Designer genes dreams. 
(Or designer gene dreams? ; - )
Heh – hard to say. I know there was more to the dream, but all I remember is that gene editing part.
2 Likes
The earliest measured brain activity I found was recorded from a fetus aged 45 days after conception(1). It is possible that there is brain activity before that but technically, the recording of fetal brain activity is difficult and invasive methods might damage a small fetus, so proper brain activity measurements have not been done or reported from anyone aged less than 45 days.
The brain activity and brainwaves develop as the brains of the fetus and later the born baby grow. The development seems to continue until adult age. According to what I read, the first brainwaves are type Delta that is the lowest brainwave cycle. Delta waves are seen in an adult during deep sleep. The next brainwave types, first Theta, then Alpha and Beta appear as the child grows. Theta is typical in children between 2-6 years, brainwaves turn into Alpha between 5-8 years and to Beta from ages 8 onwards.
It seems that the development of brain activity is gradual and there is no point, at least after the age 45 days, where the brain activity would suddenly jump from close to zero to full brainwaves. There may be a point where the measurement of brainwaves becomes possible but that tells more about methodological difficulties than the onset of fetal brain activity.
(1) Borkowski WJ, Bernstine RL. Electroencephalography of the Fetus. Neurology. 1955 May 1;5(5):362.
It’s a scientific fact that life begins at conception. But that isn’t really the crux of the ethical issues involved, they surround ideas of personhood and rights and when a developing human is entitled to the rights associated with human personhood and what to do when the rights of a developing human person infringe on or compete with the rights of the human person on whom it is dependent for its life. None of these questions are settled by “life begins at conception.”
There are serious ethical issues involved any time embryos are involved, but I don’t see how the gene editing for health reasons (to avoid a genetic defect that would cause pain and suffering or significant disability) is much different ethically than the issues around IVF, which many Christians have.
I think the destruction of some embryos in pursuit of a healthy pregnancy is ethically justifiable. Embryos are destroyed all the time naturally, because only something like 1/4 blastocysts will successfully implant in a healthy uterus when a woman is at peak fertility. Twenty percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage and probably more total because most pregnancy loss happens early on before many women know they are pregnant. I don’t think we tend to view failure to implant or pregnancy loss in the first few weeks of gestation as a tragic loss of human life. It’s more a loss of potential.
Where I think the line should be personally is at “designer babies.” This is where parents pay big bucks to try to filter out embryos that have less desired genetic traits that have nothing to do with health (hair color, height, etc). Also in many countries sex-selection abortion is already a huge issue and if parents had the option to select only male embryos, that would be very problematic. But none of this is gene editing, it’s just genetic testing of embryos pre-implantation, which is a prerequisite tech to the tech that would edit to remove disease. I think currently, no embryos are edited, they are just screened.
4 Likes
I meant genetic screening here, not editing. Editing embryos has additional ethical issues, which is why it isn’t allowed in any country at the moment. Though some scientists in China did it and got in big toruble.
2 Likes
Just in the name of asking interesting ethical/philosophical questions, no hidden agenda here . . .
That does raise some interesting questions about identical twins. In that case, you start with one fertilized cell and end up with two unique persons.
This also asks questions about human cloning (which I am strongly against, btw). At what point does a modified cell become a person?
The advance of science has made us face ethical questions we would have never considered a few hundred years ago, that is for sure.
4 Likes
We are more than our genes. I could even say that I am hardly the same person I was 20 years ago and definitely not the same as 30+ years ago. This possibility of changing despite the genes brings hope because it tells we can change towards something better.
2 Likes
It does seem to me also that there are lines that should not be crossed, and yet I have serious qualms sometimes about the experimenting we do on adult and juvenile cancer patients in the hopes that we can fix their cancer. I’m not sure the lines are apparent to me when it comes to editing human embryos. Those with certain traits have better chances of survival. Not long ago there was serious pushback against IVF, and it not for IVF, my incredibly beautiful 5yo grandchild would not be. We will always have to consider context and watch what’s going on.
1 Like
This may be a controversial take, but nowhere are we told in the Bible not to “play God”
If anything, it is God himself who tells us to do just that when he creates man “in his image” and then tells them us to “fill the earth and subdue it”.
In a scientific sense, imitating God is our prime directive.
In a literal sense, that which God doesn’t wish us to have the power to do is therefore by his will impossible for us to ever even attempt. (such as building our way to heaven or eating from the tree of life).
What is left for us to do, such as building a space elevator or curing aging are not the same thing. Because heaven is not in space and this universe is passing away and everyone will go with it even if they managed to never die from old age.
The bad thing is taking God’s place judging good and evil. Technology is neither good or bad, but what we do with it is.
Genetic science is no different then any other tool. And God will not be threatened in the least, though certainly many new and creative sins will be committed with genetics… but as for all sin grace will be sufficient for those who believe in Jesus.
3 Likes
Also about chimeras, in which you start with two fertilized eggs and end up with one person.
1 Like
Actually in the terms of the story it was perfectly possible: a ziggurat was a substitute mountain, and mountains were the places that gods came to talk with humans. A “tower with its top among the heavens” was just a structure sufficiently like a mountain it would serve as an interface between the realms.
The mistake most commonly made about this is thinking that the builders regarded heaven as “up there” so they intended to build high enough to cross the border. The reality is that they conceived of heaven as a realm that could interface with this realm and they meant to build a suitable location.