CRISPR used to remove extra chromosomes in Down syndrome and restore cell function

[Ophiolite]

The claim "many ethical questions, of course" asserted that we should all know that this is something specially ethically controversial in many areas.

"The ethical questions as usual while designing the clinical trials for new procedures" is probably not what one would expect from such claim.

Had you included that nuance in your original post I would not have felt the need to respond. "No ethical questions", is a clear, unqualified absolute. I treated it as such.

Here is a thought. When I write, as I often do, an ambiguous, or contradictory post and someone questions it, I thank them for their intervention, since it helps me to write better English in the future. You seem to prefer the alternative. Duly noted - I'll do my best to try to read the sub-text of your posts the next time.

 

[trophy33]

Had you included that nuance in your original post I would not have felt the need to respond. "No ethical questions", is a clear, unqualified absolute. I treated it as such.

Here is a thought. When I write, as I often do, an ambiguous, or contradictory post and someone questions it, I thank them for their intervention, since it helps me to write better English in the future. You seem to prefer the alternative. Duly noted - I'll do my best to try to read the sub-text of your posts the next time.

I supposed the context clarified my question. But it happens that people misunderstand each other. No big deal, it is just a forum.

 

[Ophiolite]

I supposed the context clarified my question. But it happens that people misunderstand each other. No big deal, it is just a forum.

And the limitation of forums is that there is no tone of voice, there is no body language, there are none of the subtleties of face-to-face communication that convey so much, often sub-consciously.
Your middle sentence is a good executive summary for one of humanity's big problems.

 

[Larniavc]

-

​

I would think science could care less about ethics as long as what they are doing, advances science.

You‘ve never tried to get a piece of research past an ethics board I see.

One should not opine on that which one has limited knowledge of.

And of course the phrase is couldn’t care less.

Smh

 

[Larniavc]

Apart from being irrelevant, this is just statistically incorrect. While atheists among scientists is higher than the general population it's still skewed toward those who practice religion.

Do you genuinely believe that atheists are less ethical because they don't believe in a god?

To be fair they are clearly talking about ethnic views.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

 

[Larniavc]

The famous Milligram experiments suggest otherwise,

That’s part of why we have ethics boards. Good grief.

 

[linux.poet]

I don't know why you think we would respond to such an inflammatory claim.

I will dig up the research more thoroughly, again, but I should concede that I

You remarked "Ordinary life has numerous checks and balances against human (sin nature) corruption: laws, complex political systems, economic systems, and scientific ethics. Strip that away, and eradicate religious belief along with it, and we’re nothing but murderers."

phrased this more emotionally intensive than I should have. In my view, Milligram throws out the idea that man is basically a good moral creature, and leaves only the options of man being basically evil or Locke's tabla rasa. If human beings were basically good, that basic goodness would overcome corrupt authority in others and allow us to resist it. At the very least, we would do so before we ended up killing someone, a known negative moral result.

Still, the subjects in Milligram's experiment thought that they were contributing to scientific research, they just thought they were part of a different science experiment than the one they were actually in. So: scientific environment, corrupt authority, lack of religious belief = death. This is borne out historically in Nazi Germany (nightmarish medical experiments) and in Iran (nuclear scientists working to destroy Israel). I can't really blame my fellow Christians for expressing skepticism for the ethical capacities of scientists of other religious beliefs.

Now one could take the position of Locke's Tabla Rasa and say that the evil passes through the authority into the subject and down into the person affected, with the religious belief being something written on the tabla to stop the evil.

From my perspective humans evolved as a cooperative species and a species in which that cooperation is structured. We are naturally inclined to work towards common goals and for hierarchies of leadership to emerge to facilitate that cooperation. The degree to which individuals are willing to work for the common good varies across a wide spectrum, from sacrificing ones own life to benefit others - at one end - to the psychopath at the other end.

Corrupt authority has existed all down human history and violence is a constant across nature. The belief that our corrupt and violent tendencies come from "survival of the fittest" while "cooperate to survive" would explain our morals does make self-consistent sense as an atheistic scientific belief structure. But that actually leaves us with "man is basically immoral" because "survival of the fittest" is the more primitive instinct which we papered over with more moral and ethical considerations later on in our development as a species. How much we would internalize "survival of the fittest" versus our more cooperative moral tendencies is a spectrum, on which placement would be unique to each individual.

Obviously if you harmonize cooperation with corrupt authority with our natural tendencies to kill competitors, negative moral result. In Milligram, they were "more fit" because they were the "teacher" correcting the "student". The less fit student "died" at the teacher's hand.

The point I was trying to make is that an atheist scientist is only as moral as their moral authority of the society they are in. In a scientific world of ethical considerations and peer review and FDA approvals for drugs and HIPAA, their morality is not really something I would question. But place them at the service of a corrupt authority, survival of the fittest comes back and they will happily co-operate with corruption and kill the less fit, to the detriment of us all.

You‘ve never tried to get a piece of research past an ethics board I see.

That’s part of why we have ethics boards. Good grief.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

Mostly I think we got the words "ethical considerations" in the OP, and like triggered.gif happened. The problem for Christians is that somehow embryonic stem cell research got past the ethics board, which is a Milligram style-whoops that actually happened - scientific environment, corrupt authority, people got killed. While that has damaged trust between scientists and Christians, I'm not sure why such skepticism is being brought up in reference to a gene treatment for Down Syndrome, as I'm not seeing how embryonic stem cell research was used here to develop it.

Frankly, this stuff is the opposite of such Milligram cruelty - if I have an IVF baby in my petri dish with a known case of Downs, if this treatment was developed, why not use it on the embryo in my dish and improve that child's quality of life for the rest of their days? Not only that, but if I don't use it, they will likely get thrown away in favor of a normal baby for implantation into a mother. I've potentially saved their life.

Nor is developing a gene editor to improve the quality of life for Down patients of all ages really ethically problematic, as long as they test it for effectiveness, side effects, and so on. To me it's like any other disease treatment.

Oh well. Time to order some popcorn and a large pizza, and dig up all of my Milligram quotes because I can't get away with anything, even though I posted two links already that described the experiment and pretty much backed up what I said anyway.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh well. Time to order some popcorn and a large pizza, and dig up all of my Milligram quotes because I can't get away with anything, even though I posted two links already that described the experiment and pretty much backed up what I said anyway.

I considered responding to several of your earlier comments, but pondered long and hard as to whether or not it was worth the effort. Your closing remarks afford the opportunity to concisely express my reservations.

No, the Milligram experiment did not "pretty much back up" what you said. One interpretation of the experiment gave some support to some aspects of your argument. That is a quite different matter.

So, I'll match your opinion with one of my own. Arguably the most profound error made by many Christians relating to evolution, both those who deny it and those who accept it in some form, is this obsession with and gross misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest" and Tennyson's even worse "Nature red in tooth and claw". If we consider life, from the chemical mechanics of DNA, up to planet wide ecology of Gaia, we see cooperation, in one form or another, at work. It's just as powerful a force as competition - and surely you know that competition is also a rich ground for the expression of cooperation. That you ignore this in your arguments leads to a false dichotomy and invalidates your claims.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I will dig up the research more thoroughly, again, but I should concede that I

Save it for elsewhere.

phrased this more emotionally intensive than I should have. In my view, Milligram throws out the idea that man is basically a good moral creature, and leaves only the options of man being basically evil or Locke's tabla rasa. If human beings were basically good, that basic goodness would overcome corrupt authority in others and allow us to resist it. At the very least, we would do so before we ended up killing someone, a known negative moral result.

Still, the subjects in Milligram's experiment thought that they were contributing to scientific research, they just thought they were part of a different science experiment than the one they were actually in. So: scientific environment, corrupt authority, lack of religious belief = death. This is borne out historically in Nazi Germany (nightmarish medical experiments) and in Iran (nuclear scientists working to destroy Israel). I can't really blame my fellow Christians for expressing skepticism for the ethical capacities of scientists of other religious beliefs.

Now one could take the position of Locke's Tabla Rasa and say that the evil passes through the authority into the subject and down into the person affected, with the religious belief being something written on the tabla to stop the evil.


Corrupt authority has existed all down human history and violence is a constant across nature. The belief that our corrupt and violent tendencies come from "survival of the fittest" while "cooperate to survive" would explain our morals does make self-consistent sense as an atheistic scientific belief structure. But that actually leaves us with "man is basically immoral" because "survival of the fittest" is the more primitive instinct which we papered over with more moral and ethical considerations later on in our development as a species. How much we would internalize "survival of the fittest" versus our more cooperative moral tendencies is a spectrum, on which placement would be unique to each individual.

Obviously if you harmonize cooperation with corrupt authority with our natural tendencies to kill competitors, negative moral result. In Milligram, they were "more fit" because they were the "teacher" correcting the "student". The less fit student "died" at the teacher's hand.

The point I was trying to make is that an atheist scientist is only as moral as their moral authority of the society they are in. In a scientific world of ethical considerations and peer review and FDA approvals for drugs and HIPAA, their morality is not really something I would question. But place them at the service of a corrupt authority, survival of the fittest comes back and they will happily co-operate with corruption and kill the less fit, to the detriment of us all.




I'm glad we can agree on something.

This isn't about corrupt authority or atheist scientists. Take it elsewhere.

Mostly I think we got the words "ethical considerations" in the OP, and like triggered.gif happened. The problem for Christians is that somehow embryonic stem cell research got past the ethics board, which is a Milligram style-whoops that actually happened - scientific environment, corrupt authority, people got killed. While that has damaged trust between scientists and Christians, I'm not sure why such skepticism is being brought up in reference to a gene treatment for Down Syndrome, as I'm not seeing how embryonic stem cell research was used here to develop it.

ESCs *did* pass the ethics review boards because they are ethical. SMH. The only serious ethical issue arose from the downstream uses because not all donors were not informed that their donation could lead to "immortal" cell lines. As such some cell lines are restricted in use or have fallen out of use. And CRISPR has nothing to do with ESCs.

Frankly, this stuff is the opposite of such Milligram cruelty - if I have an IVF baby in my petri dish with a known case of Downs, if this treatment was developed, why not use it on the embryo in my dish and improve that child's quality of life for the rest of their days? Not only that, but if I don't use it, they will likely get thrown away in favor of a normal baby for implantation into a mother. I've potentially saved their life.

The point of pre-implantation screening is to find the embryos without identifiable gross genetic or chromosomal defects and implant those instead. Why would anyone "treat" a defective embryo when others were available?

Nor is developing a gene editor to improve the quality of life for Down patients of all ages really ethically problematic, as long as they test it for effectiveness, side effects, and so on. To me it's like any other disease treatment.

All of this obsession with non-relevant "authority/command" issues and you completely miss the obvious ethical issues:

* would post-birth application even be effective or have so many developmental issues occurred that it wouldn't be useful.
* must it be applied in utero? how do you ethically test the safety of the treatment to the host during an in utero application.
* even if not in utero, the obvious time for intervention is as soon after birth as possible.
* some basic safety testing could be done on adults with the condition, but Down Syndrome nearly always causes intellectual disabilities that will impair the proper informed consent.

The actual development of a treatment from this Petri-dish technology is a nightmare mine field of consent issues.

Oh well. Time to order some popcorn and a large pizza, and dig up all of my Milligram quotes because I can't get away with anything, even though I posted two links already that described the experiment and pretty much backed up what I said anyway.

If you want to talk about "Milgram" go start a thread about it either in this sub-forum, or "ethics". This thread is about a CRISPR treatment path for Down Syndrome.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Well i make my critique on the fact that men of science lie, so they must not have much of an ethical gauge.

 

[Ophiolite]

-

​

Well i make my critique on the fact that men of science lie, so they must not have much of an ethical gauge.

I thought you were aware that lying is a trait common to all humans. Here you are, as sinful as the next man, yet you feel it is acceptable to cast stones. Perhaps you should reflect on that.

 

[d taylor]

I thought you were aware that lying is a trait common to all humans. Here you are, as sinful as the next man, yet you feel it is acceptable to cast stones. Perhaps you should reflect on that.

-
​

Just pondering information i read.

COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? - PMC

 

[dlamberth]

-​

Well i make my critique on the fact that men of science lie, so they must not have much of an ethical gauge.

Than should I suppose that because it's a fact that men of religion lie that I must than assume that they don't have much of an ethical gauge as well?

 

[d taylor]

Than should I suppose that because it's a fact that men of religion lie that I must than assume that they don't have much of an ethical gauge as well?

-
​

I wll agree there is not much of an ethical compass in religion or much of actually believing.

 

[Ophiolite]

-
​

I wll agree there is not much of an ethical compass in religion or much of actually believing.

With the obvious exception of yourself.

 

[d taylor]

With the obvious exception of yourself.

-
​

No never said that. I just go out and paint landscapes or other painting and if a person like one they buy one. Not much needed in the way of ethics in selling art.
I wounder is the ethical system the same for all of the science community (russian, iranian, chinese) do all scientist hold to the same standard. Or is this just an American and allied countries standard.

 

[Bradskii]

So: scientific environment, corrupt authority, lack of religious belief = death.

I've asked you to back up this claim as regards the religious belief in the experiment.

This is borne out historically in Nazi Germany (nightmarish medical experiments)...

Yet almost all Germans were religious at the time.

I can't really blame my fellow Christians for expressing skepticism for the ethical capacities of scientists of other religious beliefs.

It's not your fellow Christians that are putting forward this claim. It's you.

Corrupt authority has existed all down human history and violence is a constant across nature. The belief that our corrupt and violent tendencies come from "survival of the fittest" while "cooperate to survive" would explain our morals does make self-consistent sense as an atheistic scientific belief structure. But that actually leaves us with "man is basically immoral" because "survival of the fittest" is the more primitive instinct which we papered over with more moral and ethical considerations later on in our development as a species. How much we would internalize "survival of the fittest" versus our more cooperative moral tendencies is a spectrum, on which placement would be unique to each individual.

You may be misinterpreting what 'survival of the fittest' means. It means that those who are best fitted for their environment will survive better that those who aren't. So if there are a group of humans and most agree to work together and one or two decide to go it along then the group, for all sorts of obvious reasons, will do better. Comparing the group with the individual, the group is the fittest. The survival of the fittest depends on that group being able to work together. To respond to each others needs. Hence the basics of a moral system: Don't steal the other guy's food, share the workload, reject the slackers etc

So you can't compare survival of the fittest versus cooperation. The latter is an example of the former.

The point I was trying to make is that an atheist scientist is only as moral as their moral authority of the society they are in.

That's generally true for all societies at all times. You mentioned Nazi Germany earlier. I'm sure that we'd all like to think that we'd have rejected their ideology. But unfortunately, that's not the case. And if you were born in medieval times or biblical times, you'd have accepted the punishments that were common at the time. Burn the heretic? Well, of course. Stone the adulteress? Sure, I'll give a hand.

There but for the grace of God. Oh, and it's MIlgram by the way. Not Milligram (although might be the fault of spell check).