Research Highlights: In a Phase 1, first-in-human trial, a one-time infusion of an investigational CRISPR-Cas9 therapy targeting angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3) was safe and reduced LDL cholesterol by nearly 50% and reduced triglycerides by...
The US is an exception but generally, the cost of therapies becomes commercially viable with the passage of time.
For example, our 2 year old daughter just had her DNA profiled because she has a few manageable, yet ongoing developmental deficiencies. Her DNA markers will guide her treatment.
When I was a child this type of treatment was sci-fi, and when it was invented you could have said “by rich for rich” or whatever.
Shit’s going to get pretty weird imo. Hopefully it isn’t used for eugenics purposes (it probably will be, let’s be honest). I don’t think that people should be able to change so many things that they become unrecognizable, but I can understand changing a few things per person, voluntarily, obviously.
Allowed, sure, just don’t think it’s a good idea to completely change who you are. I want humans to be recognizable as such. I’m more worried about what parents will be doing to their children, that’s where the eugenics shit becomes a problem. Getting rid of “undesirable” traits and whatnot.
Individuals with autism and other differences deserve to exist in the future. My brother and I were born with autism, my brother was born with much higher support needs. Yes, there can be challenges, of course there are. But he’s happy enough, and I’m not sure he would be happier as a neurotypical. My parents? Well, they might’ve preferred he not be.
Personally, I’d never choose to born without my autism or ADHD, because it’s arguably a part of who I am. If I was born without either, my life would be unrecognizable.
Would I choose to be born with Down Syndrome? I don’t know. I’ve never had it. I might’ve been a happier person. Might’ve had way worse of a life.
I’d ask some people with it if they’d rather been born without it. Is it not immoral to remove a potential part of their being without their consent?
Let me be clear, I’m sure that plenty of both groups would prefer to have never had it. A majority, I don’t know, not sure any surveys or studies have been done on the matter. Not sure there’s any way to prove that the issues on either side outweigh the other.
On the discrimination, don’t you think that plenty of people will be doing this because of their prejudices?
Also, the original question WAS just a question. It was a bit suggestive, my apologies. I was a bit tired.
There are a lot more problems in trying to create the infrastructure to enforce sanctioned uses of any readily accessible technology than there is in the use of said tool. The people who want to do the most harm inevitability wind up in the oversight position, while society tends to create enforcement mechanisms at a social, interpersonal level organically already.
Don’t want to stop being cruel and violent? Want to keep committing atrocity against vulnerable individuals while destroying human-supporting environments on Earth, for absolutely no practical benefit to yourself? Well good news! Investor-driven medical research is here to protect you (and only you) from the consequences of your monstrous choices!
I suspect they’re making an unwarranted assumption that the experimental patient ended up with high cholesterol due to excessive consumption of animal products (rather than, say, a genetic defect that would cause them to overproduce it regardless of diet) and applying some typical vegan arguments regarding livestock farming. No need to listen to them.
Well, it can come from palm/coconut oil for example, it doesn’t only come from animals, and vegans with familial hypercholesterolemia want you to shut the fuck up.
Bring it on!!!
Autoimmune disease? GONE!
Acne? GONE!
Don’t like your eye color? CHANGE IT!
For rich by rich, only rich get.
Thats not really true.
The US is an exception but generally, the cost of therapies becomes commercially viable with the passage of time.
For example, our 2 year old daughter just had her DNA profiled because she has a few manageable, yet ongoing developmental deficiencies. Her DNA markers will guide her treatment.
When I was a child this type of treatment was sci-fi, and when it was invented you could have said “by rich for rich” or whatever.
Cost and price are two different things. Insulin is cheap to make but people die from not being able to afford the sticker price.
… In the US, yes
Not outside the US
Despite my other comments, I suspect you are right.
Now, sing with me: “Only in America…”
Shit’s going to get pretty weird imo. Hopefully it isn’t used for eugenics purposes (it probably will be, let’s be honest). I don’t think that people should be able to change so many things that they become unrecognizable, but I can understand changing a few things per person, voluntarily, obviously.
I believe in bodily autonomy. People should be able to do whatever they want to their own body.
Allowed, sure, just don’t think it’s a good idea to completely change who you are. I want humans to be recognizable as such. I’m more worried about what parents will be doing to their children, that’s where the eugenics shit becomes a problem. Getting rid of “undesirable” traits and whatnot.
Some people are way too attached to their disabilities.
Would you prefer that autistics and those with down syndrome cease to exist?
How do you feel about NIPT tests and ultrasounds?
Individuals with autism and other differences deserve to exist in the future. My brother and I were born with autism, my brother was born with much higher support needs. Yes, there can be challenges, of course there are. But he’s happy enough, and I’m not sure he would be happier as a neurotypical. My parents? Well, they might’ve preferred he not be.
Personally, I’d never choose to born without my autism or ADHD, because it’s arguably a part of who I am. If I was born without either, my life would be unrecognizable.
Would I choose to be born with Down Syndrome? I don’t know. I’ve never had it. I might’ve been a happier person. Might’ve had way worse of a life. I’d ask some people with it if they’d rather been born without it. Is it not immoral to remove a potential part of their being without their consent?
Let me be clear, I’m sure that plenty of both groups would prefer to have never had it. A majority, I don’t know, not sure any surveys or studies have been done on the matter. Not sure there’s any way to prove that the issues on either side outweigh the other.
On the discrimination, don’t you think that plenty of people will be doing this because of their prejudices?
Also, the original question WAS just a question. It was a bit suggestive, my apologies. I was a bit tired.
Removing mental and physical developmental issues from future generations; yes I personally would prefer that ceases to exist.
Or are you in bad faith trying to equate that with taking people currently alive and executing them, because that is far from the same thing.
There are a lot more problems in trying to create the infrastructure to enforce sanctioned uses of any readily accessible technology than there is in the use of said tool. The people who want to do the most harm inevitability wind up in the oversight position, while society tends to create enforcement mechanisms at a social, interpersonal level organically already.
WDYM “for eugenics purposes”?
Look up designer babies.
That’s not really “eugenics” as I understand the term but whatever.
Watch gattacca
And enjoy the 5 cancers you just caused yourself by editing other genes that happen to contain the targeted sequence !
Don’t want to stop being cruel and violent? Want to keep committing atrocity against vulnerable individuals while destroying human-supporting environments on Earth, for absolutely no practical benefit to yourself? Well good news! Investor-driven medical research is here to protect you (and only you) from the consequences of your monstrous choices!
What are you talking about?
I suspect they’re making an unwarranted assumption that the experimental patient ended up with high cholesterol due to excessive consumption of animal products (rather than, say, a genetic defect that would cause them to overproduce it regardless of diet) and applying some typical vegan arguments regarding livestock farming. No need to listen to them.
Where do you think dietary cholesterol comes from?
Well, it can come from palm/coconut oil for example, it doesn’t only come from animals, and vegans with familial hypercholesterolemia want you to shut the fuck up.
Your body makes it’s own cholesterol, and so the main driver of your cholesterol level is genetics. Quote from the AMA:
https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/chronic-diseases/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-high-cholesterol