CRISPR babies

A Chinese scientist uses CRISPR gene editing technology to "improve" a human baby. 

Worry

A Harvard forum expresses worry. 

Forum leaders said it was morally wrong. That it was dangerous to the baby. That it wasn't authorized. That the technology is too new. That it sets a bad precedent. 

l.et's stop to think about this technology, they said.

Too late. People will use this technology.

The forum gave a quick explanation of how CRISPR gene editing works.The human genome has been mapped, and now can be done rapidly and for less than a thousand dollars. The CRISPR technology allows scientists to remove a "mistake" gene and replace it with an improved one, rather in the way one can move a computer curser to a spot on a letter in a line of DNA text, backspace to delete the error, then import a replacement gene to fill the gap. We know how to do it, the genetics scientist said. What we don't know how perfect it is, nor what the effects will be on the human subject, or on society.

Think how troubling it would be if parents started designing their own babies, they fretted.

Glick: Gene edited twin girls in China

The forum had an expert on ethics, who said that genetic manipulation of humans offended our moral sensitivities. The forum expert on genetics said the technology was unproven and it should be pursued only under the strictest of guidelines. Both said the technology should only be used to fix genetic diseases, e.g. Huntington's, never for eugenic purposes.

The tone was concern and disapproval.

There was one dissent. A futurist on the panel gave a different perspective, saying the technology will continue to improve and that people will want it.

The futurist had it right. Parents want their children to thrive, to reproduce.

If the technology can be made to work, it will be used. Every observation and experience of animal behavior is that parents attempt to protect and nurture their children. It is the deepest and most powerful imperative in life: to create and care for ones offspring. Evolution theory is based on this understanding.

We observe it in wildlife. We observe practice it ourselves, in every culture. Parents want to give their kids an edge. Indeed, to give them every advantage. We are shocked by the exceptions, when parents neglect or injure their children.

News Broken by MIT Technology Review

Look ahead a generation. By then, at the current pace of technology, it will be something we can do reliably. We can already do it cheaply. Middle class American parents routinely spend $5,000 for braces to straighten a child's teeth. It is justified as a matter of dental health, but done out of social competition. Kids with a bright future in America have straight teeth.

Genes for height will be located. Genes for intelligence. Genes for blue eyes or blonde hair, or whatever gives kids an edge. Parents will be able to go to a local clinic to groom and clean up their parental DNA. If religious or political pressure restricts the technology in the US parents can fly to places it is allowed--China or Thailand or the tax- haven-equivalents like the Cayman Islands.

Women accessing sperm banks select semen from intelligent, good looking men. CRISPR clean-up of parental DNA is another iteration of gene selection technology. This is nothing new.

People sacrifice for their children. They want the best. Would they trust to random luck on intelligence or athleticism or longevity if they could do some gene grooming and a create a child using the parents' best qualities?

The Harvard forum worriers are fighting human nature.

I predict there will be late adopters and religious holdouts. (After all there are people who refuse to vaccinate their children.) The children of holdouts will be sitting among schoolmates who are athletic, attractive, and preternaturally smart. The holdouts will not persist. There is pressure to keep up.

Is this a nightmare? The Harvard forum suggested it was.

I predict it will be the new norm. People want to keep up.