Realistically how close are we to genetically engineering babbies?

Didn't an american just modify a human embryo not long ago? So, a decade at most, I'd say.

>>9099558
The science is here, the laws aren't.

>>9099566
It will probably be hyped in the media under "designer babies" and "flaws are what gives us personality" at first, so that would make it difficult. But if they just go with the realistic angle of "will allow us to combat genetic diseases", there would hopefully be will to adjust it.

>>9099563
With genes already present in the embryo. They did a copy paste so they had two copies of a gene. They can't seem to put new genes in.

>>9099558
In short pretty goddamn far.

File: Gattaca_1997_movie_poster[1].jpg (265KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 800x1200px

>>9099879
It will be a replay of the "test tube babies" fiasco when they figured out artificial insemination.

Initial backlash of religious Luddites but then acceptance as the obvious advantages become clear. Perfect vision, 6 foot height for all men, no balding, minimum risk for heart disease, cancer, and mental illness, etc

>>9099566
>The science is here
Not really. We're only just finding out about the extent of unintentional modifications from Crispr/Cas9. We're at a point where we can edit embryos, but we're not at a point where we can guarantee that embryo will grow into a functioning human without horrifying side effects.

>>9099886
those off-target effects were drastically reduced in the recent US research. It's being addressed slowly but effectively.

>>9099879
if anything that angle would make it even more controversial. People with genetic disorders have formed their own cultures nowadays. I can't remember the exact circumstance, but i recall reading an article where a deaf mother did not want a hearing aid for her deaf baby because it would destroy his ability to truly connect and identify with ASL culture.

I hate to get political, but I can just imagine the wave of far left liberal women screaming that a cure for type 1 diabetes or Down's Syndrome is somehow discriminatory.

>>9099897
>a deaf mother did not want a hearing aid for her deaf baby because it would destroy his ability to truly connect and identify with ASL culture.
i will say, having known some deaf people in my life, they have a strange culture about deafness, and it's not a good example for genetic engineering since most wouldnt want it. seriously they are really weirdly defensive about their condition

>>9099897
>>9099909
I mean, I could see people who are currently living with these conditions being scared that elimination of their disease would reduce the resources (e.g. research) dedicated to make them able to cope with it. But I can't see people actively wishing it on others, these are hopefully rare single cases.
>>9099884
Promising perfectly healthy and additionally vastly superior humans to the current average might also scare people, since this means they might be surpassed easily in their profession by the coming generation. Maybe a modified "Brave New World" scenario might be possible at first, where high performance humans are bread for specific tasks, but designed in a way that makes them submissive or inferior to their current masters. But it would probably be difficult to avoid the stigma of slavery, even though they would be technically human like machines build on the basis of our own modified genetic code.

We already are. PGD w/ IVF is effectively genetic engineering.

>>9099909
embracing their disability is the only way they can stand existence
otherwise they'd have to acknowledge that they're invalids every waking moment of every day

>>9099980
OP meant full genetic engineering, hand picking genes to make 6'4 150 IQ muscled supermen on a whim

>>9099987
So full arbitrary editing only and not minor changes?

>>9099558
I don't think we really have any significant knowledge of what genes influence socially important physical traits like height, facial characteristics, etc. We can't even figure out all the genes that go into things as hereditary as height and eye color, so fucking with an embryo's genetic code to give it a nice face or something wouldn't be ethical. A lot could go wrong, and now you have a baby with two noses growing from where its eyes should've been.

>>9100017
your knowledge of the research community's knowledge of the human genome is a bit outdated. We can identify a lot of those genes now, height, eye color, even facial characteristics

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-06 at 9.42.01 PM.png (737KB, 1600x1007px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1600x1007px

>>9100017
>I don't think we really have any significant knowledge of what genes influence socially important physical traits like height, facial characteristics, etc. We can't even figure out all the genes that go into things as hereditary as height and eye color