This is basically chaos engineering applied the the genome
It doesn't say "this gene has this outcome" so much as it says "this outcome fails when this byte of data is missing"
It doesn't say "this gene has this outcome" so much as it says "this outcome fails when this byte of data is missing"
You are probably referring to Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0 ( (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_genitalium) as worms are too complex to be minimialized
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
The work in this area is quite extraordinary, but typically gets much less attention than anything that works with human genomes.
Seems like he sold a company in April of this year to the University of California.
This expert from the first link is very likely what I was poorly trying to regurgitate:
> Mgen still has the smallest genome of any known (naturally occurring) self-replicating organism and thus is often the organism of choice in minimal genome research. The synthetic genome of Mgen named Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0 (after the research centre, J. Craig Venter Institute, where it was synthesised) was produced in 2008, becoming the first organism with a synthetic genome.
> The work in this area is quite extraordinary, but typically gets much less attention than anything that works with human genomes.
In fairness laymen like me would just get us all mixed up with a worm genome anyway ;). In my defense I’m just a lawyer that likes to listen to foreign topics I find interesting while I run, but it is nice to confirm I have good instincts, because I really did find this work to be extraordinary and fascinating.
In terms of popular podcasts maybe I could say Lex Friedman, but then I might search for one of his guests, or specific topics I wanted to learn more about, on YouTube and look for lectures or panel discussions in the results that looked like they might be high quality.
Scientists often refer to viruses as "obligate", in order to sidestep the question of what is life, as most have no interest in the topics which occupy philosophers. In any case, they are non-cell based, for whatever that is worth. I imagine in a non-hostile environment, even the infection functional would be shed, and you would be left with just replication, which is the fundamental component beyond which no further reduction in complexity can be made.
A virus replicates by infecting another cell and taking over its actual replication infrastructure, so getting rid of infection gets rid of replication too.
Giant viruses can have over 1M basepairs, substantially larger than a bacteria such as Mycoplasma genitalium, with substantial functionality (pretty much everything except the ribosome in at least some of them: https://www.virology.ws/2018/03/08/only-the-ribosome-is-lack...)
I thought some work on it made HN, but can't seem to find the article, about a research group that was continuing to strip things out and then test viability.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894084/
which is an attempt to redesign the genome of the model organism S. cerevisiae, i.e. standardize codons, remove junk DNA, etc.
A worm seems super-complex for something like that. I'd guess they'd actually use a bacterium.
As you might guess this is generally a blunt tool which can help you get to the first 30% of the understanding of the system but minimal extra data after that. The majority of genes discovered in this study would either be already known players in those pathways or unknown genes that would already have been guessed to play a role.
Until one of these massive screens tells us what the major vault protein complex does they should all be honest about what they are which Imo is just a minor addition.
It says that some genes result in the same outcome when knocked out as other genes, and identifies novel genes that putatively participate in the same pathways as others. This helps get at the potential function of genes without known functions.
The underlying physical model for how gene products interact to make phenotypes ends up being so hopelessly complex and latent that most conclusions in this area end up being "sufficient, but not necessary" instead of "necessary, but not sufficient"
a very useful map to make, but I don't see that this contradicts my comment - both genes in this case are dependencies to the outcome, without either of them, the outcome fails
this does not sound to me like we know the "function" of these genes, only that they're nessary for each phenotype
not to knock the research, just trying to make sense of what they're really mapping, in my own language of computer code (i suppose "function" has a different connotation in genetics)
But they're not even measuring the phenotype. They're using the transciptional signature as a substitute for phenotype/cell function (i.e. the bag of RNA model). This is a poor substitute if you try to apply this to practical applications such as cell engineering. Let's say I perturb a cell to match it's transcriptional signature to that of a neuron. Does that make it a neuron? Not if it doesn't function like a neuron.
It's also important to note that there are loads of genes whose effects are not mediated by changes in mRNA levels. If you knock out Arp2, a cell can't move properly, because Arp2 is involved in assembling cytoskeletal structures needed to do that, but you probably won't be able to tell that by looking at the cell's mRNA.
The outcomes here are not failures, they are measurable phenotypic differences, which they use to group genes into phenotypic outcomes. The typical "knockout -> failure to perform a function" is not what's being measured here.
Turn off the genes that would make my child below 6'5 in adulthood, turn off the genes that wouldn't make him naturally muscular, turn off the genes that would give him an average intelligence, etc.
$10M + options. Payable in monthly installments.
You know, I used to be wary of eugenics, but when you put in that light, yeah, I'm kinda tired of putting up with everyone's crap kids. If you could make them be quiet, sit still, and do as told, that would be a fantastic achievement! Oh, and maybe make them smarter, too. Ever try to actually talk to one (the newer ones are really pretty stupid)?
Most of my friends' children are smart. The ones not raised in the USA are generally well-behaved. Your sample size may need to be increased.
Did you even pay attention to the movie? The horrific aspect was the human genetic engineering led 1) to the the unengineered to be turned into an underclass that was blatantly and unfairly discriminated against, and 2) that same discrimination would be turned against the engineered if they had an accident that caused them to fall short of the expected perfection.
I have little doubt that the reality of genetic engineering (that was is effective as that depicted) would rhyme with that movie. It's also nearly certain that any such technology would not be distributed in an egalitarian way, so the sentiment should be more like "it's cool and exciting that [well off] people will be able to have [genetically superior] children than [the plebs]."
> It's also nearly certain that any such technology would not be distributed in an egalitarian way
This argument could have been made about early computers as well. But time and its economies of scale come into play. We can't limit our species based on shortsighted fairness, there's a longer view to take.
Techno-optimism hasn't really panned out as promised.
And I really doubt it will be "us." If trans-humanism pans out (though I suspect it's bunk), we'll be the Homo erectus populations to their Homo sapiens.
> This argument could have been made about early computers as well. But time and its economies of scale come into play. We can't limit our species based on shortsighted fairness, there's a longer view to take.
Capital got automation from computers, the plebs got distraction boxes that push ads.
Because it's a distraction box or so amazing that it shows technology should not be criticized and everyone who does is a hypocrite?
This will be just another currency. And there will be some flops, busts, unintended consequences. Just like with anything else.
Ist mir scheissegal!
Vague resemblance does not an equivalency make.
Right now, there may be an unequal distribution of wealth, etc.; but the wealthy by and large aren't actually better models of human. Genetic engineering has the potential to ossify that (both morally via "meritocracy" and physically) with biological superiority. It stops being Homo sapiens vs Homo sapiens, and becomes something more like Homo erectus vs Homo sapiens.
If anything, this would increase the amount of opportunity in the world, as then your child could have whatever traits you (or your culture) deems superior. It would perhaps eliminate racism by rendering traditional race markers completely obsolete.
It's likely that for the time being we'll only use gene therapy for things which are recognized as devastating diseases and the treatment is extremely reliable; germline modification for enhanced attributes in typical individuals is still a fairly out-there concept that would probably get panned in the media.
Not only that, but any genes that are not selected against (e.g. your Alzheimer’s example, which occurs after reproductive age) are now permanently circulating in the population, with absolutely zero (humane) way of ever removing them.
Like there good reasons to do this are, OK genetic malformation, ie osteogenesis imperfecta, that's a SNIP, totally. Or you were raped, want to punish that rapist by making the egg have even less genes in common with him than it would ordinarily, making his rape counterproductive genetically. Another good reason, defensible. Or you want to protect rare alleles, considering weaknesses to be strengths, this is like a left-handed man marrying a left-handed woman, or freckles (I think something about freckles make children hate them til they're 19, rare exceptions, not even the iconic Lindsay Lohan accepted her own freckles). Preserving their identity and diversity. Don't pass laws as much as using judgment to decide, individually and collectively, what the future will be. Talk and think instead of setting up magic words for lawyers to copy-paste--an isomorphic problem to genetic design.
No fucking blind copy-paste, don't use copy-paste with your copy paste to copy-paste yourself.
If the future is designer babies/baby incubation pods. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation the kid is. The parent would have a designer baby, then why would the child eventually not have a designer baby as well?
It's good evolutionary strategy to reduce the birth rate to compensate for successful reproduction (i.e. more pregnancies that result in offspring that reach child-rearing age themselves), as otherwise populations will explode beyond the carrying capacity of the environment (or pay more of the fixed resource costs of raising children than is necessary).
What we see now, however, is that in situations where both pre-adult and maternal mortality rates are exceedingly low (such as has been the case for the last ~4-5 generations in the developed world), the strategy undershoots the replacement rate.
In fact. I would consider a society, that has the capability to noninvasively eliminate for example sickle cell anemia or Huntingtons and doesn't because some people one hundred years ago did horrible things, barbaric.
I hope that she can help you to open your eyes as well.
It is that erroneous conflation that introduced euthanasia for discussion. (also i would say that technically intentional non-intervention is not exactly killing, so thats not even what i was implying)
I provided evidence that keller, contrarily, saw value in genetic defects.
If you have another reason for believing that helen keller was a supporter of eugenics, you have failed to provide it.
conversely, everything i've said has been a direct analysis of what you've said.
Any modern medicine gene modification program would create the exact human and social divisions he sought to avoid... Unless you are somehow able to suddenly do gene modification universally throughout the entire planet..
so he doesn't really support your position either.
"capability" should not be confused with "universal accessibility"
and "some people one hundred years ago did horrible things" is a fictional strawman. There are real and present reasons why practically eugenics will lead to stratified and unjust conditions for humanity in practice.
>"Churchill is on record as praising “Aryan stock” and insisting it was right for “a stronger race, a higher-grade race” to take the place of indigenous peoples. He reportedly did not think “black people were as capable or as efficient as white people”. In 1911, Churchill banned interracial boxing matches so white fighters would not be seen losing to black ones. He insisted that Britain and the US shared “Anglo-Saxon superiority”. He described anticolonial campaigners as “savages armed with ideas”.
Even his contemporaries found his views on race shocking. In the context of Churchill’s hard line against providing famine relief to Bengal, the colonial secretary, Leo Amery, remarked: “On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane … I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”"
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/17/why-ca...
>"He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung." When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three "savages." Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the "squeamishness" of his colleagues, who were not in "favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/03...
All that to say that, in these cases, sure _most_ people have positive traits from these genes, not all do and we could theoretically use CRISPR to change people with the negative versions of these genes to the positive versions of these genes.
[0]: https://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/what-is-brca [1]:https://www.alzheimersorganization.org/alzheimers-gene-apoe4
It's so easy for them to posture as virtuous protectors of humanity, sowing FUD about things that are so far from existing that nobody even understands how they might work or what capabilities they might have or not have. So easy, when the benefits are nowhere near close enough to factor into anyone's near-mode thinking.
I'm cheering for the scientists. Give us the choice to have brilliant, strong, healthy children. Then laugh at how little anyone cares about the so-called "ethics", facile cloud-talk that never considered real people facing real decisions.
The "ethicists" had their chance to intelligently weigh the pros and cons and give real advice based in prudence, empathy, and a love for human flourishing. They chose to self-indulgently chinstroke about dystopia on the taxpayer dime.
We'll figure it out without them.
Medicine is practised outside the US as well, including high tech medicine. And for a much more reasonable price tag.
- this is performing an irreversible procedure on a person without their consent. Justifiable for a disease but less so for vanity traits.
- genes are pleiotropic and modifying multiple genes could have unexpected effects. An easy example is that taller people have a higher risk of cancer. Barring some great advance in predicting the effects of genetic changes, this will remain a problem.
- it has a homogenising effect, optimising for traits a culture finds appealing and that can be easily measured. You will eventually get a eugenic army that all look like swimwear models and score highly on IQ tests.
At the same time, I think that modifying the organism is the only way to get rid of diseases like heart disease and cancer.