4 ms·

The controversy primarily comes from the applications of CRISPR-Cas. In a sense the technology is like nuclear material: it can be used for ill; it can be used

The controversy primarily comes from the applications of CRISPR-Cas. In a sense the technology is like nuclear material: it can be used for ill; it can be used for good; and it can cause harm even if trying to do good. But this is also true of our more modest applications of human ingenuity and power, such as civil engineering. I am choosing the nuclear parallel because of the wide-ranging impact that facile genome editing will have - both positive and, inevitably, with some negatives.

dekhn 11y ago
Actually, none of the controversy comes from applying CRISPR-Cas, since that's just a boring technology part that simplifies something which could have been done using more tedious mechanisms. It's the gene drive part that's controversial.
- im2w1l 11y ago
  I had never heard about gene drive before. It refers to making sure all children (and grandchildren etc) inherit a trait, even though the trait isn't necessarily evolutionary beneficial for the organism. The way this is implemented in this case by having a gene that codes for proteins that insert the gene in chromosomes that do not already have it. This means that by just releasing a few specimen with the gene drive, the entire population can be gene modified in not-that-many generations. A year may be sufficient for insects, since their generations are so short.
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    "even though the trait isn't necessarily evolutionary beneficial for the organism." If the trait is negative, it will be selected out of the population. It's only if it's beneficial, or neutral, that that it will spread. What's particularly special about gene drive, is that it drives itself onto 100% of progeny, rather than the 50% expected by traditional mendellian genetics.
    - im2w1l 11y ago
      If the trait is completely neutral it will double every generation (until saturation is setting in). If the trait is like 10% negative then it will instead increase by a factor of 0.9*2 = 1.8, which is still pretty quick. Only if it is extremely negative, by more than halving amount of offspring, will it be selected out. That's in the short term. Presumably, some sort of resistance would evolve in the long term.
      - dekhn 11y ago
        These are all absurdly idealized models of actual population genetics. No trait is truly neutral. At the very least, this experimentation is likely to show some interesting real-world population genetics that we can measure.

dekhn 11y ago

Actually, none of the controversy comes from applying CRISPR-Cas, since that's just a boring technology part that simplifies something which could have been done using more tedious mechanisms. It's the gene drive part that's controversial.

im2w1l 11y ago
I had never heard about gene drive before. It refers to making sure all children (and grandchildren etc) inherit a trait, even though the trait isn't necessarily evolutionary beneficial for the organism. The way this is implemented in this case by having a gene that codes for proteins that insert the gene in chromosomes that do not already have it. This means that by just releasing a few specimen with the gene drive, the entire population can be gene modified in not-that-many generations. A year may be sufficient for insects, since their generations are so short.
- ghshephard 11y ago
  "even though the trait isn't necessarily evolutionary beneficial for the organism." If the trait is negative, it will be selected out of the population. It's only if it's beneficial, or neutral, that that it will spread. What's particularly special about gene drive, is that it drives itself onto 100% of progeny, rather than the 50% expected by traditional mendellian genetics.
  - im2w1l 11y ago
    If the trait is completely neutral it will double every generation (until saturation is setting in). If the trait is like 10% negative then it will instead increase by a factor of 0.9*2 = 1.8, which is still pretty quick. Only if it is extremely negative, by more than halving amount of offspring, will it be selected out. That's in the short term. Presumably, some sort of resistance would evolve in the long term.
    - dekhn 11y ago
      These are all absurdly idealized models of actual population genetics. No trait is truly neutral. At the very least, this experimentation is likely to show some interesting real-world population genetics that we can measure.