Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- A genetic disease runs in your family. Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely to also carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could change your fate. It could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. Even more, it could potentially make sure your grandchildren are also free of the disease. What do you do? Now, imagine it's not a rare genetic disorder, but general illness, or eye color, or cognitive ability, or athleticism. Do you opt into this new world of genetically edited humans? And what if it's not just you. What your friends, neighbors, and colleagues are also embracing this genetic revolution? Right now, science doesn't give you that choice. But huge advancements in CRISPR technology are making human gene editing a reality. In fact, in 2018, a Chinese scientist announced the first genetically modified babies; twin girls made to resist HIV, smallpox, and malaria. The promise of this technology is clear. But gene editing is not without its perils. Its critics say the technology is destined to exacerbate inequality, pressure all parents (and nations) into editing their children to stay competitive, and meddling with the most basic aspect of our humanity. In this context, we ask the question: Should we use gene editing to make better babies?
FOR THE MOTION
Dr. George Church
Professor of Genetics, Harvard and MIT & Founder, Personal Genome Project
Amy Webb
Futurist & Author, "The Genesis Machine"
AGAINST THE MOTION
Marcy Darnovsky
Policy Advocate
Françoise Baylis
Philosopher
#debate #intelligencesquared #iq2us #geneediting #crispr #ethics #genesismachine #georgechurch #marcydarnovsky #amywebb #francoisebaylis #opentodebate
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
Also, in regards to exacerbating inequality, this could be said about most new technologies. Wealthier people tend to have initial access, and eventually this technology becomes more dated and trickles down into lower socioeconomic communities. Cars. The internet. Various medical treatments.
I'm not saying that this isn't a valid concern, but to say that we shouldn't pursue something because of this reason implies that we shouldn't purse MANY innovations.
Thinking the same thing. Inequality does not mean those at the tail end suffer.
An issue that wasn't addressed enough was what would happen in the event that other countries with looser bioethical regulations develop and implement this technology before us. What sort of social and economic impact would it have? Would countries that are relatively wealthy nowadays be 'forced' to adopt it in a sort of 'arms race'?
what is Better?...who is going to decide what Better is?...
"Better" is whatever the parent values. It's subjective. More high IQ people benefits all of our lives and living standards, our health, our levels of comfort, our safety, and ability to move around, etc.
So higher IQ is the universally beneficial thing.
This is called eugenics, no?
The rich, so u know it's not gonna be good for the rest of the population
The answer is YES. Period.
A very good debate bringing up a lot of the concerns I've heard before. For me, the best solution is to allow biology to continue to do research to understand the genome and learn how to edit the genome, but only to continue with the constraint of what I call adequately informed consent. I think gene editing could yield amazing and good results, but a new and controversial treatment like gene editing needs to be constrained to a standard of adequately informed consent (knowing what the procedure is, what it's supposed to do, the probabilities of success and failure, the types of success and failure, etc).
When are in person debates comming back?
When they focus MORE on how to KILL COVID rather than MAKING babies 👶
Who cares.
Philosophy lady shouldn't have been invited to this debate
The question is wrong. It should be should we use gene editing to eliminate harmful birth defects?
This woman in green is incredibly bad faith throughout. She used multiple strawmans and her statement near the end was appalling. In context it comes off as her saying the growth as a person she experienced from taking care of her parent with Alzheimers is more valuable than a potential treatment to end or prevent the suffering the parent experienced. Of all the arguments made here I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that growth through suffering is a virtue over prevention of suffering.
Maybe she was just looking to get an emotional response out of people and the story came off badly and she doesn't actually hold the view her statement seems to portray. But given the context of a debate about should technology to end Alzheimers be allowed, saying discussion of developing that technology is wanting to just massage the world to be better off as though that's a bad thing is terrible but even worse when she implies it's better to allow it to exist because the suffering it causes for everyone surrounding it is worth more because it might make "rich diversity" whatever she means by that.
Just saw her ending statement about cystic fibrosis and I genuinely cannot understand how anyone thought she was a productive member to add to this panel. That's such a disgusting thing to say.
I agree with you. I had to stop the video at that point because I couldn't believe what she just said. You could argue against all progress whatsoever if you believe that suffering creates better people. Why cure any disease? Why make life easier in any way since that would detract from the suffering? Maybe her point about the cystic fibrosis was simply that there are alternatives that are not as risky as gene editing? I don't know. I think the best argument against is simply that there are many unknowns. It may be better to wait and gain knowledge through animal experiments etc. before rushing to edit human genes.
Oh my god... yes!!! My jaw *dropped* when she essentially said how "we should allow a 'lil suffering because you know what? it builds character. My parent's Alzheimers made me a better person!". WHATT?? And she's a bioethicist and philosopher too. I wanna look into some of her work out of sheer curiosity now lol.
There're so many questionable ethical and logical implications you can draw from this. Like the previous commentor Andy Wilson said, why even pursue any novel technologies that'll ameliorate human suffering in that case?
Not to mention how contradictory it was in regards to other things she was saying, like how 'we should spend our time in other worthy pursuits'... maybe if so many people wouldn't spend their lives trying to merely survive or deal with a shitty quality of life because of some genetic illness ,they'd allocate their time into something beneficial to society. And maybe those doctors who are treating those symptoms of incurable illness would be able to use their 'brainpower' to be involved in other 'useful endeavors'. There's *plenty* of suffering to go around, and *plenty* of global issues to address, I don't think she should worry.
Medical scientists are already using CRISPR to modify human genes, and making better babies is only a few years away. This is not a theoretical question. The debate boils down to this: (a) what is the definition of "better" (what traits are selected for) and (b) who decides? In truth, no one knows what a "better" baby is, either today or 10,000 years into the future. Certainly, we might begin by eliminating genetic diseases and physical defects, as we are trying to do today. Perhaps we can confer immunity to some pathogens, as the Chinese purport to be doing. But beyond that, the choice is murky at best. Most traits, including character traits and various kinds of intelligence, are not controlled by a single bit of genetic material, but by the interaction of many different ones, and most of these complex inter-relationships are poorly understood. In altering one genetic bit, we may inadvertently suppress or damage others. The science is still far too crude to make "designer babies."
Woman in green suffers and wants others to suffer without remorse.
This is one month old, and you don't have the results in the description?
Who won this debate ?
I really miss the old style of debates pre covid. Can you make at least one like that? Just ONE, please.
For start, I would like to pose a question; "if science allows for one person to have an advantage over other members of the population is this their inalienable right over personal autonomy?" It is not a "God given right", it is an advancement of science. If a wealthy person figures out a scientific advancement to meld their mind with AI in order to out-compete others, should this be legal? If science allows for injections that increase muscle mass and endurance, should they be able to compete in the Olympics? Should a woman be allowed to abort their child in order to continue investment in herself instead of dividing her energy between her and her child? None of these scientifically enabled technologies previously stated, as well as many others, are born "God given rights/ evolution given rights" afforded to the human being. This topic seems to be confused amongst our societies in general. Many "personal rights" we take for granted seem to fit in this category, being accessible to the wealthy and not the poor. Also weather our society has had time to grow accustom to them or not. Most health care seems to be an afforded advantage for those who can afford it, as is true with education and monetary attainment in general. Lets zoom in on a well accepted right, the right to abortion. A woman who utilizes this technological advancement will out-compete a woman that does not. Thus, making abortion necessary for a woman in order to increase her chances of success in this difficult world. This puts pressure on all young women who are pregnant with a child. Most often this pressure to utilize technology to advance her chances of success comes from immediate family, parents, the father of the child, and friends, as well as the social pressures of the societal norm in general. The reason I start with abortion is because the GMO babies idea is almost identical in reasoning, rational, ethics, and social function. Where they differ is in the mind of society, only because we have grown accustom to the right of abortion and not yet to genetic modification. An individuals right to utilize technological advancements for personal gain needs to be the way these issues are framed and they need to be legislated consistently across the board. If not treated in this way, unknown future technologies will be regulated or not due to simple perception case by case, which is open to bias and corruption based on who invents them and who stands to benefit from them. "ie. should we allow Jeff Bezos to implant his brain with a computer and enslave the entire earth". Ok, maybe far fetched! But for how long, as the future is unknown. All I can say is that we are laying the groundwork for future laws pertaining to a persons rights to utilize technology to out-compete others. I feel the cat is already out of the bag on this one, as everything from computers to schools, cars, healthcare and electricity have been allowing some societies advantage over others for centuries. This is the way of life and competition. Simply put, if one doesn't do it, someone else will and they will out-compete those who don't. Either we have a society that stubbornly suppresses technological advancement through authoritarian force or we have one that allows scientific growth. Because the future and thus future challenges are unknown, I suggest we allow advancements of all kinds in an unimpeded manner. Two thing have to be met, 1) all people must be allowed to participate if they want, 2) all people must be allowed not to participate if they want. This is true for vaccines, abortion, AI, driving, school, and even Genetic Modification.
If you can stop kids suffering things like muscular dystrophy or PKD, use it!
I'm going to be quite frank, the anti-gene editing points were misinformed and otherwise humorous. Clear misunderstanding on what CRISPR is.
We'll see if Americans change their minds when in 20 years the NBA is 75% Chinese 8 footers hitting 3's 10 feet before halfcourt
Definitely lets bring on the xmen 👍🏿
BNW, here we go!
Arguments Against were more honest than arguments For. Gene editing our babies will certainly increase inequality, by improving quality of life for a certain percentage of people. Does this mean you should be completely Against? Maybe it depends on "how badly" this hurts the least valued or privileged members of our society.
@@SergyOrloff Arguments for and against can be moral or immoral. Depends what they are.
Of course the rich will use it first, that doesn’t matter. It will take a hundred years for the poor to be able to use it. The real question is if the government will use it to subjugate the people. I don’t think democratic politicians would do that, but dictatorship systems would definitely. I think over time it would be used for good only if compassion and moral traits are improved in conjunction, since the people in government would choose welfare for the people through altruism.
Just say you love eugenics
I love eugenics
Eugenics is everything I don’t like, this comment is eugenics
@@hjpev6469 The thing is OP is technically correct that gene editing is eugenics. However, his using it as a scare word to conjure up the image of Nazis killing people is dishonest.
@@synchronium24 I guess. Let me know how it all turns out. I'm sure everything will be done ethically. No way that it will be abused
talk about crimes of the future..
Decentralize this technology. Put it in the hands of the ppl, let us decide what we feel is better.
No. Humans need appropriate and better medical care. Leave our biology alone and be consistently proactive to prevent chronic illness and pain.
Interesting. This is what eugenicists such as Hitler argued for. We condemn those people in history. But here we are full circle, trying to justify it.
Playing god is blasphemous. Just because you can, don't mean you should. This is unethical
No such entity as god
Why aren't there any women of color on the panel?
because there isn't any rule that dictates the appropriate racial proportions of panels? that sounds like it'd be racist.
why does this bother you? i don't understand why it's relevant to the issue at hand.
as a 'woman of color', it'd be disheartening to see a 'token brown woman' for the sake of being a 'token brown woman', or to ever question whether or not I *myself* am the 'token brown woman', or to be included in any 'space' for something other than my aptitude relative to the subject at hand.