Right, this is sort of the core of the debate. I don't think that suffering is worth it. Others have a different opinion. I understand and accept the arguments against a government agency whose job it is to tell you if you can or cannot have kids. I don't understand the argument that's in favor of the proliferation of disease-causing alleles.But, as we profess our support for that right we must remember that it causes suffering.
Variation exists that is non-pathological. There are lots of different ways to code a muscle fiber, for example. There are also lots of ways to code half-functional, disease causing muscle fiber. Believe me when I say I understand how genetics works. I don't pretend that selective breeding is a cure-all, and if it were misapplied, we would lose a lot of beneficial genetic diversity. I'm not against genetic diversity, I think it's important. But the spectrum is wider than just 'good' genes and 'bad' genes, as you stated. We know more now than our ancestors. That obliges us to use that knowledge for the betterment of the species. That obliges us to use that knowledge to reduce suffering where we can.Well it's not like you can have one without the other.
I look forward to the day when we can do that. I think it's our best hope for a Tay-Sachs, HI free future, among others. I'd love to live in a world where we can drive the disease from our genes so that our kids only have to contend with the struggles they encounter after birth. Some people, for reasons unknowable to me, are opposed to even this most humane of treatments. I don't think this is a fair comparison. Nobody stands to make a oodles and oodles of long-term profit from removing pathological mutations from people. Genetic Therapy would be a service you'd use once, rather than a life-long addiction to a substance.Would it not, for the sake of argument, be a better tactic to use CRISPR methods if the goal is to eliminate the mutant genes?
the last time doctors went out with the objective to reduce suffering where possible we got the opioid epidemic.
I completely agree. The point of contention is what qualifies as 'misuse.' In my mind, removing a gene that is known to be pathological and replacing it with a sequence we know DOESN'T cause disease isn't even a controversial point.You must agree, though, that misuse of any medical treatment is of concern, including CRISPR.