Re: [DIYbio] Privately funded designer babies

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:29 PM 'qetzal' via DIYbio
<diybio@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I don't have a fundamental objection to germ line modification. But I think these guys are either incredibly naive or delusional. If they wanted to try to correct monogenic conditions like hemophilia or muscular distrophy, that would be one thing. But we don't have nearly enough understanding to justify trying to introduce traits like "growing muscles without exercising,"

Actually double-muscling is a well known genetic trait, and
commercialized in certain mammals too, encoded by a single gene:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin

The main issue with introducing this trait has primarily been
birthing, but the trend in 'westernizing' countries (note I didn't say
western) is to have C-sections... which seems to stem purely from
convenience to the medical system and people's whims... yet there's
hardly any pushback at a large scale level (most people who push back
are labelled naturalists or hippies).

> Keep in mind any problems that might arise wouldn't impact the consenting parents. They would affect the offspring.

I disagree, someone will have to raise and care for the children,
making things harder for the kids would definitely make things harder
for the parents.

>
> Proposing to test in dogs first is at least something. The problem is that dogs and humans aren't identical. Genes that have one effect in a dog (or mouse or rat) won't necessarily have a similar effect in humans.

Well the article specifically mentions they're only working so far
with mice and canines, and not humans. But that is to prove the
technique of gene transfer, not genotype implying a phenotype. My
guess is they don't want to put the cart in front of the horse, also
there are enough proven SNPs and other simple things that could be
introduced to begin with. You need not jump to "super" designer babies
before initial preliminary designer babies is a real thing. The rest
of the world studying genetic correlations will keep churning out data
in the meantime, to aide the second round.

>
> Sorry, but I see no indication that these guys have an adequate understanding of what is and isn't possible and safe.

From a single newsmedia article? That sound pretty prejudiced and
uninformed to me

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9J_wJ2NX_ct31PV4LAZFBb1jZ9HazsPYcGctKTfAe0d_g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.