US Doctors Plan To Treat Cancer Patients Using CRISPR (technologyreview.com) 53
An anonymous reader shares a report: The first human test in the U.S. involving the gene-editing tool CRISPR could begin at any time and will employ the DNA cutting technique in a bid to battle deadly cancers. Doctors at the University of Pennsylvania say they will use CRISPR to modify human immune cells so that they become expert cancer killers, according to plans posted this week to a directory of ongoing clinical trials. The study will enroll up to 18 patients fighting three different types of cancer -- multiple myeloma, sarcoma, and melanoma -- in what could become the first medical use of CRISPR outside China, where similar studies have been under way. An advisory group to the National Institutes of Health initially gave a green light to the Penn researchers in June 2016, but until now it was not known whether the trial would proceed.
Re:Wait wait wait CHINA?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean China is ahead of us in medical research?
I guess that's par for the course since we live in a country controlled by anti-science Bible thumping morons.
Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with researchers in China not having any inconvenient laws and regulations against doing medical testing on prisoners, criminals, requiring years of testing before human trials would be allowed, etc etc.
It's nice though that you got to air your religious bigotry in the public square, and so brave doing it as AC, too.
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was not a ban on embryonic stem cell research, just on harvesting new strains while getting federal grants.
That ban was an attempt to reduce the profit motive of facilities encouraging abortions.
Re: (Score:2)
of course, they conventiently ignored the fact that most embryonic stem cells came from fertility clinics doing IVF(in vitro fertilization) rather than cellular tissue from abortions.
Abortion materials, if I remember right, are more used in medical treatments than research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest he is right tho - having moral and ethical standards and a conscience has screwed us in many sciences (remember embryonic stem cell science, sex education).
FTFY
Science without a moral framework and ethical standards gets you Dr. Mengele's, the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male", etc etc etc.
Not all is up for sacrifice at the altar of Science!(TM).
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Wait wait wait CHINA?! (Score:3, Insightful)
You are absolutely right that there should be a moral, ethical framework. That framework doesnâ(TM)t need to come from religion.
Re: (Score:1)
I was always taught to follow the golden rule (treat others how you would want to be treated/do unto others as you would have done unto you).
The moral, ethical framework should exist to create a civil society and to try and reduce suffering. The government can make a criminal law (murder is illegal which we all agree with) some things are more fuzzy (civil and administrative law) if they are moral or not. That's where rationality and science can be a tie breaker
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, many Christians are for research, however, the problem you find is that the "holy than thou" religious (includes pretty well all faiths and not just Christianity) especially if they are in power and against science unless it agrees with their book of fairy tales.
In my experience, and perhaps it's because they're the majority where I live, Christian's (and Catholics, depending on your views they are the same, I see them as the same) are much more in your face about their religion and their views than any other religion.
I've worked with people with all sorts of religious views (including muslim/islam, hindu, jewish, sikh, etc) and found they are pretty respectful of other people's views. While they will raise their concerns, they are very non-confrontational about it
Religion, an intellectual virus (Score:2)
The problem isn't Christians, it is ANY religious group that can't keep it's fucking beliefs to itself. If you want to believe in flying invisible sky bullies, fine, I am glad it makes you happy and gives you purpose. Just stop trying to push your morale agenda on others. If your made up bullshit worldview isn't compelling enough that people actively seek you out and ask you to share it (you know, like Science...), then it probably isn't worth trying to force on others.
Re: (Score:2)
Mengele would be the new Kevorkian today.
Modern US culture would have no problem with him, as long as he had fair racial distributions among his victims.
Re: (Score:2)
Science without a moral framework and ethical standards gets you Dr. Mengele's, the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male", etc etc etc.
That can easily be generalized:
[_______________] without a moral framework and ethical standards gets you [_______________].
Example: Business and/or Politics ... Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Your being correct about China doesn't support your claim of religious bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that religious objections to stem cell research, higher education, and a general attitude of anti-intellectualism is not bigotry. It's fact.
No, it's broad and bigoted generalization. Same as saying all atheists are amoral sociopaths that want an authoritarian dictatorship. There are no groups without bad people in them.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, the claim "all atheists are moral sociopaths" doesn't come out of atheist scripture - there isn't any. It's simply acknowledging there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in god. Nothing more. Bringing in morality or an even more obvious red herring like authoritarian dictatorship (as opposed to gentle dictatorship?) weakens your cred
Re: (Score:2)
Your signature suggests you are a conservative. I
Probably even worse in your eyes; I'm a pragmatic small-"L" libertarian and am rather 'constructionist' in my view of the US Constitution.
Simply that the country is controlled by Christians who are anti-science.
And I would dispute both that the US is controlled by Christians in this day and age, and that they are "anti-science" on the whole. Unless of course you mean that believing in a supreme being is itself anti-science, but that is an entirely different discussion.
Strat
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Autoimmune diseases (Score:1)
Could this also lead to autoimmune diseases, since the immune system is being enhanced to more effectively target the body's own cells. While it's true that the immune system does target cancer cells, this seems like something that could lead to side effects.
Re:Autoimmune diseases (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this also lead to autoimmune diseases, since the immune system is being enhanced to more effectively target the body's own cells. While it's true that the immune system does target cancer cells, this seems like something that could lead to side effects.
I would hazard a guess that these folks are almost certainly going to die from the cancer anyway... Sometimes, you take any risk you can.
Re: (Score:1)
Every treatment has potential side effects, this is a safety arm study so yeah there could be poor outcomes. It will be refined over time. The cancer is probably very advanced in these patients so the risk is worth it.
Re:Autoimmune diseases (Score:4, Interesting)
It could. But the idea is to look at the cancer cells and the proteins they express. Find what they express that's DIFFERENT than normal cells, then go after that.
Problems are less autoimmunity, more getting all of the cancer and hitting a moving target. Cancer cells don't die naturally in response to mutations, and their replication machinery is somewhat screwed up, making them more prone to mutations. Tumors aren't composed of a single cell type, but many different mutant types, which might express different proteins. Additionally, since they mutate, a cell might express a protein today, but its progeny tomorrow may not.
For another poster -- antibodies don't die. Antibodies aren't living -- they're protein structures designed to "tag" foreign and damaged cells. They're produced by B-cells, which are living organisms.
Source: basic biochem...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why they are doing very small scale trials .. 14 patients, typically on people with short life expectancy and/or that have not responded to more common protocols.
No one can really address all of the potential interactions, hence the need to do trials.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of hype.
No science.
Wrong.
Researchers have done work in turning the immune system against cancer, and it is remarkably effective [pennmedicine.org]. The FDA has approved two CAR-T therapies to date.
CRISPR is just an easier means of tinkering with cellular DNA. This makes it likely that we can develop more effective treatments for more types of cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
CRISPR is also CHEAP. The expensive part is figuring out how to use CRISPR effectively. You have to:
(1) speak for all of the cancer cells and their mutated variants
(2) avoid autoimmune reactions -- i.e. only go after stuff that cancer cells make and normal cells don't
Once this happens, cancer treatments will actually become less expensive than now and not require toxic chemo or radiation. Problem with current chemo or radiation is that they go after cells indiscriminately. They're more LIKELY to kill
Hmmm I saw this movie (Score:2)
Believe the title was " I am Legend "
Short version was they genetically engineered the measles virus to cure cancer.
It didn't quite go to plan.
Sounds great but don't hold your breath (Score:2)