Would You Edit Your Child’s Genome? November 8, 2019 Tags:Authenticity, braincraft, Clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats, CRISPR, David DiGrazia, dna, editing, gattaca, genome, mike rugnetta, National Academy of Science and National Academy of Medicine, pbs idea channel, science, soft eugenics, vanessa hill Related Posts PGS and PGT-A: Why You Should Be Cautious About Genetic Testing Virus Wars What is CRISPR? About The Author John Henderson 100 Comments Zachary Gustafson The question I have is how far people are willing to go in the realm of genetic engineering. While technology is extremely useful, it can also be completely dangerous. For example: mass communication and the internet. You are ALWAYS being monitored, whether it be some government agency or massive corporation, everything you do using the internet is monitored and catalogued. Imagine what could happen if we installed devices in our heads to use the internet, but could also secretly read our thoughts. And while you could argue at that point there would be no need for such measures, but humans will awlays disagree with each other over literally everything. After all, that neturally comes with free with free will. Now what if a government wanted to erase an ideology, any ideology, and they had that kind of power? Technology is a tool, and the morality of the person weilding it determines what it's used for. May 9, 2017 Reply ImperialSunlight I would personally worry most about alteration of aspects of a person that are not truly seriously debilitating, but that are merely not typical or socially desired. I fear that would bring our species much closer to a uniform mediocrity, regardless of any perceived technical improvements in "intelligence" or general social capability. But then, I'm not a geneticist and I don't know how much can be altered through these methods, especially on the mental side. May 10, 2017 Reply lightandarklove I suffer from depression and anxiety symptoms as well as back problems from scoliosis. If I could prevent my child from inheriting those problems I would, knowing that those things significantly affect my life negatively. I would also edit out any high-risk health risks for disease that would likely reduce lifespan. I would take no other steps to change my child's appearance or other factors, only help my child have more ability to survive in this scary world we are coming into. I also will probably wait another 2-3 years to have kids making this a more likely scenario than if I were to do it within the year. May 10, 2017 Reply Mike Hayes I hear what you are saying, but there is a much darker side to genetic modification: being forced to use it. My wife and I recently had a child, and during the process we received a package in the mail. It was from the Hospital we planned on using for the delivery. Inside was a blood test to determine genetic defects in the unborn child. Mostly down syndrome. I called the hospital and they said it was mandatory. If I didn't test the unborn, we should not be able to deliver at that hospital. This really upset me. Are they afraid I would sue the delivery room if the baby was born with a genetic defect? Aren't genetic defects be definition, y'know, genetic!? They weren't forcing me to abort the child if it was defective, but they were forcing me to KNOW ABOUT it, so I would be faced with that choice. And who decides what "defective" means anyway? The point is the more we can avoid problems, the more we can force people to use those methods. Wouldn't want their defects "bothering" the rest of society. May 10, 2017 Reply Nic_F. A great video but there something that I think you missed. What if the "edited" child does not live up to their parent's expectations? Oh yes, we can give them the smart genes but when they come home with their first B or worse grade, how will the parents react? They wanted a smart child, the smartest their genes could provide, they had expectations of success, and the child did not reach them. And what stress would this put on the child as well? Mom and Dad spent so much money on making me smart, I have to do well for them. May 10, 2017 Reply Stephan K Hey mike! this didn't show up in my sub box 🙁 May 10, 2017 Reply Jake Juliett My kid finds your performance of the word "YUCK" at 3:52 to be hilarious. Upon discovery, I made a 5 1/2 minute long loop of it (with some context). Thank you very much 🙂 May 10, 2017 Reply soccerkitty24ham Yeah I think I would depending, like to spare a child from the worry of the BRCA gene absolutely. Spare a kid from glasses yeah. Height, ehh that one I honestly don't know, because something like that it seems like there are pros and cons on both sides, being tall you can reach things, but you might have back and body issues latter in life, being short you can't get to things, have to spend way more time on ladders, but might have less body issues. May 10, 2017 Reply TCJones so now i wont watch them becuse i will forget about them, tell youtube where 2 go and u be u not a slave to math! May 10, 2017 Reply rei kon if we had the technology to edit the genome of an adult, i don't see why not if you have your child have brown eyes and they want green later in life, they can just get the gene therapy for it May 10, 2017 Reply Kayla Haffley Cholera has edited our genome in history and I personally don't think cholera is a god. Inherently there seems to be this idea that a human being is entirely nature and no nurture which we've already demonstrated for a majority of diseases and qualities that it's a mix. While I agree the criteria for determining disease qualifying gene editing will be difficult but the access problem could be solved with universalized medicine. May 11, 2017 Reply Lee Meehan Is your finger okay? May 11, 2017 Reply Sven Leuschner I wonder if a heavily edited child stops being your child, since at some point you my not even be "related" to it anymore May 11, 2017 Reply THEINFERNOS45 Having just watched your "coffee talk" video, and being one who spends hour working with objects (-aspiring engineer), the question came to mind about whether there is an innate "us-ness", or whether our interactions with objects and systems constitute our experience and form our identity. If the latter is true, it raises a question as to whether being born in a world where you have access to an internet of knowledge is all too different from being born with your genes altered. Chemical and robotic implants, are they as person-defining as genes? Renaissance man might have thought so, (More VVVV) I personally embrace CRISPR as an inevitable utility; part of the development of civilization, (although that is mostly driven by my personal political etc. standpoints) much like the computer was. I was wondering whether you guys had thought of any ways that the genetically modified experience is more altered and worrying (on its own – not considering the safety risks that come with it – although relying on technology has brought its risks too) than the technologically altered experience. (sorry for the long wordy comment – just finished English exam – words on the mind) May 11, 2017 Reply Ellenok An anarcha-transhumanist communist revolution is obviously the answer here. May 11, 2017 Reply Django Lowe non sequitur… they should make a shadowrun movie. May 11, 2017 Reply Infinite Sheldon Edit? That's putting it mildly. I'd design an ubermensch and build her a bitchin' suit of power armour once she stops growing.You're welcome, Mankind. May 11, 2017 Reply Kevin Lerner You missed the biggest reason not to edit genes, genetic diversity. When everyone can edit heir genes over the course of a few generations everyone will move together genetically, this will reduce genetic diversity. there is also the problem that there is nowhere near enough information to simulate how someone will grow up. May 11, 2017 Reply Daniel Gomez As someone who was born with Type 1 Diabetes, I would never think someone who had it edited out was inauthentic. Go for it, at least on the fixing disabilities side of things. I would love to be part of the last generation with Type 1 Diabetes. May 11, 2017 Reply :3 david harvey I'm personally terrified by this. It's going to be a brilliant piece of medical technology but designer babies, with their potential being limitless, could have horrible consequences. It would solidify the class system permanently, allow parents to impose whatever life they want onto their child and authoritarian governments to literally breed mindless obedience into the next generation. May 11, 2017 Reply Greg Pilla Is it mere coincidence that in the video discussing enormous ethical questions, Mike is wearing a shirt about a game about a dystopian future? Will my child be a troll? Will the remaining people seek refuge from a swarm of fast-breeding genetic ghouls? Shall we all be pawns in the grand design of CrisprCorp? May 11, 2017 Reply McBobbish Genome editing is the future of humanity. So yeah, if it were safe and reliable, totally. May 11, 2017 Reply Alex Walsh As an asthmatic, I would 100% edit the gene's of my child to ensure they do NOT have that trait, or any other disability – but that is, as discussed the 'recommended' use. (Not stating whether or not asthma should be considered a disability – just that I find it a hindrance on my life that I wouldn't wish my children to inherit – the same could be said of my baldness).To that point though – I do NOT think it should be used for cosmetic reasons such as ensuring non-baldness, color of hair or eyes, height, etc. . I personally think it should only be used for the improved health of the human race (removing disease or disability), in that we could find and hopefully remove/eliminate the genes which are markers for these afflictions. I think I'm safe to say that no asthmatic would wish their condition onto their children if given the opportunity (and if they would I would question their reasoning at great length). May 12, 2017 Reply leberetframboise In situations where family history shows heritable risk for mental health (especially bipolar and schizophrenia), under-studied conditions (like thyroid dysfunction), and menstrual health (like tendency for cysts or PCOS) that would otherwise discourage people from having biological babies, I think CRISPR could be used to change only these traits. So heck yes, i would edit my child's genes so that they could more easily live healthier lives. May 12, 2017 Reply YonYonYon I'd rather edit myself than my child. To me, the only appeal of giving birth is to see what will be the result of two people mixing their genes together. It's kinda fun. May 12, 2017 Reply Dan R. Sadly what is considered a disability as far as Gentic alteration is conerned is up to Congress. Granted the christin right are stauch agaisn t anyform of gentic tamperign on this scale. This religiosity is why the Chinese and Indians have all the cool medical break thoughs despite not being able to provide thease medical sevices to over half thier poulations. America being of the same wealth with a 1/3 the poulation of thease countries is in a place to do amazing things with gene therapy. But we are to puritanical to write blank checks to the greatest of gentic reaserch scientists. Granted thre needs to be practical limits in the consumer marketplace. Mental disorders might be to difficult to code out of a genome without serious adverse efects. The mind is the self. May 12, 2017 Reply Martin van der Kroon The U.S. Transhumanist Party thinks about innovations coming, how to use these responsibly, to make it affordable and accessible to all, and ensure science has the space to innovate more. This includes genetic changes, but also general health care. May 12, 2017 Reply Jonas Ebert There has been an enormous amount of research done on genomics in the past couple of decades, particularly the Human Genome Project, but there still is quite a lot that isn’t known about genetics. While the exact gene may be known – its sequence of nucleotides, its location on a chromosome, etc. it may not be known exactly how that gene is expressed as a phenotype. Genes code for proteins, but how exactly does that result in, say, a hooked nose? There is a congenital neurological disorder, prosopagnosia, which involves the inability to recognize faces but leaves all other cognitive processes normal. This disorder is inheritable, meaning it is genetic. Further, because there are no other effects, it can be assumed that this gene is narrowly focused, namely to the fusiform gyrus (the region of the brain that specializes in facial recognition). How does protein affect something as complicated and nuanced as facial recognition? The current answer is that there is a lot that happens post-translation that is not accounted for in basic genomics. But what about traits that aren’t so distinct; something like intelligence, artistic ability or athletic skill? There are undoubtedly genes associated with these traits, but how such genes might interact, whether at a protein level or at some higher level, isn’t known. Further, there are the issues of how genes will be affected developmentally and epigenetically. There is also the issue of not knowing the full extent of a phenotype. For example, genes associated with higher intelligence may also be associated with some pathological traits like schizophrenia. Personally, I am excited to see CRISPR applied in medicine and agriculture, and I admit that its use on humans does seem enticing, but it’s easy to have an opinion about something without understanding it. My concern doesn’t come from a Hollywood induced fear for The Fly or Gatica made real; frankly I think they’ve painted a bad picture of what science can do. My concern comes from the desire to understand. I would rather take the time to determine how to use the technology effectively than to risk overzealousness and cause irreversible damage. May 12, 2017 Reply Bradley Heidler I don't feel like the authenticity argument is totally valid. I could create a child who is physically perfect for playing basketball. Tall athletic etc. But that doesn't mean that they would want to play basketball or even play sports at all. I feel that the child's experience would still make them ultimately authentic. The soft eugenics issue is by far my biggest concern here. I wouldn't use CRISPR to change anything other than disease prevention, but I would use it. May 12, 2017 Reply zetsumeinaito Who cares about 'authentic'? Oreo isn't authentic, yet it sells better than the original. If I had the choice to alter my future child's genome, I would. Stronger, faster, smarter, less pain from workouts, less likely to get depressed, more immunity to addiction, corrected vision. Looks? I'm fine leaving as is. Hell the main reason I don't want kids is because of emotional troubles I have. I seriously ponder what is happy. I can't feel it. I don't feel good when finishing something, it just is a thing I was doing, now to find something else to do. Since I've no clue, I can only work towards avoiding depression. May 12, 2017 Reply Roy Cai Here's an idea, government code a mind-control trigger into people. E.g people would become unconscious if they are expossed to a specific wavelength of light.(like memory eraser from Men in Black) May 12, 2017 Reply Chris Handy I love that you are wearing a Shadowrun shirt, since this is a major theme in this game. May 12, 2017 Reply Ron Maple These arguments don't matter. economic forces will drive this, no matter what you think about authenticity or disabled people. May 12, 2017 Reply Skeeball D'Slanted If it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it's a horse. May 13, 2017 Reply Rohan Joseph Assorted thoughts:It is now easy to edit the genes, but how easy is it to predict how the edited genes will effect the person who's genes are edited? Perhaps an inaccessibility of that kind of understanding will make it less possible for parents to have granular control over the design of their designer babys. We might have to worry about government, corporate, or ideological influence. Improving the amount of working memory, attention, or "psychic energy" as it's called in the book Flow (that I've read 4 pages of so far) seems like it would be a safe improvement in terms of the Authenticity argument. You'd be a more competent, but authentic human. (recommended read:Flowers for Algernon which actually suggests that intelligence is tied to identity, but still desirable in greater quantity. ) However, I do see the soft eugenics issue rearing its head again. Once a CRISPR edit is designed, could it be cheap(or regulated) to implement? This might reduce the danger of exclusive access by a rich minority. Yuval Noah Harrari made the argument that many contemporary problems would need a global authority/agreement to regulate them. Because anyone seeking to bypass regional restrictions could just move. In many ways that is a good thing that limited the consequences of authoritarianism. However, the dangers of incompetent decision making are much greater in many contemporary issues such as CRISPR and climate change. The need for solutions to this kind of hard problem is becoming greater. With problems of this scope, slowing down because of uncertainty about the future seems rational. In more traditional conundrums this was not practical so the risk was necessary. Even if it isn't as practical now, the consequences are of an existential scope so it might be worth slowing down even if that means we delay a possible utopia. Will we faced with many impossible choices? That change outpaces our understanding at this scope is vaguely terrifying. After edited humans, would a meritocracy be fair? (not that it ever was fair or possible depending on your definition of merit)What can we do to ensure no one is sidelined by the unintended consequences of benefiting some people. It seems more and more like we need to guarantee more and more things as basic rights as that becomes possible. For example, in modern times electricity and increasingly the Internet seem important to get the full Human Experience. (written on a mobile in one go, so forgive any incoherence please) May 13, 2017 Reply Rohan Joseph Assorted thoughts:It is now easy to edit the genes, but how easy is it to predict how the edited genes will effect the person who's genes are edited? Perhaps an inaccessibility of that kind of understanding will make it less possible for parents to have granular control over the design of their designer babys. We might have to worry about government, corporate, or ideological influence. Improving the amount of working memory, attention, or "psychic energy" as it's called in the book Flow (that I've read 4 pages of so far) seems like it would be a safe improvement in terms of the Authenticity argument. You'd be a more competent, but authentic human. (recommended read:Flowers for Algernon which actually suggests that intelligence is tied to identity, but still desirable in greater quantity. ) However, I do see the soft eugenics issue rearing its head again. Once a CRISPR edit is designed, could it be cheap(or regulated) to implement? This might reduce the danger of exclusive access by a rich minority. Yuval Noah Harrari made the argument that many contemporary problems would need a global authority/agreement to regulate them. Because anyone seeking to bypass regional restrictions could just move. In many ways that is a good thing that limited the consequences of authoritarianism. However, the dangers of incompetent decision making are much greater in many contemporary issues such as CRISPR and climate change. The need for solutions to this kind of hard problem is becoming greater. With problems of this scope, slowing down because of uncertainty about the future seems rational. In more traditional conundrums this was not practical so the risk was necessary. Even if it isn't as practical now, the consequences are of an existential scope so it might be worth slowing down even if that means we delay a possible utopia. Will we faced with many impossible choices? That change outpaces our understanding at this scope is vaguely terrifying. After edited humans, would a meritocracy be fair? (not that it ever was fair or possible depending on your definition of merit)What can we do to ensure no one is sidelined by the unintended consequences of benefiting some people. It seems more and more like we need to guarantee more and more things as basic rights as that becomes possible. For example, in modern times electricity and increasingly the Internet seem important to get the full Human Experience. (written on a mobile in one go, so forgive any incoherence please) May 13, 2017 Reply kassemir The points about disabilities were really interesting. But, don't we already have something like that? In Denmark, for instance, you can get a test to see if there's a high possibility of down syndrome in your child. If that turns out to be the case, you can then choose to either have the baby or get an abortion. The test is optional, but I think I read some where that the birth rate of children with down syndrome had gone down significantly already. I don't want to get in to the moral implications of this. I simply want to point out that, yeah… this idea of ethical value judgement in terms of disabilities isn't a new thing. May 13, 2017 Reply bobsobol I'd be concerned about the inevitable teenage "what the hell Mom!" As in "OMG! You chose to give me green eyes, even though we all have black skin because it's 'quirky', but you didn't think to make sure I don't need frikkin' lasic when I'm only 19!!? What where you thinking???" Never mind "You wanted a daughter who had long legs, so now I'm 6'10" and I can't get a boyfriend because when you're 6'10" there's no such thing as "*tall* dark and handsome" and, (BTW) I have to stoop to walk through doorways!!!" … and if they turn out to be… Dyslexic, or left-handed, or anaemic, or have tourettes because you didn't consider that among your list of "ideal things not to be"… How stupid are you going to feel, and how hard is it going to be to accept responsibility for that mistake and still maintain the respect of your own child? There's a big difference between the desire you thought up over 8 months choosing your ideal child, if you gave it that much thought, and a lifetime of experience living as that person. May 13, 2017 Reply Donald.V Thomas this is a tricky question. I don't particularly care for the ethical reasons against, I think ethics slow advancement. I'm concerned for about the unforseeable consequences behind it. Which is why i think it should be done in small controlled populations for like 10 generations before going mainstream. Reason being, however we feel about it now, the technology may become a necessity in the future and the more we understand about it sooner, to work the kinks out of it, the better off we'll be. As for the question. I wouldn't mess with my own kids genes because the technology is still in its early iterations, but if the risks were alredy mitigated years before. Yes. May 14, 2017 Reply Unknown Ceilings We should edit the genomes of all future children to ensure they are autistic and eliminate neurotypicalism. May 14, 2017 Reply Gastón totally, I wouldn't want my kids to have the characteristics that gave me pain during my life, such as a terrible acné that defigurated my back and shoulders, low serotonine leves, slight bodily asymmetries, the need for brackets to correct my bite, etc. They will be human and will be free to make human mistakes, but I don't want them (and they won't deserve) to suffer because of my genes. May 15, 2017 Reply לביא גלזמן ok ok cool but what the hell happened to your finger? May 15, 2017 Reply Fictioness Wtf Isolate cryptonite til its the essense of phone calL home? May 15, 2017 Reply Quintin Pace but what about the links between mental illness and creativity/genius? child prodigies are more likely than avarage to have close family members with autism than regular children. many great artists struggled with mental illness. what if we engineer the creative out of us? May 15, 2017 Reply sgt saltstick i would edit my daughter and no ethical questions or thinks in my way would stop that because evolution is stupid and slow May 15, 2017 Reply wishbone346 Why wouldn't I want my kid to be better than me in every way? As a parent that should be your greatest dream. I also noticed that people seem to think that your kid would be forced into being what you want (i.e. the genius ginger beanpole.) However, why would that be the case? Why would parents chose to only give their child a greater intellect and not say greater physical prowess as well? And if the child was a physical and mental genius they'd be able to not only chose their own path but would have the opportunity to be amazing at either. I'm sorry but I fail to see any negative effects here. May 15, 2017 Reply Drew Demmerle I had a discussion on this topic awhile back and a very interesting point was raised as to whether or not it is possible to unconditionally love your child if you edit their genome? This is related to the authenticity point but only tangentially And after that discussion, personally I don't think you can. I'm not saying that a parent can't love a genetically altered child but once you decide to edit your child's genome, you have declared that you don't want your child to be a certain way, and that destroys the unconditional part of bond (though I am also aware of the problematic uses of unconditional love, as it isn't always true even if it is claimed and about child without genetic alteration). An response that I heard a lot from other people that I talked to was that, the child isn't necessarily end up like how their parents expect because there is still the nurture component to development and I still don't think that counters the claim because even if the kid ends up different than what the parents were expecting and they still love the kid, doesn't change that they put conditions on the kid, and usually those conditions aren't something that can change with development. So the parents are simply eliminating possible ways that the kid could be and so is creating conditions for their love (intentional or not is irrelevant).Two more points I wanted to bring up (but not go into) is: If we can increase the intelligence and modify mental conditions of people (making them more honest, hardworking, empathetic, etc), should we only allow people that have been genetically modified in such ways to hold governmental positions (because we are guaranteed that they are smarter, honest, and caring) or another way to look at it is; do you think that people whom have been genetically modified as such will just naturally be elected to governmental positions of power over people without genetic modifications (Because we can just look at their modifications to see that they are more trustworthy)? What do you think?The other point is less of a discussion and more a interesting point to add to the thought of this which was brought up when I had this discussion in a philosophy class, the professor told us about deaf communities who hate the idea of genetic modification being used to eliminate deafness. Mostly because they don't view their deafness as a problem but a part of who they are (which if you ask me is great). And because it is a part of who they are, many parents in these communities want their kids to be deaf as well because it allows them to share that part of their life with their child and have a stronger bond. Now I can't comment on the validity or extent of this as I am not a member of such community but it does raise questions especially as to the extent of genetic modification and who gets to draw that line? May 16, 2017 Reply Max Tumin Every parent edits genome of their children by simply choosing the other half of the genome that comes from their partner. Going further should not be a problem unless it goes into eugenics territory. May 16, 2017 Reply I E i love how JLo is relevant because of science May 16, 2017 Reply That Guy with an Umbrella simple answer: yes. complicated answer: yes. i could avoid all the overly negative possibilities like my sister's personality disorder. May 16, 2017 Reply I E I wish you had made it more clear that genetic changes with children have a completely different moral standing then adult genetic modifications May 17, 2017 Reply XenoSean Hell YES, Shadowrun! May 17, 2017 Reply Cecilie Lolk Hjort I'm in great doubt about whether editing your child's genome would be a good idea, until I look at how we did with dogs, and then I think we shouldn't. May 17, 2017 Reply Aladdin what if u wanted a strong and smart child so they had the opportunities to do the things they wanted May 17, 2017 Reply Rebecca George There is the concern of people using it to try make a child more accepted among their own ethnic group. The slightly most uncomfortable reality about being Native American, it is more accepted if you don't have recessive genetic qualities. This even stems out to how society in general may perceive you, even if you can prove Native American. I'm concerned that people may use it to try reinforcing that sentiment, that people have to be darker skinned, with brown eyes and black hair to be Native American. May 18, 2017 Reply Valas Darkholme I would absolutely edit my child's genome. >Disease prevention? Yes.>General health? Yes.>Intelligence and physical fitness? Yes.>Remove Any Propensity for Addiction? Yes Hell. I'd pay for some such modifications to myself if I could. The biggest issue, I think, is one of access. Ideally it would be accessible to everyone, not just the rich; and benefit the entire population. May 18, 2017 Reply Kobato Hasegawa I'd edit my child, I'd even want to try editing myself for the sake of it. May 18, 2017 Reply Sparrow Hartmann Late to the party, but I would absolutely edit to remove disposition to any problem that wouldn't significantly change the actual person my child would be. Mental illness, heart disease, and autoimmune issues all run in my family and if that can be fixed through genetic means I think it's the right thing to do. Mental illness is kind of on the edge but if I could lower the risk of my kid having my depression and anxiety due to genetic factors I would do it in a heartbeat. I've spent years changing medicine doses just to get my brain to work right and being miserable in the meantime, and having a brain that works right from the beginning is a reasonable thing to want. And boy, a kid without flat feet? Great. Less pain and hassle for them. But any ongoing disability like blindness or Down Syndrome would be an absolute no-go for me. I'm autistic, and the thought of gene editing (or, more likely, screening in my case) making people like me /not exist/ because it's inconvenient for parents scares me. The idea you can just make people with certain conditions or disabilities not be born because you don't want to raise a kid with those issues is really just not good in every way – it's literal eugenics. Trying to make a kid live up to your expectations before they've even born. Oh boy. Doing that /after/ they're born is bad enough, but people talk about hypothetically making their kid really athletic…why? What will you do if they aren't interested in that stuff? Frankly, if you have that much expectation for what your child should be I am scared for your child anyway, forget whatever you're doing with genes. May 18, 2017 Reply godlessyurifan Editing children's genomes should be heavily regulated and only for strictly medical purposes. The genetic pool of the population of a state should not be regarded as anyone's private property that they can do whatever they want with – let alone their children's private property. Having genetic material labeled as wholly defective and removed completely from the population should be as difficult as changing the constitution. One of the few instances where communism is a good idea in a state society. May 19, 2017 Reply Celestial Wing I'd just make to where they wouldn't have to worry about shaving. They'd still need a hair cut every so often, but at least won't have shit growing on their legs, back or face. May 19, 2017 Reply Curttehmurt Assuming it was available to everyone and not just the rich I'd do it, I want the best for my child May 19, 2017 Reply jamham69 Theres a third option to the "rich get access or everyone gets access" dichotomy. China or some other nation uses the technology militarily.Among the clans in the Battletech universe, almost everyone who is anyone is a clone of sorts of those who came before them, either being direct clones or genetic mixes of 2 or more people, all of whom were particularly smart or physically superior. Initially this is to give them an edge in war, the best soldiers are cloned in an attempt to create better soldiers in years to come, but later becomes more a cultural force. Everyone knows that the cloned, vat grown humans are supposedly the superior race and so being naturally born becomes something shameful, with its own insult, "freeborn" or "freebirthed"Even those who are naturally born and prove themselves capable of competing at the same level, or better, than the clones simply join the system, their DNA being used in the next generation, rather than anyone considering whether it's actually accomplishing their goals. May 19, 2017 Reply ORO 2: OroPlay A couple of issues I can see arising: 1. I worry about anti-CRISPRs in the same sort of thing as anti-vaxxers. In that even if the tech was widely available, some people will avoid it based on a belief system or unfounded paranoia, and it'll cause them to force their children to live a life as a lesser lifeform to the enhanced beings all around them. 2. Parents are likely to have higher, stricter expectations of their children if personally designed. Such a process opens the idea that these children are fully owned by their parents, that they're created to be a specific way and so if they don't meet their expectations in life, it can turn into lots of backlash and abuse. What do you mean you want to be an artist?! I made you smart so you could be an engineer! May 20, 2017 Reply lcvamp242 Interesting concept juxtaposed with the Shadowrun shirt. The five human subspecies is a good metaphor for what a CRISPR could do. May 20, 2017 Reply Ryan Dooley Yes I would edit my kid's genes, but only if it gives them super powers. May 20, 2017 Reply Nathan Yes I would absolutely use gene editing to make my babies "better". As for what "better" is, I trust my own decisions on what's better and what's not better (e.g. Having cystic fibrosis or Down's syndrome or some other disorder that is 1. treated or desired to be treated medically and 2. Shown convincingly to be caused by expression of faulty genes). Why would chance be a better way to raise my children than purpose? That's like throwing your kids in the deep end of the swimming pool and saying if they were meant to swim they'll figure it out on their own. May 21, 2017 Reply Red Herring Well if we can do this the ALIENS, TERRORISTS, BAD HEARTED PPL, can as well. This plus drones with guns, the future is gonna be scaaaaaary. May 23, 2017 Reply FluteGeek As someone with Myopia and a family history of Detached Retinas, I would sure as hell genetically modify my child to not have Myopia. Glasses are expensive and detached retinas bring the possibility of going blind. I also have a family history of breast and skin cancer. The idea that this will separate people by classism. However, as someone who lives in a country with federal health care, this system can be implemented to be available to everyone if the choices are to prevent life debilitating genes. Aesthetic changes can be the ones a person has to pay for while cancer genes could be available through federal health care. This of course means that crisper must become cheap enough to make it worth adding to health care without skyrocketing taxes. May 23, 2017 Reply Александр Рейн If we accept abortion, we must accept any actions with fetus, including any kind of gene editing: fetus just dont have any rights and is not considered as a person or human being. May 23, 2017 Reply Reciomane yes, everyone would try to get the best child possible anyway. every human will pretty much have the same genome. because every process must have variance to obey the laws of physics people will be still different, just more limited differences. the slightly more introverts tall handsome men will have almost identical perfect children with the more introverts top models May 25, 2017 Reply Zanthyst Gaming My child has Prader Willi Syndrom a genetic disease. If there was any way to cure it through crispr I would take it in a heart beat. May 26, 2017 Reply Black Phillip Well when you think about it, if human intervention turns your life experience "not authentic" and not authentic is somehow worth less then we better go back to living in caves and throwing shit at each other. You bet I'd spare my child the chance of being born with a genetic disorder, even if other people can't afford it. In the present many people can't afford many things from nice clothes to food or the treatment to various lethal diseases, it wouldn't add any more unfairness or disparity than we already live in.edit: soft eugenics might me a real serious problem though, I'd propose the changes to the genome should be exclusively in the avoidance of disease and should never, even as a side effect have consequences on the visible human form. May 26, 2017 Reply Joshua Moore Sorry man, taking the soft handed All lives matter approach with Down Syndrome is a bit sick. If we can cure it, we should. If we can make our selves better further, we should but more than that, some people definitely will. Forget babies, There is a shot at custom engineered viral treatements that can change a persons Gender, skin tone, hair and eye color, effectively on the fly.. though its likey that Something like a gender change wouldn't be fast persey. We can add extra coens to our eyes to see in an expanded light spectrum, create glands in our bodies to produce about any sensation desired. Like the Culture of Iain Banks Novels 😀 May 27, 2017 Reply Preston Plummer I don't think it is a hugely complex conversation. Parents want the best for their children. That includes removing potential challenges and roadblocks disabilities . May 27, 2017 Reply Sarayu Sarayu "You know what they say about algorithms….You obey them." Tshirt idea! May 28, 2017 Reply Nallebeorn Oh god, I actually read this as "Would you eat your child's genome?" first. June 2, 2017 Reply S. K. i would do it. i don't want my children to be second class citizens because everyone else but them is genetically engineered June 2, 2017 Reply Alex Almeida The word design has a connotation of ownership. Environment is a bigger influence. If people believe a person must be a certain way because of their genes then unnecessary suffering could result. It would suck to have to constantly fight to be oneself in a world that would rather objectify and compartmentalize. I think there is a sense of freedom, liberty and power of choice when one's life is open to chance from conception to final breath and beyond June 6, 2017 Reply Kenny Martin Yes. mostly to ensure that they are less susceptible to things like Cancer or epilepsy or other debilitating diseases. June 10, 2017 Reply Kevin Tem GMO Argument pt.2 June 15, 2017 Reply archaicExplorer It should be taken into consideration that CRISPR can edit live cells, so the effects could not only be applied to children/fetuses but could also manipulate the genetics of adults and adolescents. June 25, 2017 Reply [Chtho] i would edit my childs gnome to hopefully prevent them from inheriting the most common ailments that run in my family that could bring very bad permanent hardships in their life because as a parent i would want my kids to have the best life they can. June 26, 2017 Reply Cerulean Skigh Ethically it's no different to me than natural selection – I'm attracted to certain traits because they create healthy offspring. I don't buy the 'if you edit out/abort all [insert disability] then there will be no support/funding/respect for those with said disability.' There will never be 'enough' finding for needy people. Inflicting, or failing to protect, more people from disability is in no way helpful or a public good. Quality of life of the individual is my main concern in considering ethics of editing their specific genetic makeup. Society as a whole will adapt as with all technology. Not to say throw caution to the wind but realistically this will never be equal because society can never be equal. June 27, 2017 Reply David B. I think to give a child "designed" advantages would be unethical. To remove a disadvantage of a child however. picture diseases, not height or intelligence, then surely this would be the most beneficial to the global economy. Adding a perfectly functional, but none at all above par (as far as they know, I suggest not telling them obviously)member of society instead of adding a burden to society would be the most ethical use of technologies such as CRISPR June 27, 2017 Reply Danny V I'm up for it. My dad, his brother, his sister and his father all ended up with diabetes. My dad takes great care in managing his bloodsugar levels, excersises regulary and is in pretty good health considering. But still, it must suck having to feel several needles a day, every day for about 30 years now. June 30, 2017 Reply Wyatt Granger I can't really answer the question about editing the Genome, but I can't help but speculate that something extremely bad will come out of the unforseen and unintended consequences from all this. July 4, 2017 Reply samuel kappes I've been considering not having kids until such technology is available (granted I'm young and have time to wait).only because I live with what can be a pretty debilitating mental disorder. I wouldn't want to bring somebody into this world knowing I gave them what I have. July 8, 2017 Reply Grokford A few modifications even aesthetic modifications doesn't worry me but I am concerned with the complete extinction of various traits or the de-diversification of humans. If there's only one gene that is immune to one disease or another and it becomes standard how long before another illness exploits it. So long as we're not puffin all our eggs in one basket we should be fine and we might even save certain genes from extinction. July 25, 2017 Reply 2nd3rd1st Here's an idea: let's edit our embryos genomes, when they're born let's cut off parts of their genitals, when they grew a little older let's tell them which gods they have to believe in, and when they grew a little older still let's marry them to someone they don't know. We live in a society of free will after all. July 26, 2017 Reply HellPwnage 666 CROSS ALL THE LINES! August 1, 2017 Reply David Van Drunen Well… at least Fallout prepped me for the Super Mutants. August 4, 2017 Reply Erin Trampel I have a lot of inherited medical problems, to the point where I am considering never having kids because I don't want to pass them on. If I could stop my future child from having the issues I have I would do it. September 20, 2017 Reply Alysha Brooks I'm a person living with a genetic disability that could be removed from my children using this technology. I hope and I pray that I will be able to choose from my children to not have to deal with the struggles that I have had to deal with. many people use the argument that will make life harder for those still living with disabilities. But just because there is a slightly less and amount doesn't mean that it will negatively affect them. It should be the choice of those who are disabled the other let their children have their disability or not. I hope that made sense. December 31, 2017 Reply Megware Well if I /was/ going to give birth to my own child (instead of adopting one that already exists and needs a home) I would be down to edit out diseases n such that falls under that category. But I mean, I'd also request red hair. That's it. Everything else can be up to the universe. Not sorry lol. December 31, 2017 Reply The5lacker No human being has, in the entirety of the history of being, ever been able to decide their own genetics. It's a decision made before they're a person, by necessity. So I would absolutely choose my child's genetics if I could. I want the person these genes become to be stronger, smarter, and healthier than me in every way I possibly can. I want that person's happiness. January 31, 2018 Reply dying101666 if it was for the better then yes. stupid question. June 4, 2018 Reply Poppi thanks for asking these questions now July 7, 2018 Reply Kuarelli Baum if it would be possible to edit children in a sence that benifits the whole society? For example keep humans short to save ressources? Less food, less medication, less clothing, less space or skin colour? not too light because of skin cancer risk, not to dark to prevent from a lack of natural Vitamin D … well and there is the main problem: Men don't work this way. Especially with skin colour people seem to be obsessed with the idea that it hase more meaning than just being a colour of skin. November 8, 2018 Reply Jacob Staten Fewer diseases, more muscular and intelligent? Why not make that standard?! December 31, 2018 Reply Nicolai Veliki It'll take a few years, if not decades, before health insurance covers preventive genome editing. But I look forward to it. I am passing on some serious disadvantages like familiar depression and hypercoagulation to my descendants, and that's not something I want them suffering from February 12, 2019 Reply Add a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.