CRISPR takes important step toward silencing Down syndrome’s extra chromosome
Posted by amichail 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by bonsai_spool 1 day ago
The linked research report[1] uses that mechanism, Xist, to shutdown chromosome 21, the extra chromosome whose presence causes Down syndrome. In its present form, it would need to be optimized for each potential patient and is unlikely to be used as a treatment paradigm, but the biological approach is clever.
Comment by sheept 1 day ago
You can see this visually because not the same X chromosome is deactivated in all cells: it's what gives calico cats their color (almost all of them are female).
Comment by Symmetry 1 day ago
Comment by bonsai_spool 17 hours ago
I haven't heard of this - where is this published? Here's a primer on eye color:
Comment by dreamcompiler 1 day ago
Comment by bonsai_spool 1 day ago
Humans have 'stripey' skin because of somatic mutations, and it's not clear that there are X-chromsome-located skin color loci. Don't believe everything you see on Youtube.
Comment by rendaw 1 day ago
Comment by krige 1 day ago
Comment by bonzini 1 day ago
Comment by mjg59 1 day ago
Comment by bonzini 1 day ago
Comment by bonsai_spool 19 hours ago
Genetics is complicated.
If you really want to learn about this, all you need to do is search.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-s...
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
I just did a google search and this further confirms my suspicion. Thus I would like to ask for a link to a scientific article - until that happens I remain rather unconvinced.
Comment by markburns 1 day ago
I haven’t read it but I did find this
Comment by dreamcompiler 1 day ago
Here's one link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07380...
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
Comment by samus 1 day ago
Comment by voidUpdate 1 day ago
On the other hand, this feels a bit like eugenics, and a slippery slope towards designer babies where you can pick and choose their attributes. I'm of the opinion that we should embrace the full diversity of human life, and if you can just cut out the parts of your children you don't like, that feels quite iffy to me
Comment by Tade0 1 day ago
It's a serious disability even today decreasing life expectancy by 10-15 years.
One may have different opinions regarding the quality of life of these people while they're alive, but I think we can agree that 60 years is a short lifespan for a human.
EDIT: also main point of eugenics, which seems to be not widely understood, was that the state would decide both what kind of children are born and who gets to have them. It was not unheard of to take sufficiently "aryan"-looking newborns from their "inferior race" parents and give them to "master race" adoptive parents.
This lack of agency on part of biological parents is a core tenet of eugenics.
Comment by dpiers 1 day ago
60-90% of prenatal diagnoses in the US result in an elective termination. The number is nearly 100% in Iceland and some other Nordic countries. Unlike autism or ADHD, we have a very clear understanding of exactly what causes Down Syndrome and now potentially how to correct it. A treatment like this is no different from correcting a congenital heart defect - it gives a baby a chance at normal, healthy development.
Comment by rob74 1 day ago
Comment by Qem 1 day ago
And a chance of not being killed in utero. Abortion for Down is sad, because despite cognitive impairment and health complications, their lifespans are long, and emotional development is quite spared by the syndrome. They can be very affectionate and sociable, despite the impairment. Abortion for them feels like death penalty for being dumb.
Comment by falcor84 1 day ago
Becoming a parent and taking on the responsibility to support a child financially and emotionally for 18 years as you gradually prepare them for independent life is already a massively difficult decision, particularly when looking at the worldwide decline in birth rates. Expecting people to knowingly and ahead of time take on responsibility for a child who most likely will never be able to support themselves and a raise their own family seems really unreasonable to me.
Comment by c048 1 day ago
Comment by voidUpdate 1 day ago
Comment by MSFT_Edging 1 day ago
You list your site and have a seemingly lots of professional experience.
Some of these conditions do make life harder, but there's a big difference between high functioning Autism and disabilities that make someone 100% dependent on others.
Comment by flextheruler 1 day ago
I cannot recall why Asperger's as a term was dropped or deemed controversial, but this is the equivalent of stolen valor but for mental illness especially when used to justify an argument.
How is it any different than people with obsessive compulsive tendencies claiming they have OCD? There's a huge difference.
Comment by sethaurus 20 hours ago
If you are interested to learn, autistic people are typically assigned a level of support needs on a scale of 1 to 3. Most people who would once have received a diagnosis of Aspergers now receive the "level 1" designation. Based on your description, your family member is likely "level 3", possibly with comorbidities? I was assigned "level 2".
> "I cannot recall why Asperger's as a term was dropped or deemed controversial"
It was dropped because a number of labels, now all considered to be ASD, were discovered to be different presentations of the same underlying disorder. The divisions break down under scrutiny and the apparent modal jumps disappear when you control for comorbidities and the ability to mask.
> "How is it any different than people with obsessive compulsive tendencies claiming they have OCD? There's a huge difference."
I'm not the other poster, but I'm a different autistic adult to whom your complaints might apply. To answer this question, the difference is that I call myself an autist because I have been diagnosed as autistic, due to meeting the diagnostic criteria of autism.
> "this is the equivalent of stolen valor"
Please go to the equivalent of hell.
Disabled people are allowed to call ourselves by the correct labels without apologising that our suffering is less severe or less obvious than someone else sharing the same label.
Comment by Jedd 13 hours ago
> Disabled people are allowed to call ourselves by the correct labels without apologising that our suffering is less severe or less obvious than someone else sharing the same label.
I think you guys are perhaps talking past each other.
The fact you acknowledge and recognise 'less severe' (a significant understatement when comparing ASD to Downs) suggests that you do understand parent's point.
Parent, I also note, was not seeking or implying an apology was sought from people with less severe genetic conditions. Rather, that the implications on QoL, lifespan, social / familial imposition etc of Downs, is nothing at all like so called high-functioning ASD.
Comment by sethaurus 11 hours ago
I'm not interested in litigating the fairly obvious point that Down's syndrome is a much worse prognosis than ASD, and the comment to which I responded says nothing about it either.
Comment by CalRobert 1 day ago
Comment by MSFT_Edging 1 day ago
I don't blame anyone for lumping their kid in. I think it's more of a massive failure for social funding that hyper-categorizes due to means-testing.
Comment by fisherjeff 1 day ago
Comment by anhner 1 day ago
Comment by voidUpdate 1 day ago
Comment by Cthulhu_ 1 day ago
Comment by ceejayoz 1 day ago
By the time they can make it, it’s too late.
Comment by bit-anarchist 18 hours ago
Comment by fainpul 1 day ago
Comment by mkesper 1 day ago
Comment by robertjpayne 1 day ago
NIPT tests can be done at week 8 and give a very high indicator that can be followed up with close monitoring/invasive tests at week 14-15 that give a 99% accuracy. That's hardly "are really not that exact".
Comment by simiones 1 day ago
Note: I am not in anyway saying that this means that people shouldn't trust the tests, or anything like that. Just reminding everyone that a test's accuracy has to be compared to the incidence of the disease to decide if it's high or not.
Comment by codytruscott 23 hours ago
Screening tests are designed for sensitivity — false positives are expected and identify who would benefit from additional diagnostic tool and procedures.
Comment by poulpy123 1 day ago
Comment by throwatdem12311 1 day ago
I have people in my family with Downs. It made the early pregnancies for every one of my children a terrifying ordeal. Luckily my children were all born perfectly healthy.
I love my family members with it, but their lives have been so much more difficult than they needed to be. It’s not just massively difficult for the disabled, it financially ruined their parents and their care is also a massive tax burden on the community.
If we can eliminate a crippling disease by “just” turning off a gene we should absolutely do it. The alternative is aborting them as soon as it is detected, and even then it isn’t always caught in-utero.
I have worked with people will all sorts of disabilities my entire life. I can confidently say that if I asked any of my blind or deaf colleagues that if they could take a simple gene therapy so they could see/hear again that they would do it without hesitation. Why would Down Syndrome be any different?
I can’t think of a single valid argument against it other than “eugenics bad”. We aren’t talking about Nazi-era human experimentation here.
Comment by api 1 day ago
There are very few people with a disability who wouldn’t want it to have been prevented or cured. “A healthy man has many dreams. A sick man has only one.”
Comment by igleria 1 day ago
Comment by TeMPOraL 1 day ago
We can discuss pros and cons of freedom of choice of genetics for your children (an opposite spin on the same idea as calling it "designer babies"), but eugenics is a thought-terminating cliche at this point. There's whole space of useful genetics-based treatments and interventions that do not imply involuntary sterilization of people one group deems lesser.
Comment by ben_w 1 day ago
We could all be hyper-muscular (from that Myostatin gene) and have tetra-chromatic vision*, but that leads to the joke about how "in the future there will be three genders: kpop, furry, and tank", where kpop represents normative beauty standards, furry represents self-expression, and tank represents hyper-optimising for niche goals like being strong.
On the more near-term impacts, before we're ready for me to get turned into an anthro-wolf, if we all end up with our genomes subject to regular updates like our software currently is, some of us are inevitably going to face our cells getting bricked while we're still made of them.
* I don't know how that works so here's the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Humans
Comment by api 1 day ago
Voluntary acts aren’t eugenics, otherwise you get absurd things like free choice of mates being eugenics because you are choosing, or any medical treatment being eugenics if it touches genetics or reproduction. Eugenics should be defined as meaning only authoritarian (directly or via state backed “social engineering”) forms.
Comment by thinkingtoilet 1 day ago
I have a brother with developmental disabilities. Not Down Syndrome, but something similar. He (and I) were lucky enough to be born into an upper-middle class family where my brother went to a school where people were kind to him and where services were available. Despite everything going about as well as it could, it still is a major tax on my family. Constant fund-raising for the home he's living in. Major medical problems through out his life. Things like that. When I agreed to kids with my wife it was on the condition that we do genetic testing and abort the fetus if there was an issue.
My mother has invested her life into this child and loves him more than anything. One day we were talking about death and I casually said something along the lines of "as long as I don't see you at <brother's name> funeral" I'll be ok. Implying she should die first so she doesn't have to deal with the sadness of seeing him die. She then said that she wanted my brother to die first. I was stunned. I asked why. She said she wanted to know he was taken care of. It completely floored me. People with Down's (and similar disabilities) can bring so much joy into this world. They can live very happy lives. I understand how it can be hard for people who don't have my experience to feel like you're feeling. However, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. And I think it's a good thing for society to stop babies being born that are so disabled they'll never be able to take care of themselves.
Just my two cents.
Comment by iLoveOncall 19 hours ago
Comment by azan_ 1 day ago
Comment by ceejayoz 1 day ago
Crippling disease? Or normal variation in humanity? There's significant debate, and a lot of Deaf people really bristle at the idea of eliminating their identity.
Comment by azan_ 1 day ago
Comment by ceejayoz 1 day ago
That we permit (and widely practice) pregnancy termination makes it an easier call for me, though.
Comment by exe34 1 day ago
Comment by voidUpdate 1 day ago
Comment by mmustapic 1 day ago
Comment by voidUpdate 1 day ago
Comment by mmustapic 1 day ago
Btw, I also wouldn’t if I could choose.
Comment by exe34 22 hours ago
Comment by lofaszvanitt 1 day ago
Comment by equinox6380 1 day ago
I chose to call it quality of life because I don't think that simply being happy is enough to have quality of life, but I don't agree that it's about valuing intelligence over happiness. It's a condition they, and their family, have to live with their entire life. You can't really be permanently sad about a condition you have literally been born with and can't expect to change.
Meanwhile, there are conditions that significantly decrease quality of life even though one's intelligence is unaffected. I think the factor is better described as choice. There are a large number of things a person with Downs just does not have the choice to do differently.
Comment by Metacelsus 1 day ago
Comment by russdill 1 day ago
Comment by colechristensen 1 day ago
in vitro there are various techniques where you use crispr on a cell line and then purify it by killing off the cells with errors and only then implant them
in vivo... well there are errors and among other effects are potential cancer
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
Comment by irjustin 1 day ago
Comment by samus 1 day ago
Comment by ceejayoz 1 day ago
Comment by kriro 1 day ago
Comment by Cthulhu_ 1 day ago
Comment by shevy-java 1 day ago
How can they ensure that (only) one out of three chromosomes only, have XIST integrated? (I assume they can target these three chromosomes due to the CRISPR RNA.)
So down syndrome is trisomy 21, aka three chromosomes 21. Say you have to modify a billion cells, just to give a number. Well, how can you ensure that all those have one XIST gene that is also active (otherwise it would be pointless; XIST produces a RNA which in turn silences the X chromosome by coating it)? Inserting new genes is nothing new, that is already ancient technology at this point in time.
Comment by AussieWog93 1 day ago
Comment by tosti 1 day ago
Comment by JimmyBuckets 1 day ago
Comment by pc86 1 day ago
Would it?
> Would they all want what makes them unique turned off?
Having a disability doesn't make you unique, it makes you disabled. There is a difference.
> 99% of people with Down syndrome were happy with their lives; 97% liked who they are; 96% liked how they looked; 99% expressed love for their families; 97% liked their brothers and sisters; 86% felt they could make friends easily.
Survey their parents, who are almost certainly their full-time caregivers, if they are "happy their child has Down syndrome."
Comment by EA-3167 1 day ago
Comment by kakacik 1 day ago
Respect to every single parent who does their best for their kids, but raising kids these days in western society is very hard and taxing even in best case scenario.
Comment by BrandoElFollito 1 day ago
Comment by kstrauser 1 day ago
Correction: the people with Down Syndrome who are capable of meaningfully responding to the question answered a certain way on one survey. Down's affects different people differently. There are plenty of people who don't have the mental facilities to understand the question, let alone respond.
I've seen this kind of argument with autism, too. People here on HN will point out that they were diagnosed with autism and still have rich, meaningful lives. I don't doubt that for one moment! Still, my family lived next to a family with a profoundly autistic, nonverbal kid, and their lives were hard. The parents are lovely people but they were at their wits' end dealing with the consequences of his condition. When people talk about nebulous things like "a cure for autism", they don't mean a way to help the HN folks who have jobs and friends and families. They're talking about my next door neighbor who liked to take off his pants and run around naked outside.
I imagine it's the same here. There's the occasional news story about someone with Down Syndrome graduating college and getting married. They're doing fine. It'd still be nice to find a way to help those who'd never be able to make it to kindergarten.
Comment by protocolture 1 day ago
We had him at a McDonalds playground the other day, and a nonverbal autistic kid came in escorted by a parent. He immediately got overstimulated and screamed. And ran out.
He started doing laps of the McDonalds. Every time he would pass the play area, his parents would gently guide him towards it, then he would bugger off out the front door again.
He did like 12 laps with his father, 12 laps with his grandfather, then 12 laps with his mother, and eventually he came back to the playground and goofed off a bit with his father again. I could clearly see they were drilled on this behaviour and used to take turns minding him.
They very clearly love their son. But they really don't deserve to have a kid more than 1000 times more difficult than I can even imagine. Like even shifting that kids range a bit so that he could tolerate more play time, and do less laps of the building would help everyone involved. He wouldn't be losing some valuable element of his identity for that to happen.
Whereas my kid might have trouble paying attention to the boring bits in school and want to run around a lot. I am not pining for a cure. We might medicate if it becomes an issue. Its hardly worth talking about in comparison.
Comment by BrandoElFollito 1 day ago
You push this difference a bit more and it becomes hell. For them and for the others.
Comment by OkayPhysicist 1 day ago
But it's still a profound disability that leads to health complications that necessitate significant medical interventions to achieve a lifespan that's still reduced by ~10 years. Only about a third of the afflicted can live by themselves.
Comment by Scarblac 1 day ago
Comment by Karawebnetwork 1 day ago
Comment by pixel_popping 1 day ago
Comment by almostjazz 1 day ago
Comment by pixel_popping 1 day ago
can you really say you're happy with something when you don't know what life without it looks like? You adapt. You make peace with it. That's human nature. Doesn't mean it's the best option.
Comment by lynx97 1 day ago
Comment by michaelmrose 1 day ago
Comment by eucyclos 1 day ago
Comment by refulgentis 1 day ago
Additionally, it should set off alarms that the argument implies we should give people Down Syndrome.
Using it to argue against helping people with Down syndrome is worse.
The authors spell out why its wrong. [1] Their sample was exclusively from DS nonprofit mailing lists, got a 17% response rate, with a median household income of $100K, (2x median), and as they wrote, the results are likely "a positive overrepresentation" because people with severe problems are least likely to participate.
On top of that, decades of research [2][3][4] document that people with intellectual disabilities disproportionately answer "yes" to whatever you ask them, and this survey had "Yes" as the first option on every scale. If you take the number at face value, people with DS are the happiest demographic ever measured, crushing the OECD average of ~67% [5].
Using happiness to argue against helping people is wrong because it papers over what Down syndrome actually is, a physical ailment. About half of people with DS have congenital heart defects. Alzheimer's incidence exceeds 90%. Life expectancy is around 60 [6][7][8].
And the suffering isn't contained to the individual. My sister was disabled. It consumed my family. Research confirms this isn't unusual: parents of children with DS show significantly elevated stress [9], siblings become caregivers young [10]. A self-reported happiness survey doesn't capture any of that. It's not the whole picture. It's the one corner of the picture that's easy to look at.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3740159/ ; [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7231176/ ; [3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11551964 ; [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3044819/ ; [5] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-202... ; [6] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12812862/; [7] https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-causes-and-risk-fa... ; [8] https://www.cdc.gov/birth-defects/living-with-down-syndrome/... ; [9] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8911183/ ; [10] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10848223211027861
Comment by spockz 1 day ago
Comment by amoorthy 1 day ago
Comment by refulgentis 1 day ago
Comment by kstrauser 1 day ago
Comment by squigz 1 day ago
You might consider posting that all as a top-level comment. It's very important context.
So sorry for what you had to go through
Comment by BadgerBloke 1 day ago
Comment by CooCooCaCha 1 day ago
If I told you the chemical gave people down syndrome you’d probably think I am evil.
Whenever these topics come up there’s always people saying things like “but what if people like it?” And I can’t help but wonder, really? Are we really having this conversation? The answers are obvious so why pretend they’re not?
I don’t believe anybody actually thinks this way.
Comment by pixl97 1 day ago
Oh, there are far too many people that do. I mostly call them the "Hell for you, heaven for me" bunch, the doublethink/cognitive dissonance in so many is very very strong.
https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-...
“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” is a common example of this behavior.
Comment by nathan_compton 1 day ago
Comment by pixl97 1 day ago
The number one rule of thinking about the unborn would be thinking about those who are living first.
Comment by almostjazz 1 day ago
Comment by theodric 1 day ago
Comment by CooCooCaCha 1 day ago
If doctors gave mothers a vaccine that prevented down syndrome, at a high level, that would be the same as putting an anti-down syndrome drug in the water supply.
The point of the example is not about whether putting things in the water supply is good or bad.
Comment by bulbar 1 day ago
Comment by CooCooCaCha 1 day ago
Saying “but they’re happy” in this context is implying that we shouldn’t try to cure it, which is obviously ridiculous.
Comment by refulgentis 1 day ago
Re: "but they're happy" x obviously ridiculous, it hit me 10 minutes in, if we're going off 99% happy, it's absolutely absurd - then the conclusion is we should give everyone down's syndrome.
My initial snap reaction was it must be trolling. But it can't be, if you're looking to stir the pot you don't do it on the 6 comment non-technical post on the second page.
Which kinda makes it more disturbing, to me, because it goes beyond someone not understanding. It's some sort of weird active misunderstanding, like, seeing fun heart-warming Downs syndrome sibling videos on social media is enough for one to assume it's net-good, somehow.
Comment by jjj123 1 day ago
Comment by CooCooCaCha 1 day ago
Comment by nathan_compton 1 day ago
You think of a person with Downs' as less than a person without it, clearly. But why should your opinion matter? If we accept treating Downs' in utero, should we accept genetic treatments to lower criminality? What about independent thinking? What about other "inconvenient" personality traits. Like why not allow some "authority" to eliminate any "negative" trait they wish from the population?
Obviously these are extremes and your position that considering the question with respect to Downs' leads to a straightforward conclusion: on balance, it make sense, but I think we should approach any question about modifying people with serious consideration.
Comment by Glemllksdf 1 day ago
Most people don't want to be unique, they want to be a part of the rest of the herde.
Its objectivly better to not have down syndrom.
And before i get downvoted: My stand doesn't mean i look down on peole with down syndrom. These two viewpoints are not exclusive. The same for the decision to abort a fetus with down syndrom doesn't mean that someone decided this, would look down on people with down syndrom.
Comment by tristor 1 day ago
I don't believe this number for a second, but let's just assume it's true. Why does that matter? We know from an abundance of research about both the Disability Paradox and that specifically people with intellectual disabilities which are common comorbidities with Down's Syndrome express elevated levels of happiness compared to the general population in part because they lack the necessary faculties to understand their situation. "Ignorance is bliss."
Arguing against a cure that could happen shortly after birth for a debilitating disability on the basis of people reporting high levels of happiness is patently absurd.
Comment by porridgeraisin 1 day ago
Comment by inglor_cz 1 day ago
IIRC there are countries and years without a single Down syndrome sufferer born alive. An effective treatment for the condition could change these stats.
Comment by lynx97 1 day ago
Comment by bulbar 1 day ago
On the other hand I agree that commenting on ones disability is a break of boundaries in most contexts. One should quite often avoid to comment on traits in general that are irrelevant for the context or the conversation.
Comment by lynx97 1 day ago
Comment by YurgenJurgensen 1 day ago
Comment by m3kw9 1 day ago
Comment by Glemllksdf 1 day ago
People with down syndrom have an avg iq from 50-60 which means that our society do not see them as independent human beings who are allowed to make all decisions themselves.
Also people with down syndrom do have reduced life expectency. In 1960 it was 10 now its at 60 (heart issues).
Comment by ButlerianJihad 1 day ago
Unfortunately, that's not entirely accurate.
50-90% of babies with diagnosed Down Syndrome are aborted before having a chance to be born and enjoy their lives. In Iceland, that figure is 100%.
Comment by r_p4rk 1 day ago
Comment by ButlerianJihad 1 day ago
So, you end up with a self-selecting population where the children really have been formed with an optimistic outlook on life, and their parents really did foster environments where they can live happily, and be nurtured despite the disability and obstacles that come up.
It is very nearly a talking point in favor of abortion: that if these babies are truly wanted and loved, they are not being born into a life of abuse, neglect, or disadvantage, which would be a risk for the ones who never made it at all.
Comment by iloveplants 1 day ago
Comment by trollbridge 1 day ago
Comment by memonkey 1 day ago
Comment by hgoel 1 day ago
Thinking of them as lesser leads to a society that prefers to drag each other down instead of lifting each other up.
Comment by TurdF3rguson 1 day ago
That's not to say that it's unreasonable to value intelligence over happiness, but framing it as quality of life seems off.
Comment by amunozo 1 day ago
I am very conflicted with these kind of issues, but I think I am of the opinion that it's better to prevent this suffering, but once they're already here we should make their life as easier as possible.
Comment by hgoel 1 day ago
It's a condition they, and their family, have to live with their entire life. You can't really be permanently sad about a condition you have literally been born with and can't expect to change.
Meanwhile, there are conditions that significantly decrease quality of life even though one's intelligence is unaffected. I think the factor is better described as choice. There are a large number of things a person with Downs just does not have the choice to do differently.
Comment by TurdF3rguson 1 day ago
People have gotten emotional with me about my take on that, and that's just fiction. I guess my point is I don't think there is a clear morality play here. This is more like a trolley problem where you have to decide for yourself how much control you're comfortable with.
Comment by cindyllm 1 day ago
Comment by wqaatwt 1 day ago
Comment by RobotToaster 1 day ago
The motor bus was hailed as a eugenic invention because it helped prevent inbreeding in small villages, for instance.
Comment by MerManMaid 21 hours ago
>the term was value neutral.
By the late 1930s the academic community had largely moved on from eugenics, the catholic church denounced it 1930 with their Casti Connubii, the Eugenics Office Records closing in 1935 and finally Laughlin retiring in 1939. (The leading Eugenicist)In 1930s being a Eugenics was viewed much like homeopathy is viewed today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casti_connubii - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
>Until a certain Austrian painter decided to practice eugenics in a uniquely negative way,
Eugenics in the united states saw the rise of the "Moron Laws" and mass sterilization of marginalized communities in the US. In fact, Nazi Germany's Eugenics policies were largely inspired by US Eugenic legislation and actively promoted by US Eugenicist. (Particularly California) Heck mass sterilization programs in the US didn't even die with WW2 continuing into mid 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics - https://alexwellerstein.com/publications/wellerstein_stateso...
I'm troubled by this thread because the vibe I'm getting is Eugenics was only bad because the science wasn't there yet and the Nazi's did it, this time will be different. No, the aspect which made eugenics dangerous were inherently political and every bit as relevant today than they were a hundred years ago. (Who decides which traits should be "edited" out? What traits should be "edited" in? What policies should be legislated? Who is primarily impacted by these policies? How much agency do the people impacted by these policy have in the situation?)
Comment by colechristensen 1 day ago