New US Experiments Aim To Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos (npr.org) 87
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A scientist in New York is conducting experiments designed to modify DNA in human embryos as a step toward someday preventing inherited diseases, NPR has learned. For now, the work is confined to a laboratory. But the research, if successful, would mark another step toward turning CRISPR, a powerful form of gene editing, into a tool for medical treatment. Dieter Egli, a developmental biologist at Columbia University, says he is conducting his experiments "for research purposes." He wants to determine whether CRISPR can safely repair mutations in human embryos to prevent genetic diseases from being passed down for generations. So far, Egli has stopped any modified embryos from developing beyond one day so he can study them. "Right now we are not trying to make babies. None of these cells will go into the womb of a person," he says. But if the approach is successful, Egli would likely allow edited embryos to develop further to continue his research. Egli's research is reviewed in advance and overseen by a panel of other scientists and bioethicists at Columbia. Specifically, Egli is trying to fix one of the genetic defects that cause retinitis pigmentosa, an inherited form of blindness. "If it works, the hope is that the approach could help blind people carrying the mutation have genetically related children whose vision is normal," reports NPR.
Re:Hmmmm yes, pure genetics (Score:5, Insightful)
Purity, in the context of genetics, means very badly inbred.
So where does society draw the line? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are real benefits to modifying skin melanin content/production. Don't be too quick to dismiss that.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should "society" (i.e.: government) be drawing the line?
Why shouldn't individuals be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions?
Keep your laws off my body.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically not your body, but your kids. And yes, the government has some say because your kids' problems will eventually be society's problems.
Re: (Score:2)
"Technically not your body, but your kids. And yes, the government has some say because your kids' problems will eventually be society's problems."
Eventually? Jenny MaCarthy already made that happen. Every years hundreds of people die because of that bitch and her 'vaccinating cause autism' shtick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sexual orientation's more complicated than genes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So where does society draw the line?
Since a "complex" modification is really anything more than an edit or two, most everything is far beyond our reach. No lines needs to be drawn for quite some time.
You might as well be striking up an argument about AI person-hood because you're just invented the transistor in 1925 and are sure AI is just around the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
If some people can argue that a zygote counts as a person, why can't a single transistor also be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You say 'line', I say 'goalpost'. In either case it'll keep being moved, and no legion of pearl-clutchers will stop that, for better or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard there are a bunch (Score:2)
of Chinese Scientists who have some experience with this currently looking for employment.
You know ... (Score:2)
Re: I don't believe a word from the medical idio (Score:2)
Re: We all know the cure for this.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that thanks to CRISPR, we might be able to do eugenics without sterilization. Since most people with some bad genes also carry a lot of good genes, this is not only more humane, but also good for genetic diversity.
Someday (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hidden Danger (Score:2, Insightful)
All the societal impacts aside, fiddling with the human genome, when we BARELY understand how this stuff works seems like a really dangerous idea.
Who knows what sort of new problem you're introducing into our genome, that may not be expressed for a few generations?
You think you solved some awful human condition, start doing it widespread, and 150 years down the road, we're all fucked cuz it did something unintended like made everyone sterile, or have some other much worse disability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A bug introduced by early 21st century technology will be trivial to fix with 22nd century technology.
Re: (Score:2)
All the societal impacts aside, fiddling with the human genome, when we BARELY understand how this stuff works seems like a really dangerous idea.
We understand the CRISPR mechanism in great detail. It's simple and reliable (relatively speaking). My Cal-student daughter uses CRISPR in her lab experiments. I'm astounded by this but there you are.
What we don't really understand, and what Egli is trying to figure out, is how reliable this is in an embryo and whether it actually works to correct gene defects. I'm surprised he's doing this in human embryos instead of some other organism but I'm willing to trust he has his reasons. I personally don't know i
Someone doesn't like this. (Score:5, Informative)
as a step toward someday preventing inherited diseases
"the hope is that the approach could help blind people carrying the mutation have genetically related children whose vision is normal"
... argued that disabled people are a community unto themselves and that eliminating their conditions means erasing the potential future of their culture. She asked, "Where is the line between what society perceives to be a horrible genetic mutation and someone's culture?"
Very surprisingly to me, this is generally NOT an immediate accepted topic / action / result. IT'S GONE NOW -- I read it and was shocked. I immediately thought of Ender's Game book 3? where the ?antagonist? -- who had to start and follow wood grain lines until the gods were satisfied -- didn't want to be cured, but also couldn't disrespect her father, so was cured against her will.
There was an article (actually, an opinion piece) that was (not any more!) at: https://www.pluralist.com/post... [pluralist.com].
It said: A prominent disabilities activist spoke against the use of genetic editing to eliminate diseases from birth because it would be tantamount to a "genocide" against the culture of the disabled.
Link [googleusercontent.com]. Other link [reddit.com] Discussion [reddit.com]
We're talking about removal of diseases," she said. "That's forever. That's a change -- a modification -- that will be passed on to future generations. So that's actually genocide. It's a form of eugenics where certain lived experiences are seen as undesirable and unimaginable."
The Eye of the Beholder [wikipedia.org]
I'm like: DO IT. And do it AGAIN just to make sure. And if you're bored, check to see if you need to do it AGAIN. If you want to be deaf, you can always stick bananas in your ears. Or your eyes. Or any other random orifices.
Re: (Score:3)
I have the same response to people trying to save mosquitoes from genetically engineered extinction.
There's 600,000 people on one side of the trolley track, a swarm of annoying bloodsuckers on the other, and we keep letting the trolley run over the people.
Re: (Score:2)
At least with eliminating mosquitoes there's the possibility that it might have some horrible ecological effect that would be worse than leaving them alone.
Curing genetic diseases is unlikely to have widespread negative consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
There's over 3500 species of mosquitoes. Research is directed at removing just a few of those species that spread disease.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't say "a few species of mosquitoes that carry particular diseases". There are lots of people who would like to remove all mosquitoes, and the possibility has been studied. Also, you have to specify what you mean by "spread disease." Malaria, sure. Zika? West Nile?
In everything from immigrants to genetically modified crops, people fail to state their positions precisely and that just invites others to argue past them.
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same response to people trying to save mosquitoes from genetically engineered extinction.
There's 600,000 people on one side of the trolley track, a swarm of annoying bloodsuckers on the other, and we keep letting the trolley run over the people.
Generally speaking, I'm fine with exterminating mosquitoes, hopefully in an extremely painful way. However, we've seen time and again that when we introduce or destroy a species from an area, there are unexpected consequences. I think it behooves us to be a bit more humble before just going out with flamethrowers or gene drives.
To be more specific, perhaps there's a way to just kill the malaria parasite without killing the mosquitoes. And perhaps there is some critter which eats the mosquitoes who we'd adve
Re: (Score:2)
US vs China (Score:1)
So it's okay for US to do it, but not China...
Re: Gattaca (Score:1)
We should also stop developing cybernetics because of Robocop, AI because of Terminator and jewelry because of Lord of the Rings...
Re: (Score:2)
When have we ever taken and twisted a technology to its moist perverse extreme?
I see what you did there.
Screw that I want (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: gamma rays.
Works every time. Except when it kills you.