Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by afpx 3072 days ago
For 2, isn’t there risk that people will be influenced by association studies and seek out editing of single nucleotides thereby potentially removing ‘bad’ variants from the entire population? For example, say a gwas shows that a snp variant is associated with higher IQ. People rush to edit that nucleotide. But, they don’t understand that that snp variant may have had other beneficial effects ...
2 comments

Likely, only the rich will be able to run out and get gene mods for some time.
Given that genetic testing(+) has had twice the rate of performance-to-cost doublings as Moore’s Law since the Human Genome Project completed, “some time” may be 21 years from billionaires to subsistence farmers.

(+) yes I know that’s not the same as editing, but it’s the closest comparison I have for guestimating future improvements.

Likely, the rich will set up charities that sponsor gene mods for the poor.

(Only a cynic would call it beta testing.)

Aren't we already doing beta-testing medicaments big scale in africa?
I imagine that (at least for the foreseeable future) genetic engineering will only be targeted to modifying SNPs (and other mutations) that unambiguously cause diseases.
If we'd had the option to remove the gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia from the population, wouldn't we have taken it? Which would have meant we then didn't have the malaria-resistant population that now exists due to that same gene.
On the one hand, correct.

On the other, we’re currently exploring ways to wipe out malaria carrying mosquitoes.

On the third (genetically modified :P) hand, easy gene modification will probably lead to a similar patch-cycle as we already have for software.

On the fourth hand, thanks to the typical decade long testing cycle for medicines, the worst parts of this hypothetical future are likely to happen around the same time we get full-mind uploads.

I imagine that genetic engineering for intelligence has already happened on the downlow.
bloodlines