GM humans in the future?

[HerCrazierHalf]

As we all know CRISPR has made it possible to genetically modify with far less resources than before. As shown by the “3 parent” baby a who ago bad DNA can be replaced. Or it can be used to fight AIDS\HIV (in mice for now).

But what if it became possible to edit human DNA to obtain the features we want in our children? Would having “organic” children be setting then up for failure?

Ted talk

The ethical dilemma of designer babies

Creating genetically modified people is no longer a science fiction fantasy; it's a likely future scenario. Biologist Paul Knoepfler estimates that within fifteen years, scientists could use the gene editing technology CRISPR to make certain "upgrades" to human embryos -- from altering physical...

www.ted.com

 

[DaveBj]

I have a sci-fi story in my head in which humans meet aliens on friendly terms. One male alien and a human female fall in love and marry. They can’t actually consumate the marriage, but they “create” a child by taking parts of each parent’s DNA. We’re not far from that right now.

Meanwhile, and with reference to CRISPR, y’all might find this treatment of the subject enjoyable:

D

 

[PJH_74]

It’s always a limit on where the ethics are. Like many technologies and abilities the application is almost always the issue. If it is simply to help people move beyond diseases, I see few issues, of course the slope is slippery.

Certain groups like the Jehovah Witnesses reject most medicine totally. Today there are many who see this as child abuse. People who refuse to vaccinate are also in a similar boat. Years ago there was likely a similar response as to the topic of this thread. Even today we keep people alive on artificial life support only to occasionally have to face the moral dilemma of taking them off.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

It’s always a limit on where the ethics are. Like many technologies and abilities the application is almost always the issue. If it is simply to help people move beyond diseases, I see few issues, of course the slope is slippery.

Ok, let’s say it is to cure diseases. Does this mean that that person has a moral obligation to tell a potential spouse? After all, edited genes become hereditary.

 

[Jared2914]

I think a big part of the morality would be based on how it is done. Most likely editing genes is going to require some sort of in vitro fertilization procedure, where fertilization is happening outside the womb. We are against this as Catholics, so gene editing in this way would be morally evil. However, if they design some special virus that somehow can “clip” out the bad gene or replace it with a properly functioning one, it would probably be morally good. It would be no different then taking a pill to treat a disease. Of course, this kind of targeted, beneficial virus is mostly beyond our current science plus we still don’t know enough about human genes to understand what gene needs to be fixed for each disease. It’s very complex stuff. In short, something that’s done after birth, like surgery is okay. Something done before birth is probably going to be immoral.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The more ethical method you mentioned isn’t that far away. A few years ago they almost cured a mouse of HIV by using CRISPR and a special virus. I can’t see why that couldn’t be another way one day.

 

[BornInMarch]

If we are genetically modifying humans after they are conceived then I think that’s no different than giving a leg to a man who lost his natural one.