The Science Behind 'Genetically Modified Humans'

The media have been talking about “genetically modified humans” and “designer babies.” But what they’re really talking about is germ-line engineering: a process that could help eliminate heritable diseases. So why do some scientists want to pause the research?

Hosted by: Hank Green
----------
Messages from our Subbable subscribers:

“Don't Forget to be Awesome!!” - Travis

“Proud supporter of SciShow! Yay science!” - Jeff Tucker

“Good frames won't save bad paintings.” - Will Snider

“SciShow: Life, the Universe, and Everything.” - B. Johnston

“Happy Birthday Joshua Hargrove!” - Margaret & Chris

“Hey Dooblydoo, how is life? Good to hear! Bye DFTBA!” - Jessica Howard

“I’m going to miss Subbable, it was a great idea” - Les Aker

“Love's a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are gender neutral.” - Shaun Kirby

“For Danish Nerdfighters - Vi ses i København!” - Lasse Andersen
----------

Or help support us by becoming our patron on Patreon:
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?

Sources:

[Roanemity]

As a university student specializing in molecular biology and currently working a bio research company that utilizes technology such as CRISPR/CAS9, i can say that the media does a terrible job portraying its potential. To portray the technology as a means for designer babies is terrible, and detracts from its immense potential as a tool to treat many genetic disorders, major or minor. The efficacy of the technology will only get better as further research is done, but not if the public pressures wrongly to disband its use.

[deadeaded]

On the one hand, yay! No more heritable diseases! On the other hand, many parents already feel an excessive sense of ownership over their children's bodies (which lets them justify things like circumcision, or childhood piercings), and giving them direct access to their child's genome will only exacerbate that. Not sure if that's a good thing.

[MBogdos]

Basically I say, if you can get it to 99% effectiveness and eliminate any significant threat of new mutation, go for it. Keep the research going no matter what though. The bar should be set really high for human testing though.

[CorneliusSneedley]

This will be a hard sell. People are already screaming about genetically modified food. The other day a little old lady explained to me with great sincerity how she had lived gluten-free most of her life, because there was no gluten in wheat before "the GMO's got into the wheat supply."

[lazarusblackwell]

Lets do it.

Why should human nature be left to the random devices of nature?

Why should we accept that our genetic blueprint is just the way it "is"

We should take our destiny into our own hands

Go science

[FirstRisingSouI]

"I'm not going to tell you what to think, but I will tell you what you need to know." Wise words.
I think that research (increasing our understanding and control of things) should always continue, but we should not operate on humans until we are absolutely sure we know what we're doing.

[hasini]

This is great aside from the fact that it would cost a lot to do it and if only rich people can do this, we'll end up in a society where the rich children are genetically modified and better suited for life and the poor people aren't. It'll just cause an even bigger disparity between rich and poor people.

[bnjmv]

As someone with a genetic disorder (hemophilia) this is incredible news. I was worried about whether or not it would be ethical for me to have children and have them bear this disease but if scientists are able to "clean" my genes that would be great.

[MeepChangeling]

"Hey guys! I found out how to remove like, every single disease ever from the human condition!" Said scientist 1
"What? How dare you play god!" Screamed the religitards.
"Don't mind them, is it an injectable? Gimme as much as you can. I'll randomly give it to as many people as possible. Let's get rid of ALS first." I interjected.

[GothicCitrus]

I would love my kid regardless of any genetic faults they may have but being able to take out these faults would make life for them and life for me easier. I think that scientists should keep researching before testing humans though.

[kalmar]

Hmm, the scientists want to include the general public in to the discussion? Unwise... The quesion is too important.

[riasharma]

Getting desirable genes with this is anyday better than winning a genetic lottery.

[RaphaelSloanYusukeUrimeshi]

Let's do it and don't debate it with the public, they can not handle this discussion. People will bring religion and their own biases into it and before you know it all research will be hampered. 

[raiseaglass]

This came out the day after Insurgent was released. I don't think you were pointing the genetically modified humans plot of Allegiant (third Divergent book), but it still blew my mind.

[jacobjericho]

guess you've never seen the movie gattaca ... basicly every is genetically engineered since birth, and those who aren't, are giving the sewer and janitor jobs .. stuff like that, very interesting film haha a man who is "normal" tried to be as perfect as possible .. long story .. good film 

[JesusChristDenton_]

"Do you know what humanity's greatest weakness is? Humans consistently ignore the endless infinity of possibilities in favor of maintaining the status quo. People fear change, they settle with fine when they could have exceptional."

[Meowtro]

It's a good idea but it should only be used on actual human children if there are very little to no risks or side effects to it.

[leusken]

In my opinion, this might be a crucial step to assure our evolution. It's obvious that natural selection doesn't really apply to humans anymore because of modern medicine etc. People with certain diseases or "bad genes" will now be able to survive and pass on their genes, where that would not have been possible earlier in our evolution. This means that "bad genes" will be passed on a lot more often. When both the male and female pass on their specific "bad gene", their offspring would have both. This might cause a weakening of our species, through our DNA. So yes, I think altering DNA and getting rid of disease-related genes will prove to be beneficial in the long run. My only fear is that it will be commercialised and people will be able to go to the hospital and decide what their offspring will look like (skin color, hair color, ..) and what they will be like for a price.

So in short:
For health purposes: YES, definitely!
For aesthetic/personality purposes: definite NO!

[jameslee]

In my mind, using this technology to achieve beauty, strength, or intelligence should be banned, but removing harmful genetic diseases should be encouraged, if not obligatory.

[dracsharp]

Sound like we are not ready, but we should definitely use it when we are, preventing sickness is always best way to stay healthy.