/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11204270

You should not do wrong-think. Reading this is bad. Ideas are bad. Authority is right.

They don't want you to read it.

This should not be read by scientists. A shadowban was placed and full censorship done on spreading it. You should not think these thoughts.

28 Nov 2018 - International Summit on Human Genome Editing - He Jiankui presentation and Q&A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLZufCrjrN0

Logical reasoning for giving HIV resistance

>>11204270
Good thread. This is the future.

>>11204270
So will this only benefit newborns/not born babies?

>>11204316
it benefits humanity

>>11204318
I know, I am just confused about how it can be used, that's why I asked.

>>11204318
to explain: Reducing the costs of healthcare of other people, improves your life. If your society has an extra trillion dollars because you have eliminated a bunch of genetic diseases that effects you positively.

Hence, a huge net-improvement to human health will benefit you regardless of whether it is another families baby or your own getting the enhanced health.

>>11204321
>>11204318
don't care virgin I want gene therapy NOW

>>11204270
Not published =/= banned

>>11204323
Nothing is isolated. If say Canada knew that a wide-range of genetic diseases and genetic problems related to health would be cured. They could use credit to fund such research at a higher rate.

This is immediately beneficial to any society that undertakes it. You can plan to have an extra trillion or whatever dollars and budget accordingly.

>>11204316
Crispr will be most useful for making therapies where cells are removed from the body, modified, and then reintroduced, or through viral delivery systems to the target. There's trials involving white blood cells modified to target cancers, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell trials are also going on. Also one for glaucoma. Basically loads of stuff going on.
Modifying embryos for monogenic diseases doesn't make much sense, as it would be far easier to just select embryos that lack the mutation - so it's only necessary in parents who are homozygous for the mutation. Even then, since most monogenic diseases are recessive, it would be cheaper and less risky to just select a heterozygous embryo. Modifying embryos to provide benefits might make some sense, there's a list somewhere with a few dozen rare mutations that confer substantial benefits, like reduced alzheimers, reduced cardiac disease etc. obviously the more edits you make the greater the risk you mess something up, so again, selection is easier and less risky.

>>11204337
The best improvements possible in humans are transgenic. Hence not achievable by selection. Introducing novel improvements from other species is the way to the maximal intelligence possible in a short time.

See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26639-the-smart-mouse-with-the-half-human-brain/

Introducing a massive positive improvement to neurons/astrocyte/neural health from another species is how you get radical improvement.

see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon

even a small change via crispr can have massive results using a transgenic example. Something not from our regular gene pool but that another species on earth discovered was hugely beneficial to health or intelligence.

>>11204347
There will be massive public resistance to that, and it will be impossible to ascertain the results of the modification for decades, so it will be unlikely to become widespread for a while. PGS scores are already being used in embryo selection and that will have substantial impact on future population health/cognitive abilities.

>>11204357
Yeah, but it's a possibility and there are many species on earth with better known neuron density and other favorable traits. A silver bullet could exist with a massive effect size on human cognitive ability. It also might be testable with brain organoids and an understanding of the risk vs reward.

Again, an intelligence race is a total arms war. This is Darwinian evolution just accelerated. Such searching could certainly be considered for survival. Even if you never use the nuke you want to know what' spossible

>>11204337
Can crispr also be used on mitochondria to slow down the production of free radicals or to reverse negative mutations caused by rapid mitochondria mitosis?

for people who don't think this is an arms race

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/chinese-scientists-insert-human-brain-gene-monkeys-spark-ethical-debate-ncna998076

>infection rate is 10x higher for anal than for vaginal
>spread mostly through premarital flings and other whoredom

HIV does more good than harm

>>11204362
Taking parrot genes (or something) is really too speculative - the challenges for fundamentally restructuring the human brain would be enormous! How would such a human behave? Would they still have human instincts and emotions?
Nah, if you want to get sci-fi start digging up old geniuses, Newton, Gauss, Leibniz, Pascal, von Neumann and the rest of the Manhattan project team, do some cloning or iterative selection. Imagine some super humans, who have two genetic grandparents from the Manhattan project and two grandparents from olympic heptathletes. You can basically do selective breeding in the lab now.

>>11204372
>muh /pol/ ethics

>>11204375
Not quite but there is some overlap

>>11204377
I take back what I said, this is based.

>>11204374
Chimp Working Memory