Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What do you think about genetically engineered people?
Replies
-
I'm not going to invoke Godwin's Law here, but it sounds like the first step toward creating the Master Race.
I guess I have to ask, do you think humans would ever agree on what a master race really is? I could see a few master races being created, then they all try to kill each other and be the best and whatever, and everything changed, but in some ways nothing really did. We already do that anyways....5 -
It is a nuanced issue. Genetic engineering is a tool, nothing more nothing less. Like any tool, people can use it to great effect and benefit or they can use it to harm or they can just use it ineptly. So first off I want to say I am in no way against "genetic engineering" because that would be like being against hammers. I'm against misuse of genetic engineering kind of like I would be against someone using a hammer as a blunt force weapon.
In this particular case I think this scientist is rushing something not sufficiently tested into human testing for the sake of a spotlight or a "first" and that is unethical. That is not a condemnation of the tech itself nor its potential future use in humans.
Now, as to the larger issue of genetic engineering being used in humans I think it is also nuanced, there are plenty of things where I think it would be a clearly beneficial and valued approach to take, others where it is more gray and others where it is unethical.
As an example I think using a genetic engineering tool to fix a genetic defect such as the cause of cystic fibrosis identified during early stage genetic screening of infants (should we reach that capability in the future) would be a pretty clear win. "Fixing" genetic issues such as dwarfism or blindness however might be met with some warranted hostility from communities of people that do not see that as a defect to be fixed so much as an alternate way of being in this world. Then you have your potential uses for "designer" babies for just whatever eye color etc etc you may want. There I would say if the risk of the treatment is non-zero that such an application would be unethical and even if it was zero it would still be questionable.
All of those use-cases are hypotheticals though. The tech could be used now, in theory, to engineer an egg used for IVF in a way that would affect the development of the fetus but I don't think it is there yet as a tech to actually change an already developed human being.
Also there is the important ethical distinction between somatic treatments and germ-line treatments. I think in the case of elected consented somatic treatment then it should be treated like any other treatment. When you get to something that affects the germ-line though I think that does take it to a different level of discussion.6 -
This is completely unrelated, but the headline makes me smile, and it's thematically related to the title of this thread.
Nigerian president denies dying and being replaced by clone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/its-real-me-nigerian-president-denies-dying-and-being-replaced-by-clone0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is completely unrelated, but the headline makes me smile, and it's thematically related to the title of this thread.
Nigerian president denies dying and being replaced by clone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/its-real-me-nigerian-president-denies-dying-and-being-replaced-by-clone
I mean, if he *was* replaced by a clone, we wouldn't expect him to admit it, would we?
*puts on tinfoil hat*3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is completely unrelated, but the headline makes me smile, and it's thematically related to the title of this thread.
Nigerian president denies dying and being replaced by clone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/its-real-me-nigerian-president-denies-dying-and-being-replaced-by-clone
I mean, if he *was* replaced by a clone, we wouldn't expect him to admit it, would we?
*puts on tinfoil hat*
Perhaps he was programmed not to know.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is completely unrelated, but the headline makes me smile, and it's thematically related to the title of this thread.
Nigerian president denies dying and being replaced by clone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/its-real-me-nigerian-president-denies-dying-and-being-replaced-by-clone
I mean, if he *was* replaced by a clone, we wouldn't expect him to admit it, would we?
*puts on tinfoil hat*
Perhaps he was programmed not to know.
This has always been one of the creepiest ideas to me . . . that we could be clones or replicants of some sort and we'd never even know.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is completely unrelated, but the headline makes me smile, and it's thematically related to the title of this thread.
Nigerian president denies dying and being replaced by clone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/its-real-me-nigerian-president-denies-dying-and-being-replaced-by-clone
I mean, if he *was* replaced by a clone, we wouldn't expect him to admit it, would we?
*puts on tinfoil hat*
Perhaps he was programmed not to know.
This has always been one of the creepiest ideas to me . . . that we could be clones or replicants of some sort and we'd never even know.
Why movies like the Matrix are so popular. There's a primal fear at play within these themes. That reality may not be as we believe.
Can one prove reality?2 -
^^^^ I can...I just don't feel like it
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is completely unrelated, but the headline makes me smile, and it's thematically related to the title of this thread.
Nigerian president denies dying and being replaced by clone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/its-real-me-nigerian-president-denies-dying-and-being-replaced-by-clone
I mean, if he *was* replaced by a clone, we wouldn't expect him to admit it, would we?
*puts on tinfoil hat*
Perhaps he was programmed not to know.
If you haven't seen a movie called Moon, you should.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is completely unrelated, but the headline makes me smile, and it's thematically related to the title of this thread.
Nigerian president denies dying and being replaced by clone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/its-real-me-nigerian-president-denies-dying-and-being-replaced-by-clone
I mean, if he *was* replaced by a clone, we wouldn't expect him to admit it, would we?
*puts on tinfoil hat*
Can we really take him at his word that he isn't dead?1 -
If you know your child is going to be born with a congenital condition and you can take away that condition, I don't know very many parents who would turn that down (assuming they could afford it, of course). Now giving your child blue eyes or making sure you get a daughter is a bit much, but at the end of the day as long as the parents aren't giving their children some disease (I don't know who would ever do this but you never know) I don't think it's that big of a deal. If the parents can afford it, sure.3
-
I thought this was an interesting updated breakdown of the situation:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/15-worrying-things-about-crispr-babies-scandal/577234/
There are really two separate issues here: What do you think of genetically engineering people as a theoretical thing we will no doubt someday be doing, and what do you think about what this individual researcher did.
Perhaps someone who is more dialed into this field will correct me if I'm wrong, but my layperson's understanding is we don't really know enough yet about gene-editing to do it with any sort of confidence yet. In other words, we know that pushing this button might make your eyes blue, but it will also do other things, only some of which we know about for sure.4 -
I thought this was an interesting updated breakdown of the situation:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/15-worrying-things-about-crispr-babies-scandal/577234/
There are really two separate issues here: What do you think of genetically engineering people as a theoretical thing we will no doubt someday be doing, and what do you think about what this individual researcher did.
Perhaps someone who is more dialed into this field will correct me if I'm wrong, but my layperson's understanding is we don't really know enough yet about gene-editing to do it with any sort of confidence yet. In other words, we know that pushing this button might make your eyes blue, but it will also do other things, only some of which we know about for sure.
Yes, this is my main objection. I have no inherent objection to genetically engineering people (although I can certainly think of many potential problems). It's doing it right now, with all we don't yet know, that concerns me.1 -
I thought this was an interesting updated breakdown of the situation:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/15-worrying-things-about-crispr-babies-scandal/577234/
There are really two separate issues here: What do you think of genetically engineering people as a theoretical thing we will no doubt someday be doing, and what do you think about what this individual researcher did.
Perhaps someone who is more dialed into this field will correct me if I'm wrong, but my layperson's understanding is we don't really know enough yet about gene-editing to do it with any sort of confidence yet. In other words, we know that pushing this button might make your eyes blue, but it will also do other things, only some of which we know about for sure.
Maybe somewhat of an expert. I agree with your analysis. Maybe some day we will be able to edit with certainty, but we have a long way to go. We dont even fully understand trancription and translation and all the different ways it's controlled.4 -
FitAndLean_5738 wrote: »If you know your child is going to be born with a congenital condition and you can take away that condition, I don't know very many parents who would turn that down (assuming they could afford it, of course). Now giving your child blue eyes or making sure you get a daughter is a bit much, but at the end of the day as long as the parents aren't giving their children some disease (I don't know who would ever do this but you never know) I don't think it's that big of a deal. If the parents can afford it, sure.
I mean we do see issues around this surrounding the debate surrounding cochlear implants. There are plenty of people who are vehemently against cochlear implants, some of whom are Deaf. This includes Deaf parents of Deaf children who are good candidates for the procedure.3 -
Cystic fibrosis runs in my family. It's a clear case where there is a single gene to fix, which encodes a single protein, which has been heavily, heavily researched. Fixing broken CFTR genes would be a win for individuals, families, and humanity.
I still wouldn't mess with a baby using CRISPR/Cas9. We're not very good at any of this yet.
But I do hope that they get good at targeted single gene edits. CF is horrible.4 -
siobhanaoife wrote: »Cystic fibrosis runs in my family. It's a clear case where there is a single gene to fix, which encodes a single protein, which has been heavily, heavily researched. Fixing broken CFTR genes would be a win for individuals, families, and humanity.
I still wouldn't mess with a baby using CRISPR/Cas9. We're not very good at any of this yet.
But I do hope that they get good at targeted single gene edits. CF is horrible.
Exactly, I referenced CFTR earlier for the same reason...a potential clear win for the technology. My concern is that stunts like the one that started this conversation will cast the technology in a disparaging light in the public eye and cause regulatory and funding issues that will harm the development of legitimate uses and treatments.
Genetic engineering already has a negative connotation for much of the public (Monsanto) that in my opinion is not deserved. Attention grabbing stunts like this aren't going to help.6 -
The earth is trying really hard to survive. Let it.
3 -
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Nah. Just that the earth is trying hard to rid itself of this annoying, harmful virus and the damn virus keeps fighting back by changing, and now can even engineer the change.
6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Nah. Just that the earth is trying hard to rid itself of this annoying, harmful virus and the damn virus keeps fighting back by changing, and now can even engineer the change.
Eh....not sure how I feel about that. I like humans...I am a human....pretty much all of my friends and family are humans. I am an enviormentalist and think that our lack of action on climate change is a travesty but I care about the planet because we live on it and it is where I keep all of my stuff. It is in our best interest long-term to protect it.
If I didn't care about humanity really not sure why I'd care about this particular planet.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Nah. Just that the earth is trying hard to rid itself of this annoying, harmful virus and the damn virus keeps fighting back by changing, and now can even engineer the change.
Joining the Green party are you?0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Nah. Just that the earth is trying hard to rid itself of this annoying, harmful virus and the damn virus keeps fighting back by changing, and now can even engineer the change.
Joining the Green party are you?
LOL
Hard to do when I keep trying to show up in my full-sized V8 powered pickup.4 -
Most humans like "some" humans. But liking ALL humans seems to be a challenge, even for the best of humans.
4 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....
It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.
I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?
And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.
If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.
*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.
4 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....
It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.
I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?
And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.
If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.
*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.
I am not strongly against it but the "designer baby" thing does make me a bit uncomfortable so I guess I'll try to explain why.
For me it is about consent. If a 30 year old wants to get a tattoo that is fine by me....it is not for me but the risk is low and it's there choice. If that same 30 year old wanted to tattoo their baby though that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Would be the same for me if you could use genetic engineering to change a physical feature for cosmetic reasons.
Now if the change is reversible then that makes it slightly better...although arguably you can have a tattoo removed too. If there is any sort of risk of harm then I think it just starts being clearly unethical. Even without chance of harm though I still find it a bit gross for an adult to force cosmetic choices onto an unborn child who cannot consent.
I actually very much for developing genetic engineering based tech and therapies....but I'd rather not see it uses so casually for aesthetics alone.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....
It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.
I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?
And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.
If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.
*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.
I am not strongly against it but the "designer baby" thing does make me a bit uncomfortable so I guess I'll try to explain why.
For me it is about consent. If a 30 year old wants to get a tattoo that is fine by me....it is not for me but the risk is low and it's there choice. If that same 30 year old wanted to tattoo their baby though that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Would be the same for me if you could use genetic engineering to change a physical feature for cosmetic reasons.
Now if the change is reversible then that makes it slightly better...although arguably you can have a tattoo removed too. If there is any sort of risk of harm then I think it just starts being clearly unethical. Even without chance of harm though I still find it a bit gross for an adult to force cosmetic choices onto an unborn child who cannot consent.
I actually very much for developing genetic engineering based tech and therapies....but I'd rather not see it uses so casually for aesthetics alone.
What really changes though? It's not like the fetus chooses how they look now and we are shifting from their choice to the parents. Why is parental input bad compared to "luck of the draw"?1 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....
It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.
I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?
And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.
If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.
*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.
I am not strongly against it but the "designer baby" thing does make me a bit uncomfortable so I guess I'll try to explain why.
For me it is about consent. If a 30 year old wants to get a tattoo that is fine by me....it is not for me but the risk is low and it's there choice. If that same 30 year old wanted to tattoo their baby though that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Would be the same for me if you could use genetic engineering to change a physical feature for cosmetic reasons.
Now if the change is reversible then that makes it slightly better...although arguably you can have a tattoo removed too. If there is any sort of risk of harm then I think it just starts being clearly unethical. Even without chance of harm though I still find it a bit gross for an adult to force cosmetic choices onto an unborn child who cannot consent.
I actually very much for developing genetic engineering based tech and therapies....but I'd rather not see it uses so casually for aesthetics alone.
What really changes though? It's not like the fetus chooses how they look now and we are shifting from their choice to the parents. Why is parental input bad compared to "luck of the draw"?
Intent is the difference...and intent matters. To see that just apply the logic you used here to anything else.
Bob accidentally leaves his new iPhone10 on the subway. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by "luck of the draw"....he didn't choose it. Joe steals Bob's new iPhone10 on the subway when Bob isn't looking. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by Joe's input. In both situations the end result for Bob is the same, so are these two events morally equivalent or is one more wrong than the other? In my opinion in one situation it was happenstance, no moral issue, while in the other situation Joe wronged Bob...doesn't matter that the end result was the same.
If parents decide to make their kids eyes blue and then later in life, in a society that chooses eye colors, blue eyes are considered a sign of vanity and the now adult suffers societal consequences for their blue eyes as a result...that is not happenstance, that is a choice that person had no voice in made to them by someone else. That isn't right. Even if it is reversible it isn't right, same way that in the above example Joe could feel guilty later and buy Bob a new iPhone10....doesn't make his original choice any more right.
To me there is a big difference being nature and random chance doing something to you you didn't want and another person doing something to you you didn't want.
If a parent tattooing a baby makes you uncomfortable I'm not sure why them using genetic engineering tech to change that babies physical appearance wouldn't also make you uncomfortable.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Bob accidentally leaves his new iPhone10 on the subway. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by "luck of the draw"....he didn't choose it. Joe steals Bob's new iPhone10 on the subway when Bob isn't looking. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by Joe's input. In both situations the end result for Bob is the same, so are these two events morally equivalent or is one more wrong than the other? In my opinion in one situation it was happenstance, no moral issue, while in the other situation Joe wronged Bob...doesn't matter that the end result was the same.
If parents decide to make their kids eyes blue and then later in life, in a society that chooses eye colors, blue eyes are considered a sign of vanity and the now adult suffers societal consequences for their blue eyes as a result...that is not happenstance, that is a choice that person had no voice in made to them by someone else. That isn't right. Even if it is reversible it isn't right, same way that in the above example Joe could feel guilty later and buy Bob a new iPhone10....doesn't make his original choice any more right.
To me there is a big difference being nature and random chance doing something to you you didn't want and another person doing something to you you didn't want.
If a parent tattooing a baby makes you uncomfortable I'm not sure why them using genetic engineering tech to change that babies physical appearance wouldn't also make you uncomfortable.
Here are the flaws with this analogy.
First, stealing an iPhone was wrong BEFORE it happened in the story. In the eye-color story, the cultural decision about blue-eyes happened after the parents made their choice. That's blaming them for things outside their set of available knowledge at the time of the decision. And what about the people who got blue-eyes by chance? Aren't they also being discriminated against? So wouldn't that be genetics fault if it was the parents fault for the chosen kid?
Second, the embryo doesn't have ANY rights. It isn't a person yet. The only reason it would exist is because Person A & B decided to combine genetic material. If if develops into a person (survives the dangers of pregnancy) it is born with limited rights. The parents have the right to make the majority of decisions for the child as long as basic needs (food, shelter, heat, education) are met, and the child isn't put into danger. As a parent, one gets to decide everything else.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions