Ethics and HGGM

  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 07, 2012 12:44 AM GMT
    It seems that in previous posts to RJ that a few RealJockers are working in the area of molecular biology and perhaps genomics. I am curious as to your position on the ethics of employing HGGM or Human Germline Genetic Modification.

    All comments are welcome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 8:05 PM GMT
    I think it should be used to remove the genetic flaw of unattractive qualities. Why not have everyone hot? icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 8:20 PM GMT
    People screaming about genetic engineering would not turn down an artificial heart or a replacement limb.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 9:01 PM GMT
    I wouldn't make any blanket statement for or against it. I'm sure that as soon as it becomes possible, someone somewhere will find a way to abuse it spectacularly. But there would be a million more ways to use it constructively. As far as I can tell, the current state of "bioethics" is that something becomes ethically permissible only by paying a bioethicist a sufficient sum of money. For example, a panel ruled that it was unethical for Craig Venter to sequence his own DNA, since it was impossible for him to give informed consent to himself. (No one had been paid for it.)

    Two things about HGGM though.
    1) It will allow our evolution to switch from Darwinian to Lamarckian, and become much more rapid.
    2) In some scenarios, it might lead to speciation. That is, in a relatively rapid time, humanity could be split into multiple different species.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 16, 2012 12:24 AM GMT
    mindgarden saidI wouldn't make any blanket statement for or against it. I'm sure that as soon as it becomes possible, someone somewhere will find a way to abuse it spectacularly. But there would be a million more ways to use it constructively. As far as I can tell, the current state of "bioethics" is that something becomes ethically permissible only by paying a bioethicist a sufficient sum of money. For example, a panel ruled that it was unethical for Craig Venter to sequence his own DNA, since it was impossible for him to give informed consent to himself. (No one had been paid for it.)

    Two things about HGGM though.
    1) It will allow our evolution to switch from Darwinian to Lamarckian, and become much more rapid.
    2) In some scenarios, it might lead to speciation. That is, in a relatively rapid time, humanity could be split into multiple different species.


    Lamarckian evolution is not HGGM. What makes you think that HGGM is not possible somewhere in the world today?
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 16, 2012 12:27 AM GMT
    Gym_bull saidI think it should be used to remove the genetic flaw of unattractive qualities. Why not have everyone hot? icon_razz.gif


    You get my vote. I want my offspring once engineered, to look like this, with a few variations of course:

    Beauty
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 12:37 AM GMT
    conservativejock saidIt seems that in previous posts to RJ that a few RealJockers are working in the area of molecular biology and perhaps genomics. I am curious as to your position on the ethics of employing HGGM or Human Germline Genetic Modification.

    All comments are welcome.


    Welcome to Gataca
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 19, 2012 10:17 PM GMT
    minox said
    conservativejock saidIt seems that in previous posts to RJ that a few RealJockers are working in the area of molecular biology and perhaps genomics. I am curious as to your position on the ethics of employing HGGM or Human Germline Genetic Modification.

    All comments are welcome.


    Welcome to Gataca


    Gataca?
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Jun 19, 2012 10:20 PM GMT
    conservativejock said
    minox said
    conservativejock saidIt seems that in previous posts to RJ that a few RealJockers are working in the area of molecular biology and perhaps genomics. I am curious as to your position on the ethics of employing HGGM or Human Germline Genetic Modification.

    All comments are welcome.


    Welcome to Gataca


    Gataca?


    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 19, 2012 10:26 PM GMT
    minox said
    conservativejock saidIt seems that in previous posts to RJ that a few RealJockers are working in the area of molecular biology and perhaps genomics. I am curious as to your position on the ethics of employing HGGM or Human Germline Genetic Modification.

    All comments are welcome.


    Welcome to Gataca


    Oh, I found a description of Gattaca. In the movie, they were ensuring children were birthed by selecting germline DNA through preimplantation genetic diagnosis. HGGM is not that. HGGM is altering the "germ line" so as to propagate changes in individuals born by traditional copulation between man and woman. It is not unlike what was used in the movie but on a much broader scale. It is meant to control successive generations.

    Personally, I don't think that is the route per se to follow. It can be used to sove one set of problems but direct engineering of the material in the fertilized egg is preferable, though vastly more complex. It also requires an unreal computational system to perfect the engineering. It makes weather models look timid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2012 10:28 PM GMT
    conservativejock said
    mindgarden saidI wouldn't make any blanket statement for or against it. I'm sure that as soon as it becomes possible, someone somewhere will find a way to abuse it spectacularly. But there would be a million more ways to use it constructively. As far as I can tell, the current state of "bioethics" is that something becomes ethically permissible only by paying a bioethicist a sufficient sum of money. For example, a panel ruled that it was unethical for Craig Venter to sequence his own DNA, since it was impossible for him to give informed consent to himself. (No one had been paid for it.)

    Two things about HGGM though.
    1) It will allow our evolution to switch from Darwinian to Lamarckian, and become much more rapid.
    2) In some scenarios, it might lead to speciation. That is, in a relatively rapid time, humanity could be split into multiple different species.


    Lamarckian evolution is not HGGM. What makes you think that HGGM is not possible somewhere in the world today?


    I don't think you understand these terms.
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Jun 19, 2012 10:31 PM GMT
    Oh, boy, eugenics!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2012 10:35 PM GMT
    jim_stl saidOh, boy, eugenics!


    Isn't the introduction of new traits into the gene pool and the lack of necessary sterilization/genocide rather quite the opposite of eugenics?
  • handsoffire

    Posts: 178

    Jun 19, 2012 10:41 PM GMT
    I'm for it, you're correct, he didn't get it.

    Anything can be abused, IF we get rid of all the things that can be abused or misused we have no tools left :S
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2012 10:48 PM GMT
    conservativejock said
    Gym_bull saidI think it should be used to remove the genetic flaw of unattractive qualities. Why not have everyone hot? icon_razz.gif


    You get my vote. I want my offspring once engineered, to look like this, with a few variations of course:

    Beauty


    Sounds disturbingly Hitlerish.
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Jun 19, 2012 11:13 PM GMT
    NorthCountyDudeSD said
    jim_stl saidOh, boy, eugenics!


    Isn't the introduction of new traits into the gene pool and the lack of necessary sterilization/genocide rather quite the opposite of eugenics?


    Not necessarily. The term "eugenics" applies to any large-scale efforts to improve humanity through genetic control, and there are two basic approaches to that end:

    1) positive eugenics, where "good" qualities are emphasized, and
    2) negative eugenics, where "bad" qualities are eliminated.

    Eugenicists of the past initially preferred the former approach, since it was most like the animal husbandry and plant breeding that they were used to, but it presented them with logistical problems (few humans consider genetics when they fall in love). Negative eugenics proved far easier for them, and it kind of spiralled out of control from there.

    Positive eugenics is much more feasible now than it was even twenty years ago. However, we'd need to do a TON of work to determine each gene's full ramifications, both individually and in concert with other genes and epigenomic factors, before we can start deciding what to keep and what to excise.

    And there's still the nagging ethical question: who decides which qualities are good and which are bad? Remember, there are many who'd consider homosexuality a trait to be eliminated from the human race.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2012 11:23 PM GMT
    Gym_bull saidI think it should be used to remove the genetic flaw of unattractive qualities. Why not have everyone hot? icon_razz.gif


    I think you're kidding, but I'm going to answer this seriously because some people might actually agree.

    Because then hot would be commonplace. The reason why certain qualities are considered to be more universally attractive is because they're relatively rare in the general population. Obviously, this varies from culture to culture, but the fact remains.

    All of that said, I don't have any qualms with genetic engineering if it's purely for medical purposes. Things like artificial organs, nerve regeneration, etc. I don't think parents should be allowed to genetically engineer their child. There are not only ethical issues, but also potential socio-economic ramifications that will follow. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley explains this pretty fairly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2012 6:52 PM GMT
    redsoxfan791 said
    Gym_bull saidI think it should be used to remove the genetic flaw of unattractive qualities. Why not have everyone hot? icon_razz.gif


    I think you're kidding, but I'm going to answer this seriously because some people might actually agree.

    Because then hot would be commonplace. The reason why certain qualities are considered to be more universally attractive is because they're relatively rare in the general population. Obviously, this varies from culture to culture, but the fact remains.

    All of that said, I don't have any qualms with genetic engineering if it's purely for medical purposes. Things like artificial organs, nerve regeneration, etc. I don't think parents should be allowed to genetically engineer their child. There are not only ethical issues, but also potential socio-economic ramifications that will follow. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley explains this pretty fairly.


    Look I dunno about but genetic engineer would be best since we as humans have almost made natural selection impossible to occur. There are people out there with genetics that should not breed, but that isn't right. Instead we should give them the chance to make their offspring better and function properly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2012 6:56 PM GMT
    conservativejock said
    Gym_bull saidI think it should be used to remove the genetic flaw of unattractive qualities. Why not have everyone hot? icon_razz.gif


    You get my vote. I want my offspring once engineered, to look like this, with a few variations of course:

    hmmm.. interesting idea. But it might get extremely boring if all were the same.

    clones.png


    variety.... spice... life.... ???!!!