DNA Engineering?

[ippy]

Not an easy one to know where the ethics start from, slippery slope? Line drawing, where can/should the line be?

The ethics on this one? I really don't know, 

ippy     

[Leonard James]

Not an easy one to know where the ethics start from, slippery slope? Line drawing, where can/should the line be?

The ethics on this one? I really don't know, 

ippy   

Nor does anybody else, unfortunately. 

[floo]

Whilst one can sympathise with people who have inherited genetic diseases not wanting to pass them on to future generations, I think DNA engineering could have some very unpleasant consequences.

[Hope]

In some ways, we already have a sizable amount of information about DNA Engineering.  We may not call it by that name, but look at all the work that has been done over the centuries in developing domestic animals from their wild cousins, or plnts for us to eat from their wild cousins.  The history of this process has been a mix of dramatic success and abject failure.

[Bubbles]

Not an easy one to know where the ethics start from, slippery slope? Line drawing, where can/should the line be?

The ethics on this one? I really don't know, 

ippy   

Sometimes I wish I had a set of working gills as well as lungs 

It could be useful.

 

Or maybe instead of killing animals for meat...... We could grow it 

[Nearly Sane]

In and of itself, I don't see it as ethical or not. It's the use that it is put to that is the ethical decision. Also I agree with Hope that we have been doing it for many many years

[ippy]

Hope, NS, thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious, well done.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Hope, NS, thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious, well done.

ippy

Why make an OP that ignores the bleeding obvious then?

[Udayana]

There is little doubt that we will rapidly develop our abilities to engineer almost any characteristic we like in any plant or animal species including humans.

China will lead the way in human genetic engineering:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11558305/China-shocks-world-by-genetically-engineering-human-embryos.html

Regulation is country by country not worldwide. In the UK it is the responsibility of the HFEA. At present modification is only allowed for research purposes, with embryos destroyed after 14 days. However there is pressure to change this, eg. see:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/01/editing-embryo-dna-genome-major-research-funders-ethics-debate

Maybe someone could suggest some test cases that could be discussed to help us get a handle on the ethics involved ? Eg. would it be right or wrong to modify human DNA to:

1.Correct for genetic diseases, such as deafness or blindness?
2.Increase intelligence for some or all children?
3.Increase/decrease height or select or edit for athletic abilities?
4.Choose eye colour
5.Choose skin colour?
6.Specify gills so that we can all live in the sea when global warming results in Waterworld?

Prof D is probably best to kick this off?

[Bubbles]

There is little doubt that we will rapidly develop our abilities to engineer almost any characteristic we like in any plant or animal species including humans.

China will lead the way in human genetic engineering:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11558305/China-shocks-world-by-genetically-engineering-human-embryos.html

Regulation is country by country not worldwide. In the UK it is the responsibility of the HFEA. At present modification is only allowed for research purposes, with embryos destroyed after 14 days. However there is pressure to change this, eg. see:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/01/editing-embryo-dna-genome-major-research-funders-ethics-debate

Maybe someone could suggest some test cases that could be discussed to help us get a handle on the ethics involved ? Eg. would it be right or wrong to modify human DNA to:

1.Correct for genetic diseases, such as deafness or blindness?
2.Increase intelligence for some or all children?
3.Increase/decrease height or select or edit for athletic abilities?
4.Choose eye colour
5.Choose skin colour?
6.Specify gills so that we can all live in the sea when global warming results in Waterworld?

Prof D is probably best to kick this off?

 

[Hope]

Why make an OP that ignores the bleeding obvious then?

It's a habit of his, NS.   

[ippy]

It's a habit of his, NS.   

I see you can imagin pie in the sky but no input about the ethical problems DNA engineering will throw up?

I thought it might be a good idea to see if anyone that reads the forum from time to time may have some ideas on admitedly a difficult subject, perhaps thats why you haven't got much of an idea either, the same as N S.

IPPY

[Nearly Sane]

I see you can imagin pie in the sky but no input about the ethical problems DNA engineering will throw up?

I thought it might be a good idea to see if anyone that reads the forum from time to time may have some ideas on admitedly a difficult subject, perhaps thats why you haven't got much of an idea either, the same as N S.

IPPY

So nothing about what we need to look at given you admit that your OP ignores the bleeding obvious? What is it that you are trying to raise, given that the OP no longer makes any sense, ignoring the bleeding obvious?

[ippy]

So nothing about what we need to look at given you admit that your OP ignores the bleeding obvious? What is it that you are trying to raise, given that the OP no longer makes any sense, ignoring the bleeding obvious?

It looks like I owe both of you an apology I'm so sorry that I asked a question, it must have been a momentary laps on my part.

Now I've got that over and done with, why was it neither of you seemed to have anything worth saying other than stating the bleeding obvious?   

ippy

[ippy]

Nor does anybody else, unfortunately. 

Yes it seems to be that way, at the moment I feel that there is something about this DNA engineering, a bit "Brave New Worldish", as a suggestion, perhaps?

Other than the above I don't know, that's why I would like to perhaps have/hear the thoughts of others, on or about this subject.

ippy 

[Nearly Sane]

It looks like I owe both of you an apology I'm so sorry that I asked a question, it must have been a momentary laps on my part.

Now I've got that over and done with, why was it neither of you seemed to have anything worth saying other than stating the bleeding obvious?   

ippy

No apology necessary just frame your question to take into account the bleeding obvious. Since my post, which you have declared as bleeding obvious, indicated my opinion that the question in and of itself of DNA engineering can only make sense in terms of the intentional use of such a thing, it.would be useful for you to expand on how that works, else your OP is, by your own admission, senseless.

[Hope]

I see you can imagin pie in the sky but no input about the ethical problems DNA engineering will throw up?

I thought it might be a good idea to see if anyone that reads the forum from time to time may have some ideas on admitedly a difficult subject, perhaps thats why you haven't got much of an idea either, the same as N S.

IPPY

ippy, there has long been debate "about the ethical problems DNA engineering will throws up".  The fact that this part of the development process involves humans doesn't, in my view, make much difference to that existing debate.  Perhaps you need to bring that into your opening question and ask whether the fact that we are now talking about humanity's DNA being adapted there is a difference.

[ippy]

No apology necessary just frame your question to take into account the bleeding obvious. Since my post, which you have declared as bleeding obvious, indicated my opinion that the question in and of itself of DNA engineering can only make sense in terms of the intentional use of such a thing, it.would be useful for you to expand on how that works, else your OP is, by your own admission, senseless.

Oh dear.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear.

ippy

Your -TW- impersonation is really coming along.

[Udayana]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28594-why-banning-crispr-gene-editing-would-be-unnecessarily-cautious/

"ALL eyes may be on the Paris climate talks, but there is another high-level meeting this week that will influence our future. The International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington DC is spending three days discussing the science, ethics and governance of a revolutionary genetic engineering technique called CRISPR – specifically its application to human beings.

The symposium was called by scientists, but will also hear from policy-makers, legal scholars and bioethicists. Its aim is to discuss what is acceptable, as well as what is possible. "
...

[ippy]

ippy, there has long been debate "about the ethical problems DNA engineering will throws up".  The fact that this part of the development process involves humans doesn't, in my view, make much difference to that existing debate.  Perhaps you need to bring that into your opening question and ask whether the fact that we are now talking about humanity's DNA being adapted there is a difference.

Brave new world 1928, so like I said before, unless you were pretending you didn't know what a "?" signifies, I thought that even you Hope, would have understood that much.

Any chance of going back on the OP subject?

ippy

 

[ippy]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28594-why-banning-crispr-gene-editing-would-be-unnecessarily-cautious/

"ALL eyes may be on the Paris climate talks, but there is another high-level meeting this week that will influence our future. The International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington DC is spending three days discussing the science, ethics and governance of a revolutionary genetic engineering technique called CRISPR – specifically its application to human beings.

The symposium was called by scientists, but will also hear from policy-makers, legal scholars and bioethicists. Its aim is to discuss what is acceptable, as well as what is possible. "
...

Cheers Uda, I'll have a look at that.

ippy

[jeremyp]

Hope, NS, thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious, well done.

ippy

It didn't look bleeding obvious to you in the original post. You seemed to be lumping all genetic engineering together.

As Hope pointed out, we've been doing genetic engineering for centuries - millennia even - it's why we can do a better job of feeding the seven billion people on Earth now than we could the few hundred thousand people ten thousand years ago.

[ippy]

It didn't look bleeding obvious to you in the original post. You seemed to be lumping all genetic engineering together.

As Hope pointed out, we've been doing genetic engineering for centuries - millennia even - it's why we can do a better job of feeding the seven billion people on Earth now than we could the few hundred thousand people ten thousand years ago.

It was recently read out on the news bout the latest form of DNA engineering there was some more about it today where they are making alterations to the order of DNA commands by cutting and shunting directly the chains of the double helix, just a few minutes ago they made another reference to China's efforts in this area and they, so they were saying, they pay scant respect or attention to the ethics involved. 

I assumed the rest of the people on the forum listen to the news too, looks like I got that bit wrong, the replies were something similar to,  if you want to drive a car first you open the door and then sit down in the front on the side where there is a big circular thing called a steering wheel in front of you etc etc,  this might not be the best example but that's how those posts sounded to me, minus the car references and add the reference to DNA.

I just was asking the question, as I thought, without having to write something as lengthy as a thesis can be. 

ippy

[Hope]

To tyake the debate a step forward, I was involved in some discussions 30-odd years about the ethics of certain Western agricultural companies taking efficient seed from third world countries and third world scientists and applying for a copyright on them.  In fact, on the whole idea of copyrighting fundamental foodstuffs.

I wonder whether there is an massive ethical leap from that to the potential of copyrighting of fundamental aspects of human life?