The Ethics of Changing Human DNA Via Gene Editing, with Siddhartha Mukherjee | Big Think

The Ethics of Changing Human DNA Via Gene Editing,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The road to eugenics was paved with good intentions, says Siddhartha Mukherjee. So what questions are essential to ask now that we can change human DNA through gene editing technology? Siddhartha Mukherjee's newest book is The Gene: An Intimate History.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIDDHARTHA MUKHERJEE:

Siddhartha Mukherjee is the author of The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize in general nonfiction, and The Laws of Medicine. He is the editor of Best Science Writing 2013. Mukherjee is an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University and a cancer physician and researcher. A Rhodes scholar, he graduated from Stanford University, University of Oxford, and Harvard Medical School. He has published articles in Nature, The New England Journal of Medicine, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and Cell. He lives in New York with his wife and daughters.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:

Siddhartha Mukherjee: Gene editing technologies allow us, allow scientists to change the genetic code within cells including embryonic cells, including embryonic stem cells in an intentional manner.  That means that, you know, you can have a gene and you can change that code.  The process is inefficient.  It looks like there’s some collateral damage.  Other genes can be damaged.  All of this is being worked out right now.  But in principle gene editing means just like you can go into a word processor and erase a word from what you’ve written.  And you can change that word for a different word.  The technologies are beginning to allow us to go into a cell, change its internal code or vocabulary which would be its DNA and its genome and certainly too for a human cell.  And you can switch out the word, change the word with certain caveats.

Prenatal genetic diagnosis on the other hand has to do with the idea that you can look at an egg or an early embryo, decipher what mutations it might have, what changes, what variations it might have and decide to implant that egg or embryo or not implant that egg or embryo.  The ultimate goal of these technologies of course is to allow different or just to fundamentally change genes.

Who should we intervene on?  What are the limits?  Who gets to decide what normalcy versus abnormalcy is?  Who gets to decide whether is someone, you know, what suffering is?  You could give an example of for instance of let’s say a terrifying lethal disease which you could detect in an embryo before implanting it and decide that that’s not the embryo that you want to implant.

But that depends on you and I saying that’s a terrifying lethal disease.  And that’s a decision that you and I need to make and I really mean society needs to make in consensus.  So it’s a time to emphasize that idea that we’re making decisions like this.

Really this issue came to a head when researchers in China decided to take nonviable human embryos and decided to try to attempt changing a disease linked gene in that nonviable human embryo set.  It’s important to note that they were nonviable in the long run but it’s also important to note that they were indeed human embryos or very early human embryos and that the proof of principle experiment was launched.  So it’s created a worldwide set of questions about what we can and cannot do with the human genome.

The road to eugenics was paved with the best intentions. And it was a series of, you can almost see the world tipping towards horror step by step by step, you know.  It seemed like one iterative step didn’t seem that much and yet as you accumulated all of these very soon you went from, you know, in Nazi Germany in particular starting with trying to eliminate or sterilize those who were somehow physically different from others all the way including folks who were deaf, folks who had various neurological diseases.  And then sort of marched inexorably towards other forms of identity including obviously Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and so forth.

So it’s worthwhile remembering that that progression that occurred in the 1930s was perceived by citizens at that time as part of a progression.  It was not as if, you know, all of a sudden someone woke up.  There was a kind of glacial silence to the progression of eugenics in Nazi Germany.  And in fact there was a glacial silence from the United States about what was going on in Nazi Germany.  If anything, you know, the folks in the United States appl...

[NipaSushantiSima]

I feel like our technological advances are continuely surpassing our ethical capacities at faster rates, and at larger stakes.

[Ndyu]

What I hear: "Let's think about how we should do Gene Modification, before we do something terrible"
What others hear: "Gene Modification and science is evil and you should love Jesus"

[Homeomemus]

So, if I have a defective heart valve, and I impregnate a woman, but I don't want that child to have the same disadvantage as me; is it unethical for me to protect my son? (I used my problem as an example, but my defective heart is still EXTREMELY slightly, although possibly fatal)

[PartisanGamer]

I really dont like the notion that "eugenics" automatically is a bad thing. And the argument presented here is a prime example of a shallow approach. "Who decides" " What is normal what is not" .... and of course the necessary nazi comparison.

If done CORRECTLY, and if equally available to all without limiting factors it is indeed a necessity to the future of humankind. We need to adapt to rapidly changing systems, much quicker than natural evolution could do.

in a world with shrinking ressources and rapidly increasing populations some sort of control and selfrestraint is needed. We are facing problems that could actually be prevented or whos effects could be damped with some sort of control over the growth of our population or whos is and who is not allowed to breed.

That might sound harsh - to say the least - but we are all confined to an arch, a tiny speck in our universe and slefrestraint is needed if we all want to survive.

And its much more than that. Diseases, hunger, overpopulation, climate change, rapid destruction of our biosphere and the overuse of natural ressources. its all connected to the control of our population.

We are free, but only as long as we dont infringe upon the freedoms of others. Overpopulating this planet and having diseases passed on from one generation to another, even more so genetic diseases that could actually - now that we are no longer subjected to natural selection - spread over time is not a good thing. No matter how you put it that has at least to be considered - not in a fashion like the beloved Herrenrasse thought about that - but there has to be at least the option to think about it.

I for once am one of the most privileged persons on this planet, I am a white male upper class citizen of Germany. My privilege is immeasurable but I would renounce my "right" to have children at any time if needed. Its not about me its about US.

[CourtneyHaynes]

Siddhartha Mukherjee, so far you're doing excellent for a Big Think video. Usually, if your name isn't Michio Kaku or Bill Nye, they'll dislike the hell out it. Thanks daring to delve into a sensitive issue in an intelligent way.

[rxis]

Hey Big Think, most of your videos feel like they're cut short, or like there's an extended edition somewhere. It says "Read more at BigThink.com" but it's the same video with the same transcript. Is there a long video somewhere?

[cybersekkin]

I was a bit weirded out when he said "this is a decision society needs to make" wouldn;t be a recommendation society could make, but a decision a doctor and parents need to make. In all but extreme cases, I cringe when someone says society decides for us.

[knwr]

It is incredible how many people in the comments think Siddhartha is against eugenics. In this video he addresses questions that he thinks may not have easy answers, and they don't. He wants to make sure people pay attention to this field, so that it does evolve properly. It's a very powerful field of science that is beginning to evolve, and to imply that nothing evil can be done with it (when applied to humans) is irresponsible. The questions he addresses are all extremely important, I wouldn't expect any other scientists to disagree.

We will use this technology, and Siddhartha is clearly excited for that (maybe the commenters should read his book?).

[isthisnamegood]

Quite the straw man, genetics isn't the purging of races it's eliminating incredible vulnerabilities and combating the genetic diseases that arise from it.

Not much else to say, pretty much the entire thing was a straw man.

I'm not surprised the mass of conservatives that flood each big think video now loved the argument or the "fear progress and science" message.

[DynamicSphinx]

Things like autism and Asperger, down's syndrome etc. are the most obvious choices for gene editing. Actually, all disorders where the affected baby risks a rough social upbringing and fall farther behind their peers as they get older, should be one of the main criteria for deciding what qualifies for gene editing. No child should need to be taken care of for their entire life, or be doing work requiring no skill or education because of a genetic disorder!

[JuliusUnique]

enhancing humans by *changing our DNA HAS TO BE DONE*
everything else would be criminal, it's like not helping someone who is about to die on a railway track

[LarryPhischman]

I think it is immoral not to correct human generic defects. But the corrections must be applied to the entire species.

[Jayf]

Will interdimensional intellectual copyright laws force God to destroy the Creation?
When the fallen (B'nai Elohim) tampered with God's design of Man, eventually God was forced to put Noah and 8k kinds of unmodified Creatures on an Ark to preserve them from a worldwide flood.
According to the book:



 Matthew 24:37-39King James Version (KJV) 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For
as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and
drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
enesis 6 indicates that the "sons of God" (B'nai Elohim) took wives of the "daughters of men, " which gave birth to the "Nephilim." What on earth was going on?
The B'nai Elohim is a term that refers to angels. It occurs four times in the Old Testament 2 and is rendered "Angels of God" in the ancient Septuagin translation.3 The intrusion of certain angels into the human family resulted in unnatural offspring termed Nephilim, which derives from the Hebrew naphal (to fall), or the Fallen Ones. (The Greek Septuagint renders this term gigantes,
which actually means "earth-born." This is often misunderstood to mean
"giants"--which they also happen to have been, incidentally.)

The "Sons of God" Return?
There are many who believe that the recent "alien" involvements are
also demonic and are just another precursor to the end-time. Some also
believe that the Coming World Leader (for more information on the Coming World Leader,
see our Briefing Package) may boast of an "alien connection." It would
be consistent from what else we can infer from Scripture.
(The Restrainer of II Thessalonians 2 may be restraining far more
than we have any suspicion of! When He is removed, the world is in for
some astonishing surprises!)16
In the meantime, what are our weapons of protection against such things? We do, indeed, "wrestle
not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places."
Our armor is well defined in Ephesians 6:10-17.
The unprepared are in for some unpleasant surprises. Always. Have you done your homework?

[watcheryoume]

what about adults can you change dna in a full grown person?

[francoismorin]

Go rent the exellent movie Gattaca (1997) with Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman and Jude Law then you will understand the danger he is talking about. We will have to face those decision in the near future, because nothing stops progress.

[philipmorise]

Who should we intervene on?The big think editors.Then, once their brains are made normal, they can be re-educated and hopefully learn how to give these videos proper titles.

[bobbyc.]

what if there are people that have unrecognizable DNA?

[Abraham-lfhy]

Yeah why not? It needs to be heavily regulated otherwise we're going to end up like the society in GATTACA

[MegaRingla]

Arent pro-eugenics people just going to become so much better than ant-eugenics people that it wont even matter in the long run, because pro-eugenics would be able to with ease win the argument physically if it comes to that?

[Slim]

Like it or not, if it can be done it will be done. If not in the regulated labs then in others. Nations may be formed just to have unrestricted AI and genetic control, because these can grant selective advantages to specific populations that desire an edge.