Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Science

China's CRISPR Babies Could Face Earlier Death (technologyreview.com) 154

Posted by BeauHD from the unintended-side-effects dept.
A new report finds that the CRISPR babies created by Chinese scientist He Jiankui last year may be at risk of an early death. It finds that genetic mutations similar to those He created, to a gene called CCR5, shortens people's lives by an average of 1.9 years. MIT Technology Review reports: "It's clearly a mutation of quite strong effect," says population geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, who made the discovery while studying DNA and death records of 400,000 volunteers in a large British gene database, the UK Biobank. "You can't have many mutations that do that, or you wouldn't live that long." The finding offers a warning light to anyone else seeking to enhance human beings. That's because many genes have more than one role, and scientists tinkering with the balance are likely to cause side effects they didn't expect or want.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China's CRISPR Babies Could Face Earlier Death More

China's CRISPR Babies Could Face Earlier Death

Comments Filter:

  • Bladerunner (Score:5, Funny)

    by SqueakyMouse ( 1003426 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:14AM (#58705512)
    Real life is copying bladerunner. Get some original ideas, real life, jeez!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtvr ( 1702650 )
      Made me think of Bean from Ender's Game
    • Real Life seems to be a huge Philip K. Dick fan and is busy copying elements from a ton of his works...

      If you ask me, his dystopian visions were often more accurate predictions, more nuanced, and less preachy/bludgeoning than George Orwell. But I haven't re-read any of Orwell's stuff since high school - perhaps I should go back through...

      • Orwell: Behold a cold dark dystopian nightmare of constant warfare, propaganda, and telescreens spying on you in your very home!

        Today's Reality: Lol, hey telescreen, order me a pizza and give me today's bodycount in Syria.

        • Orwell: Behold a cold dark dystopian nightmare of constant warfare, propaganda, and telescreens spying on you in your very home!

          Today's Reality: Lol, hey telescreen, order me a pizza and give me today's bodycount in Syria.

          Which sounds about right for the life of the Proles in 1984. Where Orwell seemed to have gotten it wrong is that the more affluent classes would have to be lied to about the nature of the world and controlled rather than be willingly complicit in how it works.

          • The proles actually lived without telescreens in 1984. The main character was part of the.... middle class? Orwell had this sort of classist view where the lower class weren't able to think of big picture stuff and just accepted their lot.

            But yeah, "complicit" sums up the joke.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Earth's Human Babies Could Face Earlier Death (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LarryRiedel ( 141315 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:17AM (#58705532)
    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

  • Only 1.9 years? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Suren Enfiajyan ( 4600031 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:26AM (#58705556)
    Is it really that big price considering that on average men live 5 years shorter?
    • Not really, I pay more of my life expectancy to my smoking habit than these girls pay to their HIV immunity.

  • WindBournes are out in force today. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    A new report finds that genetic mutations similar to those He created, to a gene called CCR5, shortens people’s lives by an average of 1.9 years.

    Similar, not the same. So it could be just as likely he made them live 1.9 years longer, or any other result at all.

  • And... we have a God! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kaur ( 1948056 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @03:40AM (#58705576)

    genetic mutations similar to those He created

    He.
    HE.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      genetic mutations similar to those He created

      He.
      HE.

      There are 8 unstable isotopes of Helium, so He can create all sorts of genetic mutations.

  • Lost in the commotion is the issue of where Dr. He Jiankui studied genetic engineering and learned medical ethics?

    A report [nytimes.com] by the New York Times states, "Rice University has been investigating Michael Deem, Dr. He's Ph.D. adviser, because of allegations that he was actively involved in the project; he had said publicly that he had been present during parts of it."

    Dr. He studied genetic engineering at Rice University and learned medical ethics there. He and his alma mater should pay restitution to the twin

  • Math of life (Score:3)

    by Kokuyo ( 549451 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @04:03AM (#58705622) Journal

    Would you rather live 84 years with chronic bowel disease and senility or 82 years healthy as an ox?

    Let's say that was optimistic because the life expectancy is above average. So it's perhaps more a question of 84 years sickly and 75 years. Still. As someone who does have crappy DNA I'm pretty sure I'm all for that trade, especially considering I have no idea how long I'm going to live as it is.

  • Sounds dodgy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by r2kordmaa ( 1163933 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @04:05AM (#58705630)
    So, you get 1.9 years reduction in life expectancy by looking at death records in a volunteer database. How common is the mutation in the first place? 1.9 years is not a whole lot even if you have a very large sample size and excellent control group. Which you can't have if the mutation is uncommon and you only have a database of 400k people to work with. For that matter, was it 400k death records, or 400k people, some of whom with death records? Neighboring nations can differ a lot more in life expectancy than 1.9 years while at fairly similar level of development. This doesn't sound very significant at all, this is bad science done in order to bash illegal science. I mean ok, the dude shouldn't have mucked around with human germline, but lets be honest, it was always only a matter of time anyway. Splicing in an existing mutation is pretty tame as far as this kind of thing goes. The guy lost his career over it anyway and is probably walking a tightrope with the authorities, let it rest.

    • I mean ok, the dude shouldn't have mucked around with human germline

      I'll bite - WHY shouldn't he have "mucked around with human germline"? We are, after all, just another mammal - there's nothing sacred about the human germline....

      • Re:Sounds dodgy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by azcoyote ( 1101073 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @09:29AM (#58706670)

        I'll bite - WHY shouldn't he have "mucked around with human germline"? We are, after all, just another mammal - there's nothing sacred about the human germline....

        Most people's reaction to genetic technology reminds me of Ed Wood's cheesy "he tampered in God's domain." [youtube.com] In short, people tend to feel that the moral character of genetic engineering stems simply from the act itself. But the truth is that we have been messing with DNA for a very long time; we have modified plants and animals through selective breeding. Since humans are indeed "just another mammal" from a genetic perspective, we have been shaping our own DNA as well through the ways in which we breed, conquer, and dominate.

        At the same time, this shows that we are also not "just another mammal," because we have the freedom to manipulate the world around us on a scale like no other animal--a scale that is so vastly above other animals that it puts us on an entirely different level.

        But along with this freedom comes moral consciousness and moral responsibility, which necessarily makes a demand on us when we consider modifying human DNA. Apart from the primary and fundamental consideration of lost embryos--which on its own can make genetic manipulation gravely immoral--the question of using CRISPR on humans is full of moral considerations without simple answers. Still, it certainly does not seem like a mere 1.9 years that may or may not be lost is a real moral problem on its own. But this also does point to the moral question of other unforeseen consequences. Still, most people's consideration of unforeseen consequences has more to do with fear of the unknown than with moral consciousness.

        • Moral consciousness. Ok, let's think about it: "It could make life better". Boom, moral checklist covered. It's now a moral conscious decision. Done.

          Moral responsibility. Trying to assign responsibility to those you have no control over is whining.

          Apart from the primary and fundamental consideration of lost embryos

          The what now?

          the question of using CRISPR on humans is full of moral considerations without simple answers.

          Ok. Lay them on us.

          But this also does point to the moral question of other unforeseen consequences.

          The hard part about that line of worry is the unforeseen consequences of vaccinating our herds. Using plastics to store our food. Using anodized aluminium to store water. Moving away from our parents upon graduation and the destru

        • Apart from the primary and fundamental consideration of lost embryos--which on its own can make genetic manipulation gravely immoral

          Oh bullshit. This whining is getting on my nerves. Twenty percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages. That's 20%. There's reasonable statistics that as many as 40% of all conceptions result in loss of the fetus, half of those unknown to anyone. With 4.4 million pregnancies per year in the US, there will be half a million lost fetuses every single year without a single abortion, in the US alone, nevermind the rest of the world. God invented abortion and uses it with wild abandon. So get over yourself.

      • Reality is that doing so will bring all sorts of career ending and legal problems. I don't have any qualms about it myself, but it is what it is. I think it's really only a matter of time until it becomes a necessity to start fixing human genome, modern medicine is simply allowing too many errors to pass though the survival filter and it's all piling up in gene pool. Current course is towards cesarean section and premature births becoming near universal. But that's many generation away, mucking about with i

    • 1.9 years off the end of your life doesn't sound like much when you're 5, or 18, or someone else not affected by it, but would you accept immunity from HIV for 1.9 years of your life? I wouldn't.

      To your point, we only know the mean, not the variance or standard error of the mean. Maybe we're really sure it's 1.8 to 2.0 years. Maybe we're really sure it's -10 to 13.8 years.

      Actually, I googled and the paper is online. https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]. 95% confidence interval for increased death rate ove

      • Thank's for the link, the paper was well worth reading.

        You are thinking of life expectancy difference as actual years off the end of your life, that's not quite what it is. It's a probability game over a population, 1.9 years is the difference in life expectancy between Japanese and Norwegians or people in one city and another in the same country. It's not a significant figure and if you are looking at any two random populations, in this case British, some with CCR5 mutation and some without. It might very

  • Considering climate change will make life less livable in the long run, people living shorter lives should work out great.

  • JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY, give the BS a rest (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Give the yellow peril bullshit a rest ok. They're not "China's CRISPR babies". And even if they may or may not live 1.9 years shorter than the average Chinese, they will live longer than the average obesity and diabetes sick American.

  • First an estimate of 1.9 years is highly reliable. Not. Probably my own estimate was reduced by more than 1.9 years by Chernobyl alone (yep, I'm an oldie, I was a kid at the time it happened).
    The only thing I see here is the emphasis on "Chinese". Only Chinese babies face shorter life, while the ones born with genes edited by sone rival company face longer lifes.
    But did anyone mention the advantages ? I would gladly trade 1.9 years for a slightly better life quality, maybe with reduced effects of some cond

  • who cares about 1.9 years? the real question is what will the quality of life be?.
    if those mutations causes horrible things to happen in the last 10 years of your life, then that's something else.

  • They can have unprotected sex with thousands of people without fear of Aids.
    So what if they die at 75 instead of 81?

  • Yeah (Score:2)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
    They used to say the same thing about "test tube babies". I guess we'll find out in 70 years or so if he's right...
  • The 1.9 years is probably lost after reproductive activity has ended so the mutation will not affect transmission, although since the mutation benefits are active within that time frame, (protection from a disease that might otherwise prevent reproduction) it will be a good adaptation overall, regardless of its effect in an elderly persons life. But who knows what actual issues will emerge. CRIPR itself might not be a great adaptation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close