A Nobel Prize winner argues banning CRISPR babies won’t work - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nobel-prize-winner-david-baltimore-crispr-babies-ban A registry could keep human gene editing aboveboard, David Baltimore says

People with money will simply do whatever they have to get what they want.

Shouldn't be banned anyway.

People AND governments. Remember, everything in China is state run to an extent, and the CCP has zero ethics whatsoever. I can only shudder to imagine what kind of genetic abominations they are going to create by completely disregarding any reasonable research standards in their quest to engineer supermen.

There is no extent, china's government and the largest companies thereof are part and parcel.

There are severe ethical issues that arise from the concept of designer babies in an unregulated market. And what do you even do when it's regulated - you can't punish a person for being born. The whole thing feels like watching someone open pandora's box really slowly, but you can't do anything to stop them.

Always treat these kinds of bans as an attempt to fuck over the common man - like it's said, what hey gonna fucking to when an entire country does it? Or a big corporation? Cry? If it's a "country" maybe coax the opposition to take over? Banning it is basically guaranteeing that the ultrarich will completely separate from everyone and probably attempt to most brutally (like, pick out ribs with a crowbar tier brutal) exterminate us the unmodified. Maybe the last part is a hyperbole, but it never hurts to assume maximum maliciousness

That isn't an argument for a ban.

The reason I used those choice of words is that a large part of the Chinese economy is in cooperation with foreign companies. But yes, every homegrown corp in China is a purely state-run effort. And their CRISPR experiments are most assuredly going to be as well.

You wanna know what is? The uncontrolled mutations that will come of it.

Can't wait for movies to become too real with genetic abominations stories showing up in China. A step further and we're gonna have Umbrella or something

That's kind of besides the point that banning it is pointless because it'll happen anyway. Best to get people to be as open about it as possible to develop the tech as safe as it can be.

the ultrarich wouldn't want to kill the underclasses, that would be stupid. power is meaningless when there's nobody to lord it over.

I don't think it should be banned, but it should be something heavily regulated and only provided as a free service by the government. The wealthy making a whole new race of super humans to lord over us has me uneasy

Its not fucking besides the point, a mono culture is bad. And in addition; runaway genetic mutation can have incredibly detrimental affects to everyone. I don't care if 'well the rich will have it'; then you fucking punch them. This is getting beyond ridiculous; since when was 'well it'll happen anyway' EVER a good excuse to objectively allow terrible decisions and behavior.

Please stop outrageposting

How is this outrage posting? It is legitimate series of concerns as exampled through the fact that many GMO crops are of the same variety, (Corn, wheat, etc) are so homogenized that it actually is incredibly dangerous to our food safety. To extend that to designer babies is not far-fetched; and far more likely considering we all have, due to society, a very well drawn image of idealized forms.

It's outrage posting because of the way that you're presenting your argument. It just doesn't facilitate discussion, at all. In response to your points, we don't risk a mono culture issue in humans, so long as we aren't mass birthing clones. Simply editing out/in certain genes (which will be done for the purpose of preventing genetic disease far before it will be deployed for "designer" reasons) will not result in a monoculture. Additionally, "people doing it anyway" is actually an extremely valid reason to allow this to be legalized. A very simple analogue is the war on drugs. The war on drugs has made drugs more dangerous, unpredictable, and has lead to only the wealthy actually having access to safe drugs. If we instead deregulated and studied them, the we would be in a much better spot. The same goes for "designer babies"(god I hate that term). Making it illegal will only stifle research, result in innocents getting hurt, and empower the rich. It isn't as simple as "punch them". There's no reason to stifle progress that will be made no matter what simply due to fear. It's much better to legalize it, study it, and regulate it properly. This will result in a decrease of casualties from the tech, as well as bettering humanity as quickly as possible.

Designer babies are not a part of fighting genetic diseases that should be removed for the betterment of mankind. Performing medical treatments is not the equivalent of fulfilling some power fantasy over a baby. So when we talk about designer babies, we're not actually talking about helping people, period. Don't side glance a legitimate concern. 'People doing it anyway' is not a legitimate excuse. People launer money anyway, it should be legal. People murder anyway, it should be legal. Your reference to the War on Drugs is a farce, a failure of understanding the logistical and medical needs that would be required versus an underground industry that existed long before the mechanical means existed. Opium et al have been around for a very long time; you cannot compare an untested and blazingly new technology to something that's been a part of human trade since we began to trade. The needs, requirements and pit falls are vastly different. And finally that word, progress, that word that has been a poison in our society since the 1900s. That word is what has been used to excuse the clearing of forests, the genocides of people, the destruction of both our humanity and our planet. You can sit there and say that genetic engineering is progress, and I'll look at the husk of our world, dying in our hands as what you presuppose as progress. Its a vapid and empty word used to excuse terrible behaviors, immoral actions and most of all, remove blame from those that helped create it.

It's not a choice between designer babies and fighting genetic diseases, but more of a sliding scale. It's obvious there's a lot of demand for gene modified humans and they will be made. The only responsible option we have is to try to make that process as safe as possible for everyone, and discourage the worst kind of modifications. War on drugs isn't a valid analogy, but murder is? lol

My point is that he went for a statement that is true on its face, the War on Drugs is an example of exception proving the rule just as Prohibition did. I was given a farce of a black white option and I pointed out how shallow the example that was given is because it completely ignores a long storied history. I am not saying ban genetic engineering; I'm saying ban boutiques. I'm not saying a child should suffer for something they didn't ask for, I'm saying a child shouldn't suffer because their parents asked for it. Terrible genetic diseases that a child should never be born with should be removed from the gene pool; give your child the features you want does not help that child. We regulate and make sure that genetic changes are made for the best interests medically for the child.

At the risk of sounding flippant, the ability to tailor cosmetic traits in people will likely only be possible well after we have the ability to prevent lethal mutations in babies. At the point, I would like to think that we would already have guidelines on how that gets used. Right now, preventing undue harm to children, and possibly future generations is more important. Since we cannot introduce specific genetic changes in humans reliably enough at the moment, it should be treated the same as experimentation on children.