Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials (bloomberg.com) 71
Tom Randall, reporting for Bloomberg Technology:An experimental cancer treatment that alters the DNA of patients has won a key approval to proceed with its first human tests using the controversial gene-altering tool known as Crispr. Scientists from the University of Pennsylvania want to edit the immune systems of 18 patients to target cancer cells more effectively. The experiment, backed by internet billionaire Sean Parker, won approval from the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), a federal ethics panel set up at the National Institutes of Health 40 years ago to review controversial experiments that change the human genome. The trial still needs final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The experiment targets difficult-to-treat cases of multiple myeloma, sarcoma, and melanoma. The scientists will remove blood samples from patients and alter their T-cells -- central to human immune response -- to more effectively target and pursue cancer. The T cells will then be infused back into patients and studied for the safety and effectiveness of the technique.STAT News has an article in which it discusses the probable consequences of altering the DNA of a cancer patient.
Not quite the same thing is already being done. (Score:5, Informative)
They already have a procedure similar to this where they harvest and grow unmodified T-Cells. They extract them from vicinity of the tumor and then replicate them.
It's a little bit like cloning Osmosis Jones.
It looks like either approach is highly custom and not any sort of mass market thing.
Re: (Score:1)
They already have a procedure similar to this where they harvest and grow unmodified T-Cells. They extract them from vicinity of the tumor and then replicate them.
That's not really the same thing. What's new here is using CRISPR to edit the genes of the T cells. Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/everything-... [gizmodo.com]
Re:Not quite the same thing is already being done. (Score:4, Insightful)
And why is the test of worthiness for a medical procedure whether it can be "mass marketed"? What neoliberal thinking. How about if it is cheap, and effective, maybe then it doesn't matter if it is not "mass marketable"? I find it fascinating that people don't care about solutions to problems if they think they won't make lots of money.
Crispr/Cas is a very interesting gene editing technology that looks like it is going to replace current methods. But as with all existing methods, getting it to edit exactly what you want, the way you want, is a bit tricky. But it works well enough that it is being used on a wide scale basis to make gene knockout animals and cell lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you think of any other area where "custom" equals cheap"?
My thinking is more "conservative". How error prone will this "custom" work bet? How expensive will this procedure be? How much individual effort will it require from highly expensive specialists that are in limited supply?
A generic solution allows for manufacturing and quality control. It also allows for cheap.
The current approach that doesn't require gene manipulation isn't terribly scalable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
why is the test of worthiness for a medical procedure whether it can be "mass marketed"
Because someone has to pay for the research and development - which, please remember, involves large-scale clinical trials to get regulatory approval - and they're not going to front the money for a treatment that has no chance of recouping their investment, unless they have some other personal interest. You can wring your hands all you want about society's priorities, but new medical procedures aren't magically exempt f
If you really want an answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the problem with capitalism and making everything contingent on being marketable. I wonder if corporations have so thoroughly brainwashed people that now people cannot conceive of doing anything that isn't mass marketable, you know, like sending people to the moon. Of course now, rich people will now be our saviors, and they will build the rockets and send rich people who can afford 20 million dollar tickets to the moon. Sad that everyone thinks in terms of marketability and profit, rather than coop
Re: (Score:2)
Economics is the science (and I use that term
Re: (Score:2)
No, capitalism sucks worse than just about all other options especially when it turns to kleptocracy and oligarchy. Unregulated capitalism under neoliberal stewardship will eventually collapse under the weight of its own corruption and squandering of resources to make a fast buck. The only question is how long will it take before it implodes. Capitalism needs strong regulation and high taxes to prevent it from killing itself with over indulgence. But that ill never happen under neoliberal rule, where market
Re: (Score:2)
quit your bitching (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You were not created to hypothesize about such things. Cease now or be punished for eternity.
Re: (Score:1)
God still has plenty of other ways to kill us.
Re: (Score:1)
Who are you to put words in his mouth. If he doesn't like it he can put in an appearance and tell us so. All this BS trying to decipher what he wants from a 2000 year old book is poppycock. Trying to interpret how something that old applies to today's world is an exercise in futility, and frankly kinda asinine. If the almighty has some rules he wants me to follow he can show up and tell me.
Re:quit your bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Stupid AC. There is no god. And no Santa or Easter Bunny either. You were lied to.
There is no AC either...
Re: quit your bitching (Score:2)
That's fine just so long as there's cake.
There is cake, right?
Most six year olds know (Score:1)
> There is no god. And no Santa or Easter Bunny either.
By around age six, most kids outgrow the cartoon image of Saint Nick as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. They gain a little more mature understanding of Saint Nick as someone who personified generosity.
Unfortunately, some people hold on to the same preschool, cartoonish image of God as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. Realizing that cartoons aren't real, they imagine they can deduce that God isn't real. C
Just to clarify (Score:3, Funny)
Just to clarify, I believe in the one true God, born of God the father and a mortal woman, who wore a beard and sandals and traveled the mid-east doing miraculous feats and building a religious following. Yes, like many others, I worship Hercules. And of course I know that all other gods are false and all who worship them are idiots.
And I do understand that the story of my god sounds an awful lot like the religious myth of Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda. But that's just how religion works. Why make up a ne
0% financing at Ahura Mazda (Score:2)
And I do understand that the story of my god sounds an awful lot like the religious myth of Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda.
The latter of which sounds like a good name for a car dealership.
Should be careful, but consistent with hardwired (Score:2)
We should be careful with any powerful new tool. Unintended consequences are likely.
We were created with two overpowering imperatives hardwired in. We have, built-in, an intense desire to a) live and b) mate. We were also built with a big brain for figuring out ways to do those two things. It seems that He/it/nature designed us to try to survive.
We were also, if you believe in the Bible, a bunch of tips on how to do these things wisely, also summarized as ten rules. Rhe rule about mating being "don't tr
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about survival, it is a purely money making venture.
Saving people is a side-effect and they don't give one fuck if it happens or not.
Testing in Racoon City? (Score:2, Interesting)
This sounds like where the T-virus starts...
Re: (Score:2)
..or X-men, so is a 50/50 chance of zombie apocalypse or mutant powers, I say go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mutations are NOT cool. Mutations will KILL you. :-p
Snake? (Score:2)
Virus (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing I have to wonder about: If the mechanism involves using a virus, couldn't there be massive unintended consequences if the virus transfers to another host? Even if a virus isn't very communicable, and can't survive outside of a host, what if the patient transmits it sexually after treatment?
Re:Virus (Score:5, Interesting)
If the mechanism involves using a virus, couldn't there be massive unintended consequences if the virus transfers to another host?
Viruses already exist, any many of them do things much more nasty than fixing T-cells. CRISPR is programmed to target a specific sequence of DNA, usually around 40 base pairs. Since each pair is two bits, the chance of this sequence just randomly occurring is around 2^80.
Even if a virus isn't very communicable, and can't survive outside of a host, what if the patient transmits it sexually after treatment?
If someone has sex with their identical twin, that twin's cancer may also be cured. Otherwise, nothing will likely happen.
Far more dangerous DNA modifications are happening naturally on a nearby toilet seat.
Re: Virus (Score:1, Funny)
So what you are saying is if I have sex with twins I am helping cure cancer? Awesome, Nobel prize here I come!
Re: (Score:3)
Ideally the virus is not sexually transmittable. They want to use viruses that do not have the ability to reproduce in a cell. They can only reproduce in the lab. So you manufacture the viruses in large quantities, remove T Cells, then infect the T Cells. The T cells have their DNA modified in a way to make them more likely to fight the cancer, but do NOT have their DNA modified to make more viruses - that code is not built into the viruses.
Then you inject them back into the human, where the T Cells ma
Re: (Score:1)
Nature will find a way.
I have 4 shitty dinosaur movies that will back me up.
Re: (Score:2)
will there be 18 as a control? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This tends to be the zone of rare cancers where drugs need the Orphan Drugs Act just to get into the approval pipeline. The non gene-splicing version of this is only used on patients that already have failed to respond to any other therapies.
Re:Crisper (Score:4, Insightful)
My fridge has a crisper, and i don't think it's doing a particularly good job at combating cancer
You bought the wrong brand. We've had our General Electric fridge for over a decade, and we haven't observed even one case of vegetable cancer.
Impressive, scary as hell, but very cool (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but in cancer patients a lot already has gone wrong from random changes to their code.
Cryspr on Ted Talk (Score:1)
I think I saw a movie about this one (Score:2)
and the main actor was a prince or something?
Darth DNA? (Score:2)
I have altered your DNA.
Pray I do not alter it further.
Isn't that (Score:2)
how Deadpool came to be ?
Re: (Score:1)
And what about marijuana?? (Score:2)
The Nixon administration systematically-destroyed the commissioned-study by the Medical College of Virginia that showed Delta-9-THC killed many cancerous cell-types, both benign and malignant. From that study:
“Delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol (CBN) all inhibited primary Lewis lung tumor growth, whereas cannabidiol (CBD) enhanced tumor growth. Oral administration of 25, 50, or 100 mg delta-9-THC/kg inhibited primary tumor growth 8, 72, and 75 percent respectively, when measured 12 days post tu