Have we leapt into commercial genetic testing without understanding it?

Post content hidden for low score. Show…
if everyone is bred to be tall, smart, and good-looking, how will we learn to tolerate otherness
Sorry to break this to you, but the experience shows that humans are terrible at that regardless of the prevalence of otherness. About 10% of people are naturally left-handed, but for centuries it was considered aberrant and "corrected". And god have mercy on you if you're born male and ginger today.
 
Upvote
98 (104 / -6)

Lexus Lunar Lorry

Ars Scholae Palatinae
846
Subscriptor++
"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task, and the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?"

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, SMAC
 
Upvote
97 (97 / 0)

skraft

Smack-Fu Master, in training
66
Eliminating traits that parents find objectional should be regulated (not prohibited). Polygenic embryo selection is a technology for tilting the embryo’s odds in what its parent(s) consider to be the right direction; it is not a technology for increasing diversity. To increase diversity, new technology will have to be developed. If parents could effectively invent new traits, at least some of them would do so. That too must be regulated. And in both cases, regulation must very carefully decide what must be prohibited and back that up with extremely sound reasoning. Creating mass murderers should be prohibited, but creating naturally green or blue hair should not.
 
Upvote
-1 (41 / -42)

Sadre

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,008
Subscriptor
Normal people are using this tech for uncomfortable things. My middle brother did a test to say "where we are from."

Where we are from? I'm from the freakin modern world and so's he.

My doctor fears what he calls a wave of "cosmetic psychiatry" that will develop around people trying to "hack" what their genes and/or personality type has saddled them with.

People feel their own self is a burden? We need to create a more healthy idea of life. Work and pursuit of accomplishments is part of life but is not the point of life. The point of life lies partially in realizing who you are, and who you are in and of itself most likely does not need to be "hacked."
 
Upvote
53 (57 / -4)

FranzJoseph

Ars Centurion
2,141
Subscriptor
While it is understandable that parents want to give their kids the best chance of success, eliminating traits that they find objectionable will make humanity as a whole more uniform and society as a whole poorer for the lack of heterogeneity.
Not just poorer for the lack of heterogeneity, it would also make such dystopian society potentially quite inbred.

What if the new "SARSEbola 3.0" emerging 200 years later has a 100% fatality rate in those possessing the "good" gene?
 
Upvote
45 (51 / -6)

MilanKraft

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,711
A nice treat this morning to find a book review of sorts by Beth. Based on the "cooperative adversaries" aspect — something we definitely need more of in this country — and the complex subject-matter, I will definitely be adding this book to my library.

I've read a few modern era books on Nature, Nurture, and whether there should be a "versus" at all. The Blank Slate, obscure books on epigenetics ("is there another kind?"), a couple more popular titles on genetic "engineering", etc. It's all worth reading and thinking about, even if we're very much at a "we still have more questions than answers" stage, in terms of knowing what specific genes do (or don't do).

Mostly though, it's encouraging that Beth clearly pointed out — given how rudimentary most people's understanding of genetics is — that the answer to "nature or nurture", when determining why we are the way we are, is "yes". Everything needs to start with that premise, or people will end up going down ugly paths, including potentially different kinds of "selection technology". Because in the US especially, of course they will be mis-used / abused until something really bad happens. Because "break stuff (or people) to make a buck, then apologize later" is how we roll, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
15 (20 / -5)

The Lurker Beneath

Ars Tribunus Militum
6,636
Subscriptor
two-buttons-polygenic.png
 
Upvote
-11 (21 / -32)

DNA_Doc

Ars Scholae Palatinae
904
For anyone interested in learning more about this broad topic, I would highly recommend checking out some of the well-known bioethics think tanks, such as the Hastings Center. For example, this page:

Genomic Findings on Human Behavior and Social Outcomes: FAQs

...contains the key findings to a number of studies, with links to each. Also, in the Polygenic Embryo Selection section specifically, the "Additional Link" for the study "Utility of Polygenic Embryo Screening for Disease Depends on the Selection Strategy" is a decent primer for those unfamiliar with PES, embryo selection, etc.
 
Upvote
14 (14 / 0)

Erbium68

Ars Centurion
2,586
Subscriptor
Where we are from? I'm from the freakin modern world and so's he.
True. Someone tell Mike Huckabee.
My roots are in North London, not some largely imaginary Judaea. I don't go and kiss the soil of Italy when I go there because that's where my great-grandmother's family came from.
But many people seem to imagine that distant ancestry has meaning and ignore Abraham Lincolns observation: "Don't tell me who someone's father was, tell me what his son is like."
 
Upvote
83 (88 / -5)

Erbium68

Ars Centurion
2,586
Subscriptor
"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task, and the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?"

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, SMAC
Idea stolen from Huxley's Brave New World. Only in that, the workers were trained to be happy.
 
Upvote
31 (34 / -3)
In practice a subset of weird rich people will try to min/max child rearing in weird ways as they always have, and almost everyone else will continue selecting partners and having children mostly normally. The typical person is not so nihilistic as to terminate a pregnancy based on some height score on a piece of paper. In part, because they already selected for height when they chose their partner. I also don't think most people will be "re-rolling" their pregnancies based on fuzzy disease risk scores that their doctor is telling them may not be totally accurate. We will see a drop across the board in genetic disorders though from prenatal testing.
 
Upvote
31 (35 / -4)

markg729

Seniorius Lurkius
46
Subscriptor
Everyone can benefit from exposure to people who are different from them; if everyone is bred to be tall, smart, and good-looking, how will we learn to tolerate otherness?
This is a deeply incoherent argument. Tall, smart, and good-looking are just three traits, and are also relative traits. There is a 0% chance that gene editing everyone for more of these will substantially reduce the innumerable ways humans will sort each other into boxes of "us" and "other."

It also implies we should gene edit MORE of the population to be different (the linked article is specifically talking about Down syndrome) just so we can, I guess, learn about how different everyone is?
 
Last edited:
Upvote
25 (28 / -3)
Idea stolen from Huxley's Brave New World. Only in that, the workers were trained to be happy.

Stolen/inspired by... I like Frank Herberts Hellstrom's Hive as an influence on the Human Hive.

From the article:
"Almost every family I know has a kid who has taken growth hormones, and plenty of them get tutoring, too."

That's a weird sentence. Are we talking families the author knows, because that sounds alarming to me, or are those the families who did the genetic screening? Some googling tells me just one in 4000-10000 kids have a growth hormone deficency. And tutoring on what? Tutoring because they have a disability of some sort?
 
Upvote
73 (74 / -1)

Fred Duck

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,166
I couldn't resit - but what to you use to bread your social norms? Panko? Sourdough crumbs? day old that you break up to reuse?
I can't let it sip by–but what have you done to resit? Cushions? Soft blankets? I'm certain if you raise up and try again that should work eventually.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
29 (30 / -1)

vanzandtj

Ars Scholae Palatinae
987
Subscriptor
Genes considered "undesirable" may have survived in the gene pool due to some helpful effect. For example, "...carrying one normal copy of the gene (HbA) and one copy of the version responsible for sickle cell disease (the combination is called HbAS) may protect against getting malaria; hence, this abnormal gene provides an advantage to some people who carry it."
I have little confidence that we know all the other traits that are correlated with color blindness, left-handedness, short stature, or what have you.
 
Upvote
48 (48 / 0)

Kommi

Ars Centurion
286
Subscriptor
I know a guy who is a primary investor in a baby gene screening firm. Their primary claim to fame, and something he insists is real, is that they can eliminate autism entirely. Never mind the fact that 400+ genes, and random environmental factors are involved in it. He's rich, so he must be right, is the argument he constantly resorts to.

I'd weep for the future, but at this point I'm not sure if we have one, or even deserve it, given how much the general populace idolizes these people.
 
Upvote
39 (41 / -2)

Wickwick

Ars Legatus Legionis
39,604
Welcome to competitive child rearing. All over the US.

I was somewhat ostracized when my kids were growing up as I wanted them to be kids. Not products.
I live in the US. I'm not aware of any of my children's peers using growth hormones. Maybe they are, but it wasn't something that everyone else would be aware of.
 
Upvote
65 (66 / -1)

Oldmanalex

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,778
Subscriptor++
I know a guy who is a primary investor in a baby gene screening firm. Their primary claim to fame, and something he insists is real, is that they can eliminate autism entirely. Never mind the fact that 400+ genes, and random environmental factors are involved in it. He's rich, so he must be right, is the argument he constantly resorts to.

I'd weep for the future, but at this point I'm not sure if we have one, or even deserve it, given how much the general populace idolizes these people.
One might argue that the rich have a vested interest in eliminating autism. Especially that part of the autistic mind that looks at a rat, and says "rat", rather than, as instructed, "racehorse".
 
Upvote
15 (16 / -1)

NC Now

Ars Praetorian
405
Subscriptor++
I'm not aware of any of my children's peers using growth hormones.
My kids are in their 30s now. I don't know specifically about HGHs now but it would not surprise me at all if it was a thing.

There IS a correlation between hieght and upper management at most companies. Not absolute but it is there.
 
Upvote
14 (15 / -1)
From the article:
"Almost every family I know has a kid who has taken growth hormones, and plenty of them get tutoring, too."

That's a weird sentence.
Came here to say that. I'm not aware of any of my kid's friends and acquaintances that had any such treatments, in childhood or adolescence.



(Unrelated, HRT was ineffective for the ex, and apparently 50% of chrono endowed human females.)
 
Upvote
24 (25 / -1)

plaidflannel

Ars Praetorian
440
Subscriptor
Everyone can benefit from exposure to people who are different from them; if everyone is bred to be tall, smart, and good-looking, how will we learn to tolerate otherness?
But isn't that the very definition of woke? And isn't American expending significant resources to eliminate that from our society?
 
Upvote
-2 (6 / -8)

terrydactyl

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,871
Subscriptor
Stolen/inspired by... I like Frank Herberts Hellstrom's Hive as an influence on the Human Hive.

From the article:
"Almost every family I know has a kid who has taken growth hormones, and plenty of them get tutoring, too."

That's a weird sentence. Are we talking families the author knows, because that sounds alarming to me, or are those the families who did the genetic screening? Some googling tells me just one in 4000-10000 kids have a growth hormone deficency. And tutoring on what? Tutoring because they have a disability of some sort?
I remember when growth hormones became a thing and there was a concern that parents would clamor for it, with parents worried their kids were a little short for their age instead of using it legitimately for a deficiency. I'm guessing that became a reality.
 
Upvote
12 (13 / -1)

terrydactyl

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,871
Subscriptor
True. Someone tell Mike Huckabee.
My roots are in North London, not some largely imaginary Judaea. I don't go and kiss the soil of Italy when I go there because that's where my great-grandmother's family came from.
But many people seem to imagine that distant ancestry has meaning and ignore Abraham Lincolns observation: "Don't tell me who someone's father was, tell me what his son is like."
There are some stories of people getting those ancestry tests and and discovering somewhere in the recent past some of their ancestors originated in Africa or other unexpected places. Genetic diversity is not what some think.
 
Upvote
5 (5 / 0)

Oldmanalex

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,778
Subscriptor++
I remember when growth hormones became a thing and there was a concern that parents would clamor for it, with parents worried their kids were a little short for their age instead of using it legitimately for a deficiency. I'm guessing that became a reality.
My brother was treated with growth hormone nearly 70 years ago, when it was extracted from human pituitaries, (and he avoided Creuzfeld-Jacob syndrome). However, he had remained at 35 lbs for nearly five years when he was given the drug, and ended up well below average height. Our family has erratic growth curves, but even by our standards he was unusual. When my sons were confidently told that they would be respectively 5 ft 2 and 6 ft 3, I just smiled, and was not surprised when both ended up average at 5ft 10.
 
Upvote
12 (13 / -1)

Veritas super omens

Ars Legatus Legionis
26,350
Subscriptor++
This is a deeply incoherent argument. Tall, smart, and good-looking are just three traits, and are also relative traits. There is a 0% chance that gene editing everyone for more of these will substantially reduce the innumerable ways humans will sort each other into boxes of "us" and "other."
Until we reach the clone wars...
 
Upvote
6 (8 / -2)

Madestjohn

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,452
But isn't that the very definition of woke? And isn't American expending significant resources to eliminate that from our society?
Please excuse my subtle but important correction
the term Woke, is largely considered to have been originated by Leadbelly, more precisely “Stay Woke, keep your eyes open”, when talking about his 1939 song ‘Scottsboro Boys’ about nine black teens falsely accused and sentenced to death for the rape of a white woman

It wasn’t an appeal for the general desirability of tolerance in society, but a warning about intolerance
An admonishment to his fellow blacks not to trust the supposed good nature of the apparently polite white folk around them, not to be lulled by their outward mild manners but rather to always be aware, to pay active attention to the intolerance, racism, injustice and ill will that lies below the surface.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
47 (48 / -1)

NC Now

Ars Praetorian
405
Subscriptor++
There are some stories of people getting those ancestry tests and and discovering somewhere in the recent past some of their ancestors originated in Africa or other unexpected places.
All of these firms had to set up special groups who would call folks when it was obvious that "dad" was not really "dad" or simlar before just mailing back the results. The blow back in the early days from people just getting a printed report or email was a bit fierce.
 
Upvote
10 (10 / 0)