Sam Altman and husband reportedly working to genetically engineer babies from having hereditary disease

Comments

• Zathras@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I saw that movie. Gattica

  source

  • Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s hilarious that the link isn’t even spelled correctly. Sorry sports fan, it’s off to the genome descrambler for you.

    source
  • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Pretty sure there’s no nucleotide bases that start with the letter I though.

    source
  • anachronist@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Sam did too that’s where he got the idea.

    source
• SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Little problem…for good reasons, editing the germ line of a human is illegal in most countries. But now that Nazism is cool again, why not go full Mengele. Secondly, this is somehow better than pre-implantation genetic diagnosis? That’s >30 years old, it allows to only implant embryos free of genetic disease. Stops the disease in future generations forever, without the error rates of gene editing.

  source
• MourningDove@lemmy.zip ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I had to google Sam Altman. No idea who that was.

  source
• WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I hope the world blows up instantly via giant meteor. Asap.

  source
• FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Why is this "dystopic?" Isn't working toward eliminating diseases one of the things people keep demanding that billionaires and AI companies should be doing with their resources?

  source

  • Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The devil is in the details. Are benevolent actors doing it, or are folks just trying to install DRM into gene sequences.

    source

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The details are quite clear, even in this article. They're targeting genetic diseases.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Dojan@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Because it’s an extremely nuanced topic.

    Like sure, at face value eliminating let’s say HIV from being inherited or transmitted (and ultimately eradicate the disease) would be excellent, I don’t think anyone would ever argue against that, but that’s not so much the case with everything.

    Say, eliminating dwarfism, or deafness, or blindness (mind you these are umbrella terms and not a single thing) might look good on paper, but there are entire languages, cultures, and communities out there that people created, which would be lost should the need for them cease to be.

    Then who decides what should and shouldn’t be cured? What about neurodivergence? Homosexuality? Personally if someone says that they can “cure” homosexuality or gender dysphoria, I bristle. I don’t want anyone to “fix” my trans friends, because they’re not broken. Take it further, what about race? Should we fix that too? We could eliminate racism altogether.

    There are a lot of minorities out there already being marginalised, and it’s not exactly exciting to see the idea of us being literally bred out of existence.

    I think the core idea of wanting to “cure all disease” and whatnot is ultimately a good one, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intention.

    source

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I don’t think anyone would ever argue against that

      Aren’t they though? Take the example from the article:

      KJ Muldoon of Clifton Heights, Pennsylvania, was diagnosed shortly after birth with severe CPS1 deficiency – the buildup of toxic ammonia in the blood.

      The experimental therapy, crafted specifically for his condition, corrected a minor yet crucial error in his genetic code, offering hope for others with similarly rare diseases.

      While liver transplants can be a solution for some, this innovative gene-editing treatment offers a new avenue of hope.

      Presumably this was legal because it is something that was able to be done after the baby was born. What about similar, unambiguously deleterious conditions (there are lots of really awful ones) that fall afoul of the broad prohibitions on modifying embryos? At least on paper, this is specifically what the company that the article is about claims its focus is; the stuff no one disagrees that it’s bad to be born with. Like it isn’t very arguable that it’s good for babies to have ammonia in their blood and need liver transplants.

      Gene editing to create a baby is illegal in the US, UK, and many countries around the world, with critics arguing it is unethical and unsafe.

      So really at this point the question is only, do we allow the development and use of this technology for the things there is no objection about. I guess the risk is that this will be a slippery slope and lead to things being done that are actually bad, or maybe that mistakes will be made that cause unintended genetic issues. But if it was possible to use it just for that class of diseases, and the treatments were safe and worked, it would be a good thing.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Many people consider genetically engineered humans to be dystopic on it’s own.

    source
• Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Can we speed this up? I’m tired of being old, fat, and bald.

  source

  • flowers_galore2@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Okay, you can work on the fat thing, but the other two? Just sit in a chair in the middle of the room all day and say things like “engage”, “make it so” and “where’s my tea, earl grey, hot, number one?”, problems solved.

    source