3 ms·

No. You could eat a jar of it and nothing in your genome would change - you'd just digest it like any other protein. You could sit in a bath of it, again, no pr

No. You could eat a jar of it and nothing in your genome would change - you'd just digest it like any other protein. You could sit in a bath of it, again, no problem. In fact, the downside of crispr is that making changes in mammals is still difficult. Progress is being made on delivery mechanisms, but it fundamentally can't go into a runaway process. You'll always need an injection of some sort, or some deliberate action the part of a doctor.

TruthAndDare 10y ago
> No. You could eat a jar of it and nothing in your genome would change Um, I don't think that is what anyone is worried about, rather what can be done intentionally with it and to what extent we are still humans after a few generations of heavy use on ourselves.
- 88e282102ae2e5b 10y ago
  OP below asks about contaminating water supplies.
pizza 10y ago
What are the control mechanisms that prevent (which?) runaway process?
- 88e282102ae2e5b 10y ago
  It's just a protein. It evolved in bacteria and archaea to operate in those cells. There's no mechanism for it to exit the cell, or replicate, or evolve, or anything you'd need to get it to from one organism to another on its own. I am glossing over the concept of gene drives, which is potentially worrisome, but as far as accidents go the risk is literally zero.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
> but it fundamentally can't go into a runaway process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive The basic summary is that you can make a CRISPR construct that will copy itself into the homologous chromosome in a zygote/embryo. Thus, any progeny resulting from mating with an individual with the construct will be homozygous for said construct, a runaway process. This is being considered as a way to eliminate deadly pathogens, and obviously could be used to wreak immeasurable ecological harm. I still wouldn't worry about it for humans, though, as simple genetic testing and further editing could counteract it.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Gene drives can't harm us but they could easily wreak havoc on fast reproducing species we depend upon. Bees, are what I'd target if I were inclined to cause apocalypses. And perhaps soil nematodes.
  - mapt 10y ago
    Want to see some rapid speciation? Kill off all the bees* and watch the other insects take over and start to specialize. It's not necessarily an apocalypse event, based on http://www.hortmag.com/plants/fruits-veggies/vegetable-crops-that-do-not-need-pollinators http://www.hortmag.com/plants/fruits-veggies/vegetable-crops... and Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated... : "The most essential staple food crops on the planet, like corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and sorghum, need no insect help at all; they are wind-pollinated or self-pollinating. Other staple food crops, like bananas and plantains, are sterile and propagated from cuttings, requiring no pollination of any form, ever. Further, foods such as root vegetables and salad crops will produce a useful food crop without pollination, though they may not set seed;" *The unknown unknowns about gene drive weapons may or may not be able more powerful than the extreme efficacy of natural selection on r-strategists.
  - deftnerd 10y ago
    I read a trio of apocalypse short story collections earlier in the year and one of the ones that stuck in my head the most was a trio of stories... "Spore", "Fruiting Bodies", and "Resistance" by Seanan McGuire. It centered around a molecular biologist who worked a lab that accidentally releases a modified strain of a "hardier, healthier, and easier-to-grow bread mold, that was resistant to virtually every fungicide and sterilizing agent we knew" It becomes a fungal apex predator and is capable of consuming living tissue. It was one of the most frightening apocalypse scenarios I've ever read because it seemed somewhat plausible. A hardier fungus could change ecosystems dramatically. About 300 million years ago, fungi evolved the ability to break down lignin. Before then when biomass died, it didn't rot away and slowly got turned into the coal and oil deposits that we now consume. Fallen trees stayed where they fell for thousands of years and got turned into petrified wood. Since that evolution, everything changed so much that it affected future geology. Never underestimate the ability of our fuzzy fungi cousins and how they can change the world.
JulianMorrison 10y ago
Unless someone put it in Rhinovirus.
dekhn 10y ago
Frankly, you can't say with 100% certainty that an enormously large exposure to crispr protein wouldn't have any effect. After all, many techniques used in transformation have extremely low transformation rates and require a very high concentration/rare event to occur. Further, there are a long list of unexpected outcomes in biology where somebody said "no, never will happen" and then it happens, at some very low rate, and it turns out to have huge consequences (antibiotic resistance and cancer cells resistant to chemo are two that come to mind.) That said, I agree, based on the nature of this specific technology, the risk of direct exposure in a non-therapy situation would be unlikely to lead to unexpected/unplanned transformation.
- adrianN 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure that people were always aware of antibiotic resistance. See for example Alexander Fleming's Nobel lecture from 1945: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1945/fleming-lecture.pdf http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/19...
  - dekhn 10y ago
    that observation only came about after the antibiotics were used, and resistance was observed. The discoveries happened in the late 20s and it wasn't until resistance was actually observed that people thought it would happen. If you could find a reliable, historical reference that shows this is not the case I would love to see it.

TruthAndDare 10y ago

> No. You could eat a jar of it and nothing in your genome would change Um, I don't think that is what anyone is worried about, rather what can be done intentionally with it and to what extent we are still humans after a few generations of heavy use on ourselves.

88e282102ae2e5b 10y ago
OP below asks about contaminating water supplies.

pizza 10y ago

What are the control mechanisms that prevent (which?) runaway process?

88e282102ae2e5b 10y ago
It's just a protein. It evolved in bacteria and archaea to operate in those cells. There's no mechanism for it to exit the cell, or replicate, or evolve, or anything you'd need to get it to from one organism to another on its own. I am glossing over the concept of gene drives, which is potentially worrisome, but as far as accidents go the risk is literally zero.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago

> but it fundamentally can't go into a runaway process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive The basic summary is that you can make a CRISPR construct that will copy itself into the homologous chromosome in a zygote/embryo. Thus, any progeny resulting from mating with an individual with the construct will be homozygous for said construct, a runaway process. This is being considered as a way to eliminate deadly pathogens, and obviously could be used to wreak immeasurable ecological harm. I still wouldn't worry about it for humans, though, as simple genetic testing and further editing could counteract it.

JulianMorrison 10y ago
Gene drives can't harm us but they could easily wreak havoc on fast reproducing species we depend upon. Bees, are what I'd target if I were inclined to cause apocalypses. And perhaps soil nematodes.
- mapt 10y ago
  Want to see some rapid speciation? Kill off all the bees* and watch the other insects take over and start to specialize. It's not necessarily an apocalypse event, based on http://www.hortmag.com/plants/fruits-veggies/vegetable-crops-that-do-not-need-pollinators http://www.hortmag.com/plants/fruits-veggies/vegetable-crops... and Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated... : "The most essential staple food crops on the planet, like corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and sorghum, need no insect help at all; they are wind-pollinated or self-pollinating. Other staple food crops, like bananas and plantains, are sterile and propagated from cuttings, requiring no pollination of any form, ever. Further, foods such as root vegetables and salad crops will produce a useful food crop without pollination, though they may not set seed;" *The unknown unknowns about gene drive weapons may or may not be able more powerful than the extreme efficacy of natural selection on r-strategists.
- deftnerd 10y ago
  I read a trio of apocalypse short story collections earlier in the year and one of the ones that stuck in my head the most was a trio of stories... "Spore", "Fruiting Bodies", and "Resistance" by Seanan McGuire. It centered around a molecular biologist who worked a lab that accidentally releases a modified strain of a "hardier, healthier, and easier-to-grow bread mold, that was resistant to virtually every fungicide and sterilizing agent we knew" It becomes a fungal apex predator and is capable of consuming living tissue. It was one of the most frightening apocalypse scenarios I've ever read because it seemed somewhat plausible. A hardier fungus could change ecosystems dramatically. About 300 million years ago, fungi evolved the ability to break down lignin. Before then when biomass died, it didn't rot away and slowly got turned into the coal and oil deposits that we now consume. Fallen trees stayed where they fell for thousands of years and got turned into petrified wood. Since that evolution, everything changed so much that it affected future geology. Never underestimate the ability of our fuzzy fungi cousins and how they can change the world.

JulianMorrison 10y ago

Unless someone put it in Rhinovirus.

dekhn 10y ago

Frankly, you can't say with 100% certainty that an enormously large exposure to crispr protein wouldn't have any effect. After all, many techniques used in transformation have extremely low transformation rates and require a very high concentration/rare event to occur. Further, there are a long list of unexpected outcomes in biology where somebody said "no, never will happen" and then it happens, at some very low rate, and it turns out to have huge consequences (antibiotic resistance and cancer cells resistant to chemo are two that come to mind.) That said, I agree, based on the nature of this specific technology, the risk of direct exposure in a non-therapy situation would be unlikely to lead to unexpected/unplanned transformation.

adrianN 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that people were always aware of antibiotic resistance. See for example Alexander Fleming's Nobel lecture from 1945: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1945/fleming-lecture.pdf http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/19...
- dekhn 10y ago
  that observation only came about after the antibiotics were used, and resistance was observed. The discoveries happened in the late 20s and it wasn't until resistance was actually observed that people thought it would happen. If you could find a reliable, historical reference that shows this is not the case I would love to see it.