Chinese Scientists Become First To Use CRISPR Gene-Editing On Humans (popularmechanics.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Popular Mechanics: A team of Chinese scientists from Sichuan University in Chengdu have become the first to inject a person with cells modified with the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9. The trial involved modifying a patient's own immune system cells to make them more effective at combating cancer cells and then injecting them back into the patient. The Chinese trial was approved back in July, and United States medical scientists also plan to use CRISPR as an experimental treatment for cancer patients in early 2017. The CRISPR-Cas9 "tool" is a DNA construct that can be injected into any organism -- in this case, human immune system T cells -- to modify the genome of that organism. It works in three steps: an RNA sequence guides the CRISPR construct to the correct part of the organism's DNA, the Cas9 enzyme "cuts out" that segment of DNA, and then, as an optional third step, a new DNA sequence can be inserted to replace the deleted segment of the genome. In the case of the Chinese trial, conducted October 28 at the West China Hospital in Chengdu, only the first two steps of the CRISPR-Cas9 process were carried out. Immune system cells were extracted from a patient with metastatic lung cancer, and then the gene code that produces a protein called PD-1 was deleted by the Cas9 enzyme. PD-1 instructs T cells to stop or slow an immune system response, and cancer cells can take advantage of this protein to trick the body into responding to the ailment with less than full force. Once the PD-1 protein was removed with CRISPR, the edited cells were cultivated to increase their numbers and then injected back into the patient. This is the first of two injections for the patient, and an additional nine patients in the trial will receive between two and four injections of edited cells, depending on their individual conditions. Carl June, scientific advisor for the planned U.S. trial, told Nature: "I think this is going to trigger 'Sputnik 2.0,' a biomedical duel in progress between China and the United States, which is important since competition usually improves the end product."
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't take much to be superhuman, mind you. Immunity to a particular evolutionary pathway of metastatic lung cancer isn't exactly power armour and man-portable grenade rifles.
Re: (Score:2)
What about being able to photosynthesize :D
Re: (Score:1)
Re:khaaaaaaan! (Score:4, Funny)
Just have to add leaves and supporting structures too then. It would be a whole new branch of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
eating is far better than having to lay in the sun all day every day all day every day.
anyways - did it even work? sounds like a lot of "Ladder to heaven" stuff before that... especially the us advisors comment. does it work- is it a cure for cancer or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, we don't necessarily have to understand things to splice them in, just identify the cause. There are plenty of mutants walking around with all sorts of "superpowers". Immunity to high blood cholesterol. Especially high intelligence. Superstrength (doubled muscle production). And many, many more where the gene responsible has already been identified. Some come at a cost, either as a direct side effect, or as a risk factor for descendants who get two copies of the gene, but others don't seem
Re:This can't end well. (Score:4, Funny)
Nope. It won't be an extinction virus. China will create one to wipe out the U.S., the U.S. will create one to wipe out the Middle East, the Middle East will create one to wipe out Israel, Israel will create one to wipe out Koreans (North Korea, in particular), which will end up also wiping out the Chinese, and the North Koreans will create one to wipe out western Europe, who will wipe out Russia. The good news is that Madagascar will survive.
Re: (Score:3)
Israel will create one to wipe out Palestinians, and boy, will they be in for a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Israel will create one to wipe out Palestinians, and boy, will they be in for a surprise.
Well played sir - well played indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he didn't have that funny accent he would be running the planet already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecSCaZ_XPlo [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that Madagascar will survive.
They always do.
Not always [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elephant birds
Jesus christ how horrifying
. . . and when one of these critters would decide to take a dump on your car windshield . . . ?
Definitely worth a "Mythbusters" episode.
Re: (Score:1)
The good news is that Madagascar will survive.
I like to move it, move it ...
The irony is just sickening... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. That's part of what makes the joke funny. It's sort of a meta-joke.
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't advance science, we all die for sure.
And if we do advance science, we all die for sure.
Old as I am, I still haven't figured out why death is such a big deal to so many people. It's not something anyone will suffer.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't fear death. Rather, I find the world very interesting, pleasant, and beautiful. I would prefer to continue experiencing it.
Re: ROFL (Score:1)
I find the world ugly, horrifying and doomed; yet I too wish to carry on living. Baked in survival instincts are funny like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Old as I am, I still haven't figured out why death is such a big deal to so many people. It's not something anyone will suffer.
Isn't that a bit like saying "I don't know why jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is such a big deal. It's not something anyone will suffer", just flipped a bit? Yes, the instant of death / falling may not hurt, but it's the dying / sudden stop at the end that I think most people are worried about how much suffering they will endure from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a bit like saying "I don't know why jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is such a big deal. It's not something anyone will suffer", just flipped a bit? Yes, the instant of death / falling may not hurt, but it's the dying / sudden stop at the end that I think most people are worried about how much suffering they will endure from that.
It seems to me that a lot of people are willing, if not say desperate, to prolong life despite suffering.
Part of it is surely self-preservation instincts, but it goes much further than what makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, where it makes sense to die when you no longer can provide a net benefit to your descendants, so you don't compete with them for resources.
But I think a large part of it is cultural too - we're taught that life is "sacred", and to be afraid and treat death as something horrib
Re:This can't end well. (Score:4, Insightful)
"We'll probably figure out how to cure cancer shortly before someone unleashes an extinction virus on the world. "
The technology to create something like an extinction virus is also the technology to knock out viruses.
There will only be an extinction virus if every country recuses from using tools like CRISPR, because that would leave us vulnerable to the first extinction virus developed through hybridization.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be interesting in countries where interpreters of an old holy text have a significant influence on government policy and usually say that Deity would not approve of such technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be interesting in countries where interpreters of an old holy text have a significant influence on government policy and usually say that Deity would not approve of such technology.
My first thought. A case study might be Lysenkoism. It wasn't based on religion, but of ideology. And ideals, religion or otherwise, can trump truth - for a short time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Chinese science runs the gamut from "top notch and comparable to the West" all the way down to "my bottle of mystery formula will cure all cancer give me money now".
So, it runs Exactly the Same Gamut as the west then. Only we call our Mystery Formula "Homeopathy", and get insurance to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's being pretty blind to the miracle cure fake stuff and programs sold in the western world. Homeopathy, vitamin supplements, etc .. it's all the same crap, just named and marketed in culturally compatible ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, CRISPR has issues that would make me leery of editing the human germ line, but this sort of thing actually seems pretty viable - isolate a bunch of cells, modify them, and then cultivate them into a much larger population. Any serious errors are likely to interfere with the cultivation stage, so the vast majority of the cells reintroduced to the patient are liable to be successful edits. If the edit actually makes them substantially more effective at attacking some cancers, then it seems like this s
Do it, do it now! (Score:2)
What could go wrong?
Cancer. Death. Disease. Things we already have and could potentially cure with this.
People could die. People will die, with or without this. Maybe, just maybe, this could mean fewer people dying unnecessary deaths.
Is this a moon shot? No. This has the possibility of saving millions of lives. Millions of people who have the potential to make the world better, for all of humanity, for the species. Most importantly, this has the potential to make the world better for the people who don't di
Re:Do it, do it now! (Score:5, Insightful)
Refusing someone the cure for cancer on the chance that they might turn out super evil is simply cruel, given that the surrounding community ought to have measures other than "let him/her die of cancer" at their disposal to prevent that.
Re:Do it, do it now! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In a patient with terminal cancer, this treatment should be pretty low risk and could give him a bit longer to live.
Im sure they said the same thing about Lex Luthor...
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the organ damage isnt too far gone , it could damn well save the patient.
Re: (Score:1)
This has the possibility of saving millions of lives. Millions of people who have the potential to make the world better, for all of humanity, for the species.
It's also millions of people who have the potential to make the world worse. And something tells me the people who get this will be your Dick Cheneys, not your Mahatma Gandhis.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily gut feelings turn out to be mostly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And something tells me the people who get this will be your Dick Cheneys, not your Mahatma Gandhis.
You should read more about Gandhi's personal life. In many ways, including the way he treated his wife and children, he was a pretty despicable human being.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I buy that. Even more to my point. Saving lives should be the last thing on anybody's mind.
That makes no sense at all. Early death has a huge negative impact on society at large. The way to demographic transition includes reducing unnecessary and random sickness and death, allowing people to expect to live their lives smoothly. Cancer takes people out when they are productive and contributing members of society. Ironically, one of the keys to reducing rapid population growth is to reduce death.
Re: (Score:2)
This has the possibility of saving millions of lives. Millions of people who have the potential to make the world better, for all of humanity, for the species.
It's also millions of people who have the potential to make the world worse. And something tells me the people who get this will be your Dick Cheneys, not your Mahatma Gandhis.
While I have yet to see an Adolf Hitler arise out of an ALS patient, we did get Stephen Hawking. Furthermore, cancer comes so late in life that by then they'd already be in power, or you'd already know what their personality is like.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"It's also millions of people who have the potential to make the world worse. And something tells me the people who get this will be your Dick Cheneys, not your Mahatma Gandhis."
This is the Green argument in favor of human extinction.
Re: (Score:2)
This so supercool! With one modification you releave a family from certain horrible genes for all generations from then on! Finally daughters can be born without the breast cancer gene that gave their mothers and grandmothers this horrible disease.
Re: (Score:1)
As other AC put it, Crispr is currently about 30% efficient (I think..), i.e. 7 out of 10 cells treated won't integrate the modification. It's also very difficult to confirm whether the modification succeeded. That means you really can't do it in a grown organism unless you culture and select cells outside of the body and implant them.
It can be used on ova however, but the ethics committees are understandably nervous about heritable modifications. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-20 years we'll be hearing a
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand a 30% efficient edit would probably be just fine to fix say the well known defects that causes Cystic Fibrosis. In fact Wikipedia tells me that there has been a functional repair in culture of the CFTR gene by CRISPR/Cas9. It also tells me that the most common mutiation of the CFTR gene accounts for 2/3 of all CF case world wide an 90% in the USA.
I am sure that a whole range of autosomal recessive diseases (aka ones where a single functioning copy of the gene is sufficient to suffer no or
Did anyone else .... (Score:2)
This is excellent, excellent, excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw the ugly truth of biomedical research when I was in grad school. TLDR, while every last stinking one of us has every possible motivation to spend EVERY spare penny not keeping us alive in the near term on the research (since it's the only thing that has the slightest chance of making sure we continue living past a mere 7-10 decades), there are 2 nasty problems :
1. Due to extreme amounts of government and institutional red tape, nothing gets done. Nothing. All those stories you read of brain implants? Basically never going to happen. That's because the way the legal system works is, institution administrators always have to ask "can WE be blamed if this goes wrong?" Basically, if the research kills someone but ultimately saves 1000 lives, our courts won't give any credit to the 1000 lives saved, it's all about slamming the institution for making an error. Also, the government has a very poor model for assessing results. If a drug works on cancer that has failed every other treatment, you don't need a trial with 1000+ participants. Cancers that reach that stage don't just disappear for no reason. A trial with 20 people is enough if 10 of them get up and leave with their tumors destroyed. This is a very strong effect and one that shouldn't require the one size fits all approach the FDA demands.
2. Most medical spending is on overpriced procedures and drugs and equipment that all suck.
Re:This is excellent, excellent, excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Due to extreme amounts of government and institutional red tape, nothing gets done. Nothing. All those stories you read of brain implants? Basically never going to happen.
It will happen, just not in America. In China, stuff gets done.
America will take at least 30 years to build a high speed train from SF to LA, at a cost of $100-300B.
China built the high speed train from Shanghai to Beijing (twice the distance from SF to LA) in 3 years, at a cost of $32B.
Re: (Score:3)
America will take at least 30 years to build a high speed train from SF to LA, at a cost of $100-300B.
China built the high speed train from Shanghai to Beijing (twice the distance from SF to LA) in 3 years, at a cost of $32B.
To be fair, America built the trans-continental railway in a few years for $50 mil, back when they had cheap Chinese labour, and no health and safety or other red tape.
Re: (Score:2)
America will take at least 30 years to build a high speed train from SF to LA, at a cost of $100-300B. China built the high speed train from Shanghai to Beijing (twice the distance from SF to LA) in 3 years, at a cost of $32B.
To be fair, America built the trans-continental railway in a few years for $50 mil, back when they had cheap Chinese labour, and no health and safety or other red tape.
And the Chinese build the Chinese wall, something something. It is not fair to bring that comparison when the financial contexts, times and places then and now are basically incomparable.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not fair to bring that comparison when the financial contexts, times and places then and now are basically incomparable.
Yes, you seem to have correctly taken *my* point. The current US and China contexts are incomparable.
Re:This is excellent, excellent, excellent news (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Due to extreme amounts of government and institutional red tape, nothing gets done. Nothing. All those stories you read of brain implants? Basically never going to happen.
It will happen, just not in America. In China, stuff gets done.
America will take at least 30 years to build a high speed train from SF to LA, at a cost of $100-300B. China built the high speed train from Shanghai to Beijing (twice the distance from SF to LA) in 3 years, at a cost of $32B.
Safety regulations don't prevent trains, public aversion to taxes does. If you're not willing to invest in your government, then you can't seriously expect it to cover the cost of something like this, and there's no way a private provider is going to risk a loss of revenue on a project of questionable profitability. I'm not weighing on whether I think it's right or not, but if you're against large government, then I'm afraid you'd also have to be against large government projects too. Also, don't forget that there's a reason we put in worker and safety regulations - there was a time when Americans worked for minimum wage 12+ hours a day with no worker's comp or health insurance, much like these people in China would be.
Re: (Score:3)
"Safety regulations don't prevent trains, public aversion to taxes does. "
This is not what happened to the California bullet train, because the money was in place. It was stopped by NIMBYs who kept filing suits until the cost exceeded all foreseeable budgets. There are two factors to Chinese strength: its government is studded with engineers, in the same way that ours is riddled with lawyers; and China ignores NIMBY sentiment and Just Fucking Builds it.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Japan then? It's building not just a high speed line, but a maglev line that is 90% tunnels between Tokyo and Osaka. Tunnels though some of the most challenging terrain in the world, lots of new technology, and privately funded.
They look at it as a long term investment, and get revenue not just from carrying passengers, but from building shopping centres and other facilities around the stations.
Oh, and there has never been a single fatal accident on Japanese high speed rail. For construction work
Re:This is excellent, excellent, excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
What about Japan then? It's building not just a high speed line, but a maglev line that is 90% tunnels between Tokyo and Osaka. Tunnels though some of the most challenging terrain in the world, lots of new technology, and privately funded.
They look at it as a long term investment, and get revenue not just from carrying passengers, but from building shopping centres and other facilities around the stations.
Oh, and there has never been a single fatal accident on Japanese high speed rail. For construction workers too it is extremely safe.
I entirely agree with you, and you make precisely my point. As someone who currently lives in Japan, in Tokyo, I can say without a doubt that it has a far more advanced infrastructure than any American city - Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, New York, it tops them all. You can go anywhere with trains and buses, you have ridiculously extensive malls carrying a wide array of merchandise from big and small sellers alike, the roads are very well maintained, and in general it's an incredibly sophisticated and advanced style of living, waaaaaaay above anything in the US can compare to.
The above also requires most citizens to pay 30-50% of their income in taxes, numerous and expensive tolls throughout the highway system, and in general a big government that is pretty active in people's lives and is willing to help pay for all of this. If you ever advocate for this in America, you're instantly labeled as "Socialist", right up there with Hugo Chavez, and nobody will listen to you any farther. However, these very same people then applaud China or India or whoever for making these huge investments, and how backwards the US is for not doing the same. These people want all of the amazing infrastructure and economic investment for absolutely free and no personal sacrifice at all, and that just isn't sustainable. If people want an article of confederations style government, then they have to accept that moving beyond what we have now is never going to happen, and that the US is going to continue to rank behind every other first world country for quality of life.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax in Japan isn't particularly high:
United Kingdom -57.28%
France - 58.10%
Canada -58.13%
Japan - 58.68%
Australia- 59.30%
United States - 60.45% (based on New York state tax)
That's the amount of income you get to keep, based on a married person with two children, one under 6.
Sales tax is 8% in Japan, compared to 20% in the UK. I agree that there are more tolls in Japan for things like the highway though, but on the other hand petrol is much cheaper than the UK too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It was on the BBC News website, sorry I lost the link.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that many people pay 30-50% taxes in the US right?
For $100,000/year:
NYC - 3.5%
NYS - 6%
Federal - 26%
That's over 30% not counting 8.875 sales tax; real estate tax; water and sewage tax; $15 tolls to cross bridges.
yeah. tax rate already meets your standards. And no. Taxes should not go higher. And no, higher taxes will not solve the problem. Every politician comes round and says "raise taxes and 'x' will
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile in China, you either accept
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure China will have no issues ignoring all moral quandries about experimenting on prisoners and will press on regardless
If they do, they won't be able to publish in any Western peer-reviewed journal, all of which contain some version 'studies must conform to the declaration of Helsinki' and all of which ask reviewers whether there are any ethical concerns regarding human or animal experiments.
Re: This is excellent, excellent, excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. The company that can cure a major cancer type will make money hand over fist for years. Given society's emphasis on short term profits the executives and investors will happily walk away with billions before any patents run out. There will also always be something else to cure especially since almost every cancer is different. if you cure cancer 'a' then someone might live long enough to get cancer type 'b' and pay you again.
Re: (Score:2)
Nedelin catastrophe (Score:1)
"I think this is going to trigger 'Sputnik 2.0,' a biomedical duel in progress between China and the United States, which is important since competition usually improves the end product."
this guy might disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Zombies (Score:1)
a capella science! (Score:4, Funny)
Best "Mr. Sandman" rewrite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
CRISPR-Cas9 ....
Bring me a gene
Encoding for a specific protein
Make a few snips at this coded locus
You work so well inside a streptococcus
Cas9
I'm so alone
Without your scissors in my chromosome
Cut me up and do it clean
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene
FRIST TOAST (Score:2)
CRISPeR, tastier, zestier, crunchier!
I am just fishing for points, so sue me, or mod me
Re: (Score:2)