>>44521
>Dr. Endy, though invited, said he deliberately did not attend the meeting at Harvard because it was not being opened to enough people and was not giving enough thought to the ethical implications of the work.

>George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and an organizer of the proposed project, said there had been a misunderstanding. The project was not aimed at creating people, just cells, and would not be restricted to human genomes, he said. Rather it would aim to improve the ability to synthesize DNA in general, which could be applied to various animals, plants and microbes.

>“They’re painting a picture which I don’t think represents the project,” Dr. Church said in an interview.

>He said the meeting was closed to the news media, and people were asked not to tweet because the project organizers, in an attempt to be transparent, had submitted a paper to a scientific journal. They were therefore not supposed to discuss the idea publicly before publication. He and other organizers said ethical aspects have been amply discussed since the beginning.

>The project was initially called HGP2: The Human Genome Synthesis Project, with HGP referring to the Human Genome Project. An invitation to the meeting at Harvard said that the primary goal “would be to synthesize a complete human genome in a cell line within a period of 10 years.”
...

>But by the time the meeting was held, the name had been changed to “HGP-Write: Testing Large Synthetic Genomes in Cells.”

>The project does not yet have funding, Dr. Church said, though various companies and foundations would be invited to contribute, and some have indicated interest. The federal government will also be asked. A spokeswoman for the National Institutes of Health declined to comment, saying the project was in too early a stage.

>Besides Dr. Church, the organizers include Jef Boeke, director of the institute for systems genetics at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Andrew Hessel, a self-described futurist who works at the Bay Area software company Autodesk and who first proposed such a project in 2012.

>Scientists and companies can now change the DNA in cells, for example, by adding foreign genes or changing the letters in the existing genes. This technique is routinely used to make drugs, such as insulin for diabetes, inside genetically modified cells, as well as to make genetically modified crops. And scientists are now debating the ethics of new technology that might allow genetic changes to be made in embryos.

>But synthesizing a gene, or an entire genome, would provide the opportunity to make even more extensive changes in DNA.

>For instance, companies are now using organisms like yeast to make complex chemicals, like flavorings and fragrances. That requires adding not just one gene to the yeast, like to make insulin, but numerous genes in order to create an entire chemical production process within the cell. With that much tinkering needed, it can be easier to synthesize the DNA from scratch.
...

>Right now, synthesizing DNA is difficult and error-prone. Existing techniques can reliably make strands that are only about 200 base pairs long, with the base pairs being the chemical units in DNA. A single gene can be hundreds or thousands of base pairs long. To synthesize one of those, multiple 200-unit segments have to be spliced together.

>But the cost and capabilities are rapidly improving. Dr. Endy of Stanford, who is a co-founder of a DNA synthesis company called Gen9, said the cost of synthesizing genes has plummeted from $4 per base pair in 2003 to 3 cents now. But even at that rate, the cost for three billion letters would be $90 million. He said if costs continued to decline at the same pace, that figure could reach $100,000 in 20 years.

>J. Craig Venter, the genetic scientist, synthesized a bacterial genome consisting of about a million base pairs. The synthetic genome was inserted into a cell and took control of that cell. While his first synthetic genome was mainly a copy of an existing genome, Dr. Venter and colleagues this year synthesized a more original bacterial genome, about 500,000 base pairs long.

>Dr. Boeke is leading an international consortium that is synthesizing the genome of yeast, which consists of about 12 million base pairs. The scientists are making changes, such as deleting stretches of DNA that do not have any function, in an attempt to make a more streamlined and stable genome.

>But the human genome is more than 200 times as large as that of yeast and it is not clear if such a synthesis would be feasible.
...

>Jeremy Minshull, chief executive of DNA2.0, a DNA synthesis company, questioned if the effort would be worth it.

>“Our ability to understand what to build is so far behind what we can build,” said Dr. Minshull, who was invited to the meeting at Harvard but did not attend. “I just don’t think that being able to make more and more and more and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper is going to get us the understanding we need.”

Beat me to it. I think this is probably inevitable.

>>44526
Agreed. I think we will see designer DNA injected into embryos before we'll see entirely scientist created test tube babies though.

i like this idea

I don't understand people's opposition to genetically perfect disease free humans.

So a multi trillion dollar company in the near future could buy this DNA,create these synthoids,and these creatures would be their property as they are not really people but more like live stock or pets. This same company could potentially be legally able to sell them to the public. The ethical/moral crisis this creates is
mind boggling. On the plus side catgirls would be on the cusp of being made into reality.

>>44568
I believe it might have to do with not being fair, I'm guessing since I am generally for this kind of progress. I'd only be against it if you'd kill off genetic diversity entirely.

As a side note, you'd be creating a entirely new class of humans to discriminate against and people are petty. These new people can easily be seen as superior to every one else. Get some fools into power and we get a Hitler 2.0 situation going.

>>44568
When you take away people's problems you take away the ability for other people to gain political power by claiming to be able to alleviate these problems.

>>44574
>as they are not really people
Really? According to who?

>>44526
Yea, but its the next logical step in the ever growing march of technology. If, say, in 100 years, almost all us healthcare providers garuntee designer babies in their plans, the general intelligence of the population will increase to the point at which average joe down the street does stem cell research for work, and his wife jane teaches economics at the local university. Its a beatiful future, one which will hopefully us up in the race to post scarsity.

>>44521
I don't think this is bad. There are already a bunch of other non-biological factors that make some humans superior to others (Money being the most important). It would require a good deal of legal planning to avoid terrible outcomes, but I think humanity can manage.

This combined with the concentration of global wealth and control over the means of manufacturing could easily lead to the super rich just manipulating society into a brave new world scenario.

>>44608
Genetics is still only (a little more than) half the battle though.

An engineered child with superior genes could easily have a lower IQ than a natural born child with a good upbringing. Nature vs nurture.

That's why it's weird that they're bringing up Einstein.
Most of the actual differences in his neuroanatomy (especially his glial cells) came about through his environment, not through genes.
And most of the others are just wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

Einstein wasn't a genius exclusively because of his genome, it had a lot to do with his environment. I bet you his actual genes alone made up only a tiny fraction of his genius.

>>44616
Plus we can't access Einstein's DNA anymore. It got destroyed by the embalming process.

They tried to do it in the 80s, but some collector dunked it in too much formaldehyde. So it really makes no sense to try and make Einstein clones.

>>44521
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>44611
>could

Have you seen Common Core? We already live that reality.

>>44574
WAAAAAY the hell off base, buddy. If the project succeeded in the long term, the result is an honest-to goodness human. Just like a hammer, I can make one in a forge, have a machine mill it, or file one out of a steel block. The result is still a hammer.

>>44616
Agreed. Einstein did, however, have a slightly higher concentration of neurons and nerve bundles in his dissected brain, but not like a major amount or anything. If Einstein grew up in a ghetto with no education, those genetic advantages would have never mattered.

>>44627

I agree with you, but some of these corporate organizations more than likely won't. They will point and say "sure it's almost a human in the same way a chimpanzee sharing a large amount of the same DNA as us is almost like a human. But this creature has no parents it's genetic code is completely synthetic and owned by us lock stock and genome"

And let's be honest we live in a society where human life right now is disposable. For pity sake a couple of years ago where I live a homeless man was lit on fire for just being homeless. There is little doubt in my mind these corporate entities will attempt this. Never underestimate human greed or arrogance.

leftists will attempt to halt progress for humankind by going against this, but this is amazing

Synthetic humans? Boston? I swear, if I hear about portal nuclear reactors next, I'm going to a vault.

>>44644
>For pity sake a couple of years ago where I live a homeless man was lit on fire for just being homeless.
What you're talking about are two ends of a very wide spectrum. Setting a man on fire is the act of a person (or group of people) who desires an instant result that they can personally experience. Claiming ownership of a genome gives no instant result at all, and it rather far from personal. It couldn't even give a single person a visceral thrill of having ultimate power over another being, because the ownership would be corporate.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that that example doesn't back up what you're suggesting. Perhaps something like Monsanto, the insanity of software patents, or whatever side of the abortion debate you think is the callous, unfeeling side would be a more direct comparison.

There should be rules in cloning, like you only get 1 clone, after your own death... or 2 if you're a celebrity.

>>44652

I can see what your talking about. I was deliberately trying to not drag abortion into this discussion as that issue is a powder keg waiting to explode. What I was trying to get at is that we as a species have such contempt for each other that a synthetic version of a human would not be seen as a being like you or I, but rather a commodity to be bought and sold. I guess it's the jaded cynic in me but I don't see humanity giving a synthetic being equal freedoms or rights and seeing us more than likely making them cheap,easy to dispose of labour or an endless stream of soldiers to send into the war machine to be chewed up and spit out without a care.

>>44568
>opposition to genetically perfect disease free humans
The problem is this would not happen. At all. I'm not even talking about the ethical considerations. You cannot fight disease at the genetic level. You kill one and two more spring in its place.

This would be a great advancement for humanity. But it would not solve what you suggest, and may very well be damning for our species.

Gattaca called it. It's like the next 1984

>>44568
There is no such thing as disease free. You can dramatically decrease the risk of current diseases, but who knows what new strain will pop up tomorrow? The most acceptable idea is allergy prevention.

Never mind the obvious ethical concerns, as gene therapy will be super expensive for a time.

>>44602
Monsanto spreads it's strain of corn onto other farms in order to absorb them, and nobody gives a shit. You can bet somebody is going to copyright genetically modified humans.

>>44521
>>44556
>>44568

Anyone can cook up your DNA and frame you for any crime by leaving evidence with your DNA behind.
Anyone can cook up fake sperm from you and sue you for child support. Before you think this won't hold up in court there already is legal precedence. Women have won cases where they raped 11 year old boys in their sleep or have stolen semen from discarded condoms. The woman will win all the time, it's impossible to beat with any logic or reason.

This shit needs to be outlawed. Our criminal justice system will collapse otherwise.

>>44574
>catgirls would be on the cusp of being made into reality
Fuck yes. Bring on the gene synthesizing. I want my catgirl harem.

ITEOTWAWKI

>>44679
1) Corn is not people
2) They're not saying that their crop is not corn.

>>44679
>>44686
>>44574
The problem is there's not many research benefits to using human subjects, modified or otherwise.

Even if you took away human rights and could use them just like mice, it's still really fucking hard to work on people. We're too smart.
We outsmart the research and set precedents in our minds that completely negate any results.
It's placebo and nocebo city with us. And we age and reproduce so fucking slowly.

Even if you made it so humans reproduced weekly and shat out 60 offspring per litter, we'd still be one of the worst model organisms.
There's more than one reason human testing isn't even done in shithole 3rd world countries. The nazis only did it to be edgy, nothing useful actually sprouted from it.

It isn't worth the billions of dollars and massive legal efforts just to test on inferior subjects. There isn't a company in the world that would take that on even if they could.

Once the technology allows it, the genie is already out of the bottle. If you won't do it, another nation will. So you might as well get to it first and set precedence. Who would want China to have a monopoly on human genetical engineering?

What's more, regarding ethics, what of our current ethical breaches? If you have the power to right wrongs, is inaction not unethical? A person is dying in the street, but you can save him if you call an ambulance. It's unethical to ignore him and move on. You're basically responsible for his death. Same here. If engineered humans could speed up scientific advancement, and come up with better quality of life, the kind that could save millions of lives each year not just via drugs, but also with new thinking that prevents wars and violence, is it not unethical to pursue such a future? Millions are dying today, each year, due to delays in pursuing such a future.

While there is a bleak prophecy of misuse of technology (and history guarantees us there will be misuse), that's going to happen regardless, as the technology is already here. Take the reigns and set the precedence yourself with the know-how and formulate international standards to regulate such misuse as much as possible. You're able to influence such events better from a position of superiority on the subject.

ITT:

>implying that meetings concerning ethics and future directions of research don't happen all the time
>implying we're even remotely close to properly genetically engineering complex animals
>implying that any fucking around with the genome doesn't produce cancer 99.999% of the time

Lel

I'd like to read the papers they submitted to
>arbitrary scientific journal
, but the article is hogwash.

>>44676
It's entirely possible that technology will outpace natures ability to produce new diseases. Any new disease that takes the place of an old one would be trivial to cure if we reach the point where we totally understood our own biology.

>>44521

Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. More human than human is our motto.

>>44657
What about the increase in resistance against common disease?
Is that not a factor?