Gene Therapy Cures "Bubble Boy" 369
bofh31337 writes "NewScientist is reporting that Welsh boy Rhys Evans has been cured of the fatal severe combined immunodeficiency ("bubble boy") disease. The medical team, lead by Adrian Thrasher, was able to take the stem cells that give rise to immune cells from his bone marrow and add a normal copy of the gene to the stem cell using a retro virus. Seven months after treatment, Rhys was cured."
Playing God? (Score:2, Insightful)
Truly awesome.
Good News... (Score:3, Insightful)
I fear the use of technology that we do not understand.
Apologies if I sound alarmist.
Re:Playing God? (Score:5, Insightful)
God's Biotech Lab... (Score:3, Insightful)
UNTIL we can manipulate ALL REALITY with only the power of WILL, we will NOT be be coming anywhere close to "playing god".
Disturbing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just about every significant medical discovery has been opposed with the "playing god" argument.
Re:Playing God? (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim is as stupid today as it was then.
Re:Disturbing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thus, is the discovery of these new bioengineering principles disturbing? Possibly; I certainly believe so, but it could be argued. Unsettling? Without a doubt. We can no longer sit on our rear ends and let our children and our children's children decide what to do with this technology; it just landed in our laps. Will we use it to cure cancer, to prevent genetic ailments, to identify those who will suffer from male pattern baldness? Or will we use it to replace humanity with a homogenized mass of tissue, each unit performing the task for which it is programmed?
Jouster
Name me one... (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't know, *for sure* how atoms work or are built. We don't know if there is a 5th repulsive force in nature. There's lots we don't know..
But what we do know.... To our knowledge, this therapy may help a guy who's *never* had a chance to go out into real life. Maybe it'll give him cancer in 30 years. Maybe it won't.. But just because it might possibly be catastrophic doesn't mean that nothing should be done.
That way leads to stagnation and helplessness. We don't know and can't know. That is why this so-called 'precautionary principal', that something must be proved 'safe' before it can be used or sold is garbage. We can't know and won't know for *sure* anything.
How about "playing god", not "Playing God" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not suggesting for a minute that we stop. I am truly in awe of what they have accomplished, and the incredible potential for improving human lives. I thought this was an exciting story, and I am happy for the boys who suffer from this disease. Maybe it's because I'm more of a physical sciences kind of guy, but thought of being able to mainipulate individual human genes, effectively retroactively as I understood this, is just mind-boggling. If we're advanced enough to pull this off, are there any limits to what we can do?
And that is where the negative side of my comment comes from. What are the limits to what we can do, and (rhetorically) are we up to the responsibilty? The answer is "no" - though the prospects for good are unlimited, some will abuse this technology. It's the inevitable cloud that accompanies the silver lining.
In my opinion, that's part of the price we pay for advancing. Genetic manipulation seems much like our first steps into atomic power (another subject that provoked fears of "playing God"). It is far more revolutionary than medications or cutting trees or most of the other ways we manipulate our world. These other things can have tremendous cumulative effect due to scale, but their potential individually is fairly narrow and limited. A new drug may heal - or hurt - a few individuals, but it can't change the shape of the human race.
Genetic manipulation is different. It can literally change the face of humanity. The potential for good is awesome, but it will come with a price. And that's the risk we accept every time we move forward.
Again, sorry for provoking a religious discussion. My use of "playing God" was only meant as a metaphor for the power and potential of this development.
Re:Playing God? (Score:4, Insightful)
Survival of the Weakest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Other points (Score:3, Insightful)
However your argument is a gross generalization on both fronts. To go O.T. for sec, the Deaf article is not just commenting on the desireability of a physical conidition (not being able to hear) but of the fierce culture that has associated itself around it. They (the capital-d Deaf) stick together like birds of a feather.
I don't know how fostering one's own community is stetting the pace of progress back, but YMMV.
back on topic- to extrapolate from this gene experiment where we have no long term data to establish its true efficacy to a Gattica-type dystopia is almost trolling as a luddite. Just like the "we shouldn't play God!" troll, we have to realize its out of our hands. Technology is neither good nor bad.
And if you live in America, you have nothing to worry about, since it will either be outlawed, the funding will be cut, or Hollywood will legislate what genes you can use. Whoops, sorry! This isn't a DMCA/RIAA/CBDBTA/TINSTAAFL article!
Re:Other points (Score:2, Insightful)
ostiguy
Re:Name me one... (Score:5, Insightful)
How interesting.. this is called relativism (not the Einstein kind)
Now, I would like to ask you, does that statement apply to itself?
If yes, then we can't be sure that everything is unsure
- which renders the possibility that things indeed can be known for sure.
If no, then you are assuming that at least one thing -can- be known for sure,
which means that other things may be as well.
In short: That is a self-contradictory statement.
Also, in stating that we don't know most things
-for sure- , you seem to imply that everything is equally uncertain. This is not the case.
For example, for the last 500 years or so, we have known that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice-versa.
Of course we can't be -absolutly certain- this is the case, but I'd say that it would be very unlikely for the opposite to be proved.
Science is not about solid truths, nor has it ever been:
It's about knowing things with a known degree of certainty.