans die, get over it and let humanity move forward.