I can’t see any problems here. It’s not like there’s a famous novel about why this is a terrible idea or a movie about it with Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    I would be worried about causal mechanisms if we were discussing artificially introduced mutations. However, these are naturally present alleles and they would be considered only for the purpose of selecting among otherwise equally viable embryos. In such circumstances, I think that the risk of proceeding without knowing the casual mechanisms is minimal.

    • Jaderick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      IIRC a CCR5 deletion leads to HIV resistance, but the homozygous allele also leads to immune transcription disruptions. I believe there was a Chinese geneticist that deleted CCR5 from twin embryos and got “disappeared” for it, but it remains to be seen what the consequences of that change are (I don’t remember if those embryos were implanted).

      I’m of the opinion that we should approach this topic with caution until we know exactly what’s going on and the consequences of said alleles. Hypothetically speaking, imagine being born and chosen by this IQ method only to realize some horrible consequence later like asthma susceptibility in a world with decreasing air quality.

      I’d be extremely pissed lmao. I could still find happiness even if I was less intelligent.

      There’s another discussion about genetic homogenization that I don’t care to go into atm too.