Speaking in such broad generalizations makes it impossible to answer your questions. How safe are these modifications? What other side effects are possible? What happens if you replace an okay organic eye with a cyber eye and then it breaks and you can't afford a new one? Or when your now tampered with genes that increase your eye sight also make you colorblind or worse?
Humans have already bred selectively and genetic engineering of plants and animals is an extension of our artifical selection, why shouldn't we do the same to ourselves?
We talked about that in this thread. No one was really able to give a satisfactory explanation of why humans couldn't be or shouldn't be bred for specific traits.
Speaking in such broad generalizations makes it impossible to answer your questions. How safe are these modifications? What other side effects are possible? What happens if you replace an okay organic eye with a cyber eye and then it breaks and you can't afford a new one?
How is that any different than the situation now where if you break your organic eyeball you can't get a new one?
The only thing that's unfair about it is that the parents are making a decision that the kid can't change, but is that any worse than letting random change make the decision?
Basically that's my only gripe with it. Imagine going through high school and all the kids make fun of your horns when it is sooo much more cool to have glowing eyes! It's like tattooing your baby. If you want to choose cosmetic mods yourself, all power to you. It just seems like the kid might grow up going Daaaaad! You made me luminescent and now I can't play hide and seek!
Speaking in such broad generalizations makes it impossible to answer your questions. How safe are these modifications? What other side effects are possible? What happens if you replace an okay organic eye with a cyber eye and then it breaks and you can't afford a new one? Or when your now tampered with genes that increase your eye sight also make you colorblind or worse?
Like Scott said, it would only be responsible to do this sort of mod to a human as long as we had perfect information about the results. It's like any medical technology, it will take much research to determine if it will be viable. Genetic engineering should not be something to be done lightly, but if I had a 99.99999999 percent chance of perfection because of our in depth info about the genetic code, I think it would be a good idea. I'm assuming it would start with parents with bad traits in their genes creating genetically modified embryos to avoid a genetic disease. The technology would progress slowly and methodically. The same goes for human machine interaction. I doubt anyone's going to put a chip in someone's brain, tack on an artificial arm and then go OKAY! Let's see what happens. It will be volunteers and accident victims who will progress the technology at first. Scientists are usually not so stupid that they would run blindly into the field of human gene modification without being relatively sure of the risks.
Basically that's my only gripe with it. Imagine going through high school and all the kids make fun of your horns when it is sooo much more cool to have glowing eyes! It's like tattooing your baby. If you want to choose cosmetic mods yourself, all power to you. It just seems like the kid might grow up going Daaaaad! You made me luminescent and now I can't play hide and seek!
It's better than being randomly born with big ears, a giant nose, or a deformity of some sort. This is a problem that kids will always have to deal with, and there's really nothing scientific we can do to fix it. Well, actually, what if we could genetically engineer kids not to care about what other kids looked like? How about engineering your kid to be a great artist by picking genes that result in a more synesthetic brain? There are lot of choices to make besides physical differences.
Speaking in such broad generalizations makes it impossible to answer your questions. How safe are these modifications? What other side effects are possible? What happens if you replace an okay organic eye with a cyber eye and then it breaks and you can't afford a new one?
How is that any different than the situation now where if you break your organic eyeball you can't get a new one?
Because you voluntarily gave up your organic eye. When someone's organic eye stops functioning or is damaged, it is a tragedy. When someone opts for a non-organic eye when they only need minor correction to their vision or they want to up their vision beyond the normal human capacity, then it is just a waste. It is like cosmetic surgery. Unless you need it (have horrendously bad eyesight, are blind, loose an eye, etc.) then it is unnecessary and risky.
ou've got the beings who put their brains into machines, like Ghost in The Shell.
That's probably where we'll eventually end up. In fact, I'll bet we'll see surprisingly advanced neuro-electronic interfaces well within our lifetimes.
Speaking in such broad generalizations makes it impossible to answer your questions. How safe are these modifications? What other side effects are possible? What happens if you replace an okay organic eye with a cyber eye and then it breaks and you can't afford a new one?
How is that any different than the situation now where if you break your organic eyeball you can't get a new one?
Because you voluntarily gave up your organic eye. When someone's organic eye stops functioning or is damaged, it is a tragedy. When someone opts for a non-organic eye when they only need minor correction to their vision or they want to up their vision beyond the normal human capacity, then it is just a waste. It is like cosmetic surgery. Unless you need it (have horrendously bad eyesight, are blind, loose an eye, etc.) then it is unnecessary and risky.
I'm sure that people could be barred from having the surgery if they wanted it for trivial pursuits, just as people can't have a sex change if they just want to "try it out".
However, you didn't answer my question. If I have an accident now and lose my eyeball, it's gone. It's never coming back. However, if there were a time when I could have a cybernetic eye, I obtained such an eye, it then broke and I couldn't afford to replace it, I wouldn't be any worse off than I was in the world where an accident took my eye, would I?. I'd be better off in fact, because there would always be the possibility that I could get a new cyber eye if I saved, got a loan, waited for the tech cost to come down, etc.
I'm sure that people could be barred from having the surgery if they wanted it for trivial pursuits, just as people can't have a sex change if they just want to "try it out".
However, you didn't answer my question. If I have an accident now and lose my eyeball, it's gone. It's never coming back. However, if there were a time when I could have a cybernetic eye, I obtained such an eye, it then broke and I couldn't afford to replace it, I wouldn't be any worse off than I was in the world where an accident took my eye, would I?. I'd be better off in fact, because there would always be the possibility that I could get a new cyber eye if I saved, got a loan, waited for the tech cost to come down, etc.
I completely agree with you. My post was directed at people that wanted a cyber eye, not needed it. If a lot of people alter their bodies and then the parts stop working or have negative side effects, it will kill our already crippled healthcare system.
Damn my not watching Repo and not being able to make a suitable reference. Is the American health system going to be crippled that far into the future? I mean, Obama got elected, this has to be a sign of an overall upwards trend.
I completely agree with you. My post was directed at people thatwanteda cyber eye, not needed it. If a lot of people alter their bodies and then the parts stop working or have negative side effects, it will kill our already crippled healthcare system.
If we have a level of technology that can produce a cybernetic eye better than a normal organic eye, then a lot of our other healthcare problems will already be solved by science. With such advances in technology, a million dollar 5 hour surgery today will take two seconds and $5 in the future.
Once only a few people could afford shoes. Now everyone can afford shoes. At the time when only a few people could afford shoes, did people say "Well, obviously we can't allow shoes because it will create a wider gap between the haves and have-nots"?
The same goes for mobile phones, cars, air travel, medicine... pretty much every invention and technological advancement that has ever improved people's lives. If someone can show me a good argument against pioneers and early adopters, go for it.
I completely agree with you. My post was directed at people thatwanteda cyber eye, not needed it. If a lot of people alter their bodies and then the parts stop working or have negative side effects, it will kill our already crippled healthcare system.
If we have a level of technology that can produce a cybernetic eye better than a normal organic eye, then a lot of our other healthcare problems will already be solved by science. With such advances in technology, a million dollar 5 hour surgery today will take two seconds and $5 in the future.
You are assuming that there will be no adverse effects to the surgeries that could injur or kill a person, let alone malfuntion. Millions people buying glasses v. Millions people unable to work if the poceedures go wrong or the equipment malfunctions...
You are assuming that there will be no adverse effects to the surgeries that could injur or kill a person, let alone malfuntion. Millions people buying glasses v. Millions people unable to work if the poceedures go wrong or the equipment malfunctions...
Would people go in for surgery that is unsafe? Isn't Luke assuming that it will eventually reach a point where it is safe and reliable enough for the risks to outweigh the problems?
Millions people buying glasses v. Millions people unable to work if the poceedures go wrong or the equipment malfunctions...
You could say that about just about every major technological advance our society has ever seen. If cars malfunctioned, millions would starve. If pacemakers fail, many die. If computers failed, the economic world as we know it would cease to be.
You are assuming that there will be no adverse effects to the surgeries that could injur or kill a person, let alone malfuntion. Millions people buying glasses v. Millions people unable to work if the poceedures go wrong or the equipment malfunctions...
Would people go in for surgery that is unsafe? Isn't Luke assuming that it will eventually reach a point where it is safe and reliable enough for the risks to outweigh the problems?
Currently, surgeries are not safe. Every time you go under the knife there are huge risk factors. You have to weigh the benefits against the risk. To me, this is no better than cosmetic surgery.
Millions people buying glasses v. Millions people unable to work if the poceedures go wrong or the equipment malfunctions...
You could say that about just about every major technological advance our society has ever seen. If cars malfunctioned, millions would starve. If pacemakers fail, many die. If computers failed, the economic world as we know it would cease to be.
True. I am saying that this hypothtical is too incomplete and discusses a topic of which none of us can even guess at the variables involved, let alone the consequences.
Currently, surgeries are not safe. Every time you go under the knife there are huge risk factors. You have to weigh the benefits against the risk. To me, this is no better than cosmetic surgery.
Well, is the distinction to be made between essential and non-essential surgery? What happens when having your eyes replaced bears the same risk as having your appendix does now? At what point do the advantages gained by having non-essential cyborg implants outweigh the risks? Will people just do it for the hell of it? and when do we start seeing cyborg implant adverts in our spam folder?
If we start trying to change genes to eliminate tay sachs, sickle cell, or other diseases we have a pretty good chances of causing others, or creating new ones.
Well, maybe, but that would probably be due to an imprecise technique more than anything else.
Tay Sachs has a very well-understood cause, which is one of the many reasons it always comes up in a bioethics discussion. Tay Sachs results from mutations in the HEXA gene, resulting in a misfolded, non-functioning protein. The mutations can range from a simple base change, to an addition or deletion, to multiple mutations along the gene. Irrespective, we know which deviations from the wild-type pattern will be non-functional and result in the disease. The HEXA gene product has only one function, and is one of 3 gene products necessary to accomplish that function. Mutations in the other genes do not result in Tay Sachs*.
If we had a technique that could manipulate HEXA without disturbing the function of other genes, then we could cure Tay-Sachs. The whole issue is finding a technique that is sufficiently precise.
*Mutations in the other genes still result in an accumulation of gangliosides, but they do NOT result in Tay-Sachs. Only mutations in HEXA result in Tay-Sachs.
Yes. Well, not necessarily. We can perform site-directed mutagenesis techniques pretty reliably, but they're impractical to do on an embryo. Zibbelcoot is really the expert on those things around here.
There's been a lot research into gene therapies and protein replacement therapies. As always, the issue is not one of the underlying principal, but one of making sure the focus is sufficiently narrow.
I should clarify something: I'm not saying we don't need to test techniques. I'm saying that we're completely aware of how the disease functions and how we could go about treating it. All the research is in developing and refining a technique.
Wow, there's going to be a point in time where people can just go and get their genetics changed. Something I view as an essential part of me. Weird..
Yes. The issue is not one of having adequate technology. Rather, the issue is that once the technology exists, how ought we use it? When we develop the technology to eliminate mutations in HEXA and thus stop Tay-Sachs, what other applications could we have for that technology? I'm sure we can all agree that it'd be nice to eliminate (well, technically, minimize) fatal genetic diseases, but what about non-fatal but still debilitating mutations?
One day, we'll have the power to eliminate Down's Syndrome. Should we?
Are all genes discrete? I mean, we know Tay-Sachs is from a mutation of HEXA. How do we know HEXA doesn't do anything else? I imagine there are a lot of pairs in HEXA. How many pairs have to be wrong before you have Tay-Sachs? There have to be a lot more than two possible variations. What of all those other variations?
Are all genes discrete? I mean, we know Tay-Sachs is from a mutation of HEXA. How do we know HEXA doesn't do anything else? I imagine there are a lot of pairs in HEXA. How many pairs have to be wrong before you have Tay-Sachs? There have to be a lot more than two possible variations. What of all those other variations?
Most genes are discrete. Eukaryotes are unique in that alternative splicing is possible, so some genes can code for more than one gene product. However, even in those cases, all of the products are discrete, and most genes simply code for one product. As I'll shortly demonstrate, this is necessarily the case.
HEXA specifically codes the alpha subunit of the enzyme beta-hexosaminidase. There is another gene called HEXB on a completely different chromosome that codes for the beta subunit of that enzyme. Those two genes, plus one other enzyme (a cofactor coded by a different gene entirely) function together to catalyze the breakdown of gangliosides. A mutation in ANY of those proteins results in a buildup of gangliosides, and a mutation in the product of HEXA specifically results in Tay-Sachs. A mutation in the HEXB gene causes Sandhoff disease, which is clinically identical to Tay-Sachs, but biochemically different. A mutation in the third protein results in GM2-gangliosidosis, which is ALSO clinically identical to Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff, but again, is biochemically different.
In all cases, all you need is a mutation that results in the insertion of the incorrect amino acid in a position. The assembly of proteins is performed by the ribosomes, which read RNA strands (generated from DNA by RNA polymerase) in sets of 3 called codons, and then assemble a protein from amino acids. There are 64 possible codons (4 bases, 3 positions), and these 64 codons correspond to the 20 common amino acids. Some codons, obviously, correspond to the same amino acid.
For example, the sequences UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, and CUG (U is the equivalent of T in RNA) all correspond to the amino acid leucine. If you change UUA to UUU, you instead get phenylalanine, which is a completely different amino acid. If a ribosome is assembling a protein, and one of the codons in the RNA that code for that protein has such a mutation, the ribosome will insert the wrong amino acid and change the protein. In all cases, such a protein does not function as it normally should (either it's misfolded and doesn't fit where it should, or one of its functional sites is destroyed). When such a mutation occurs in HEXA, the alpha subunit is non-functional, and Tay-Sachs is the result.
It's possible to have a completely benign single base-pair change. Continuing with the above example, if the codon should be UUA, and it mutates to UUG, nothing happens, because the ribosome still inserts the correct amino acid.
In any event, genes have a specific sequence, and that specific sequence corresponds to a specific protein, based on very discrete rules. Things do get messed up, however, and there are multiple points at which a mutation may be introduced. For example, when DNA is transcribed into RNA, RNA polymerase every now and then just inserts the wrong base. During translation, the ribosome may not fully attach to the strand of RNA and sometimes misses the third base in a codon (this is called the "Wobble" effect), sometimes resulting in the insertion of the incorrect amino acid.
So, eliminating mutations at the genetic level would not eliminate all instances of a given genetic disease, but it would certainly help to minimize them.
EDIT: Also, I have no technical issue with people picking traits for their children, if we had the technology. I personally would not do so, unless I were correcting a severe genetic abnormality.
Here's a nice inflammatory statement to chew on: Assuming we had the technology to affect changes to a single gene with no effect on other genes, I would say that parents would have a moral obligation, both to society and to their unborn child, to correct all major genetic defects that would result in a significant impairment to the ability of that child to function in society. In short, once we can do it, parents should be obligated to prevent their child from being born mentally retarded, or with any major genetic disease, or some such thing. To do anything less, I say, would constitute cruelty to the child.
I agree with you. If indeed we know all effects of our gene modification, and we have the ability to modify a gene to be "obviously better", then we are definitely morally obligated to fix it.
Let's ask another question, though. Let's say we don't have the ability to fix it, but we do have the ability to detect it very early. Should we be morally obligated to throw it away and try again until we get one without the problem?
I agree with you. If indeed we know all effects of our gene modification, and we have the ability to modify a gene to be "obviously better", then we are definitely morally obligated to fix it.
Let's ask another question, though. Let's say we don't have the ability to fix it, but we do have the ability to detect it very early. Should we be morally obligated to throw it away and try again until we get one without the problem?
I think that would depend on the degree of the disease or syndrome.
Comments
However, you didn't answer my question. If I have an accident now and lose my eyeball, it's gone. It's never coming back. However, if there were a time when I could have a cybernetic eye, I obtained such an eye, it then broke and I couldn't afford to replace it, I wouldn't be any worse off than I was in the world where an accident took my eye, would I?. I'd be better off in fact, because there would always be the possibility that I could get a new cyber eye if I saved, got a loan, waited for the tech cost to come down, etc.
Is the American health system going to be crippled that far into the future? I mean, Obama got elected, this has to be a sign of an overall upwards trend.
The same goes for mobile phones, cars, air travel, medicine... pretty much every invention and technological advancement that has ever improved people's lives. If someone can show me a good argument against pioneers and early adopters, go for it.
Will people just do it for the hell of it? and when do we start seeing cyborg implant adverts in our spam folder?
Tay Sachs has a very well-understood cause, which is one of the many reasons it always comes up in a bioethics discussion. Tay Sachs results from mutations in the HEXA gene, resulting in a misfolded, non-functioning protein. The mutations can range from a simple base change, to an addition or deletion, to multiple mutations along the gene. Irrespective, we know which deviations from the wild-type pattern will be non-functional and result in the disease. The HEXA gene product has only one function, and is one of 3 gene products necessary to accomplish that function. Mutations in the other genes do not result in Tay Sachs*.
If we had a technique that could manipulate HEXA without disturbing the function of other genes, then we could cure Tay-Sachs. The whole issue is finding a technique that is sufficiently precise.
*Mutations in the other genes still result in an accumulation of gangliosides, but they do NOT result in Tay-Sachs. Only mutations in HEXA result in Tay-Sachs.
There's been a lot research into gene therapies and protein replacement therapies. As always, the issue is not one of the underlying principal, but one of making sure the focus is sufficiently narrow.
I should clarify something: I'm not saying we don't need to test techniques. I'm saying that we're completely aware of how the disease functions and how we could go about treating it. All the research is in developing and refining a technique.
One day, we'll have the power to eliminate Down's Syndrome. Should we?
HEXA specifically codes the alpha subunit of the enzyme beta-hexosaminidase. There is another gene called HEXB on a completely different chromosome that codes for the beta subunit of that enzyme. Those two genes, plus one other enzyme (a cofactor coded by a different gene entirely) function together to catalyze the breakdown of gangliosides. A mutation in ANY of those proteins results in a buildup of gangliosides, and a mutation in the product of HEXA specifically results in Tay-Sachs. A mutation in the HEXB gene causes Sandhoff disease, which is clinically identical to Tay-Sachs, but biochemically different. A mutation in the third protein results in GM2-gangliosidosis, which is ALSO clinically identical to Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff, but again, is biochemically different.
In all cases, all you need is a mutation that results in the insertion of the incorrect amino acid in a position. The assembly of proteins is performed by the ribosomes, which read RNA strands (generated from DNA by RNA polymerase) in sets of 3 called codons, and then assemble a protein from amino acids. There are 64 possible codons (4 bases, 3 positions), and these 64 codons correspond to the 20 common amino acids. Some codons, obviously, correspond to the same amino acid.
For example, the sequences UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, and CUG (U is the equivalent of T in RNA) all correspond to the amino acid leucine. If you change UUA to UUU, you instead get phenylalanine, which is a completely different amino acid. If a ribosome is assembling a protein, and one of the codons in the RNA that code for that protein has such a mutation, the ribosome will insert the wrong amino acid and change the protein. In all cases, such a protein does not function as it normally should (either it's misfolded and doesn't fit where it should, or one of its functional sites is destroyed). When such a mutation occurs in HEXA, the alpha subunit is non-functional, and Tay-Sachs is the result.
It's possible to have a completely benign single base-pair change. Continuing with the above example, if the codon should be UUA, and it mutates to UUG, nothing happens, because the ribosome still inserts the correct amino acid.
You can find the codon table in this wikipedia article; it also elaborates on what I was saying.
In any event, genes have a specific sequence, and that specific sequence corresponds to a specific protein, based on very discrete rules. Things do get messed up, however, and there are multiple points at which a mutation may be introduced. For example, when DNA is transcribed into RNA, RNA polymerase every now and then just inserts the wrong base. During translation, the ribosome may not fully attach to the strand of RNA and sometimes misses the third base in a codon (this is called the "Wobble" effect), sometimes resulting in the insertion of the incorrect amino acid.
So, eliminating mutations at the genetic level would not eliminate all instances of a given genetic disease, but it would certainly help to minimize them.
EDIT: Also, I have no technical issue with people picking traits for their children, if we had the technology. I personally would not do so, unless I were correcting a severe genetic abnormality.
Here's a nice inflammatory statement to chew on: Assuming we had the technology to affect changes to a single gene with no effect on other genes, I would say that parents would have a moral obligation, both to society and to their unborn child, to correct all major genetic defects that would result in a significant impairment to the ability of that child to function in society. In short, once we can do it, parents should be obligated to prevent their child from being born mentally retarded, or with any major genetic disease, or some such thing. To do anything less, I say, would constitute cruelty to the child.
1. All genes are discrete, even if they happen to code for multiple gene products.
2. Mutations of all sorts can occur. The ones that are problematic are those that actually change the structure of a protein.
3. We already know how DNA/RNA bases translate into proteins.
Thus:
We can predict how certain changes in DNA sequences will affect the structure of a protein, and whether or not it will be able to function normally.
Let's ask another question, though. Let's say we don't have the ability to fix it, but we do have the ability to detect it very early. Should we be morally obligated to throw it away and try again until we get one without the problem?