10 ms·

CRISPR used to genetically modify viable human embryos for the first time

89 points by artsandsci 10y ago

tombert 10y ago
These things fascinate me, and it makes me wonder how close we are to the Gattaca-esque ethical debate. All the same, the fact that we're close to gene editing feels like something our of a SciFi book, and I think that's pretty cool.
- benmcnelly 10y ago
  Yeah, its reminding me more of the ones with bad ending though.
  - mason240 10y ago
    Sci-fi with a happy, conflict free world is pretty boring though.
- omegaworks 10y ago
  [Potential Spoilers] The society of Gattaca not only embraced germ-line modification, it also created a caste system around genetic viability. The main character was unable to pursue his chosen field because the society decided that people in that field needed to be genetically tailored for that field. I think our moves toward creating a more pluralized society, where people that have been historically deemed "genetically inferior" (the disabled, non-white people, trans people, women) have made slow and steady gains, are such that erasing that progress would require more changes to society than simply allowing genetic modification. Genetic engineering an easy scapegoat, a slippery-slope argument that lets us jump too fast to the dystopic ending of our choice. A storyline that reduces societal, intra-personal progress to individual genetic choices is missing a big chunk of the puzzle.
creaghpatr 10y ago
Strikes me as equal parts awesome and terrifying.
baldfat 10y ago
We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and guarantee the gender of your child. Here is a decent general article on the pros and cons. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gen...
- empath75 10y ago
  Ethics or not, some country will do this, and they'll leave everyone else behind economically in a few generations.
  - astrange 10y ago
    Or they won't, or they'll get worse somehow, or we'll all drown first.
  - jszymborski 10y ago
    At the risk of being too simplistic, I'd say that Nazi Germany tried doing this, to little avail.
    - theWatcher37 10y ago
      That's like saying the nazis tried rockets so SpaceX will fail
- sfeng 10y ago
  If we truly want to eliminate disease though it's not enough to cure disorders, sometimes you have to be able to prevent them, and sometimes they're going to be genetic. Not allowing scientists to use every tool in their arsenal is condemning a lot of people to a lot of pain. I agree that humans aren't always going to make the right calls, but us doing our best might be better than doing nothing.
0xbadf00d 10y ago
I would agree that this is a significant milestone - however I would have thought that there's still a large amount of randomness in protein expression meaning you would still be painting in "broad strokes" as opposed to granular detail of traits.
- sfeng 10y ago
  I don't really know what you mean. Genes encode to proteins, if a disorder is genetic it generally means one or more genes are incorrect, encoding to the wrong proteins. If genetic expression was significantly random, how would we identify genetic disorders to begin with? How would they be hereditary?
  - nxc18 10y ago
    Not an expert, but there is a lot that is probabilities. E.g. many genes play a part in disease, so changing one set may get you a risk reduction but not full prevention. The other issue is epigenetics. Gene expression is regulated by various factors and that gene expression can be passed between generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
  - badosu 10y ago
    Well, broadly speaking, the idea is that there may be a subtle underlying mechanism in gene expression that we are unaware of. So maybe you'll be able to remove a gene that could cause albinism in an individual, then 25 years later discover that the individual has become sterile. It may seem otherwise but we still know very little on how a set of genes encodes information of how an organism will develop.
    - sfeng 10y ago
      While I'm sure some variant of that will occur at some point, many genetic disorders are relatively simple and well understood. Even if we are still learning, there are dozens of disorders we could eliminate if we had robust genetic editing capability with pretty good odds of success.
influnza 10y ago
We are terrified, because we don't know, how to handle it yet. This should not stop us, the humanity. Our descendants will figure it out. There is no progress, if we are afraid of mistakes. The real problem is when we don't learn. Gattaca is a good example, what we should avoid.
- sfeng 10y ago
  FYI: I don't know if English is your first language but you are using commas excessively. All the commas in the first four sentences should be removed and the final comma should be 'of'. EDIT: Also, the second sentence should be "This should not stop us (humanity)."
  - iklos55 10y ago
    FYI: I don't know about your language skills in general but https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commata#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commata#English. Point I want to make: Please stop correcting so many people in general on HN. Edit: Yes, this was not a perfectly warranted criticism. Yes, I may come off as smug. It's my opinion that needing perfect english should not be a requirement to have a conversation about tech in general. I often get the feeling that in an academic setting every native English speaker assumes that everyone needs to be perfectly conversational in his English but when asked which other languages they even tried to learn you often learn that the English native hasn't put considerable amount into learning something else. Again, did not want to offend anyone. I personally do not get offended, I like to learn. Still, I often experience corrections by an English native which are simply not called for.
    - tomdell 10y ago
      He gave a helpful pointer on comma use, and you wrote a smug and incorrect response. Congrats.
    - sfeng 10y ago
      While I appreciate your linguistic relativism, comatta is just not used: http://english.stackexchange.com/a/151261 http://english.stackexchange.com/a/151261
jbreckmckye 10y ago
If there's one thing a species like ours needs - with our exposure to so many disease vectors and with so many ways to spread epidemics so quickly - it's definitely not less genetic diversity.
- itchyjunk 10y ago
  But is diseases really the type of diversity we want though? Some mutation that is generally bad does turn out to be good in some cases [1] but I am still not 100% convinced that the disease causing mutations is diversity that needs to be preserved. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499995/
  - jbreckmckye 10y ago
    Sickle-cell anaemia is the ur-example. There will no doubt be others we haven't discovered yet.
    - itchyjunk 10y ago
      Right, even if there are many, would you be able to justify keeping sickle cell? There was even a recent post on HN about it (thought I can't find the same link here's a jist [1]). People will probably benefit from some type of cure as opposed to trying to save mutation that causes extreme discomfort (maybe death). I totally agree with importance of variety but i think it's equally important to understand and revert some of these unwanted mutations. [1]http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/07/did-gene-therapy-cure-sickle-cell-disease-10950 http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/07/did-gene-therapy-cure-si...
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Right, even if there are many, would you be able to justify keeping sickle cell? Would you be able to justify eliminating genetic malaria resistance? It's the same allele, of course, heterozygotes get the benefit, homozygotes get the disease. OTOH, if you can do in vivo editing with appropriate testing, maybe you only edit embryos that would otherwise have the disease, which may marginally reduce the distribution of the allele (in a first order analysis; but if it makes know carriers less unattractive as mates, it might actually increase the distribution), but doesn't eliminate it. There are lots of issues like this, and overzealous editing could eliminate beneficial traits whose genetic origins we don't understand as side effects of targeting undesirable traits.
jlebrech 10y ago
there's no ethical issue, it's just Vaccination 2.0
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  There are substantial ethical issues with vaccination as a general thing; there are specific cases where the facts have supporter a fairly broad (though not universal) consensus on the general best approach, but that doesn't change the fact that there are ethical issues in the area of vaccination.
- goatlover 10y ago
  The real ethical concerns are what lies beyond just removing nasty inheritable diseases, which is the possibility for designer babies. But also the possibility for weaponizing CRISPR, either to create nasty viruses, or make a gene editing weapon. But beyond all that, it's the worry that a few people get to make a decision that will impact the genes of future generations. And with a gene drive, you could guarantee that all descendants would have the desired modification.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I have to imagine that CRISPR will be weaponized regardless of what the civilian world decides to do with it. When it happens, we'll be better off if we have as much experience with it as possible.
- pottersbasilisk 10y ago
  are you kidding. I know tons of asian parents who want blue eyed babies and would pay thousands for it.
TrumpMightWin 10y ago
Jokes on you! Abortion laws have tightly given time periods on when embryos and fetuses exist in the human/non-human spectrum, and thus, this simple legal loophole will allow you to do anything you want to it during the non-human phase. Roe vs. Wade will always win forever. There's an army of pinkhats who will kill you if you say otherwise.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Yes, all those anti-abortionists who have been killed simply for expressing their opinions by pro-choice advocates...
  - TrumpMightWin 10y ago
    And now, a short list of people refusing to undergo abortions (anti-abortionists) being killed by people who demand they have an abortion. (pro-abortionists) http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2002/Pa-Men-Gets-Life-For-Firebombings/id-154f7d5446a665b04600c8d1c231ae7a http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2002/Pa-Men-Gets-Life-For-Fireb... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/maine-man-accused-killing-shaniesha-forbes-thought-pregnant-article-1.1345779 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/maine-man-accused-kill... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-man-convicted-in-2005-murder-of-pregnant-lover-1.1357452 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-man-co... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338710/Man-begged-friend-kill-girlfriend-refused-abortion.html#ixzz3DASvi9eZ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338710/Man-begged-f... https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-north-carolina-teen-murdered-by-boyfriend-over-abortion https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-north-carolina-tee... http://www.whio.com/news/local/woman-shot-man-demanding-abortion/dmsL29scbPuEkeimuAzaXO/ http://www.whio.com/news/local/woman-shot-man-demanding-abor...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Abortion laws have tightly given time periods on when embryos and fetuses exist in the human/non-human spectrum Untrue. While claims about where a fetus lies on the human/non-human spectrum are often central to anti-abortion arguments, the Constitutional cases starting with Roe on abortion do not address that issue or dictate a result on it. (The anti-abortion camp tends to misrepresent this because they believe that such a decision must control abortion policy, so they read the mere fact of a particular abortion policy as being a decision about the human/non-human issue, ignoring that that is factually not the basis of the Constitutional outcome in question.)
timdeneau 10y ago
Radiolab did an episode about CRISPR recently, for anyone interested in learning more about CRISPR in general: http://www.radiolab.org/story/update-crispr/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/update-crispr/
gwern 10y ago
Fulltext: "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein" Tang et al 2017 https://www.dropbox.com/s/7pbn0ueet0a1r8d/2017-tang.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/7pbn0ueet0a1r8d/2017-tang.pdf
caustiko 10y ago
There are first of all the obvious worries about the impact of genetic engineering. But worse than that is the method described on Radiolab where the genetic changes produce more instances of CRISPR itself so it passes along from generation to generation. But worse than that is the idea of CRISPR being airborne such that it can infect and change all of our genetics. Or the genetics of only some particular targeted subset of the population.
- Para2016 10y ago
  That sort of sounds like a familial prion disease but really - I don't see that as a legit concern. The enzyme is already present in Strep pyogenes which is practically ubiquitous. A lot of us have that same bacteria colonized in our throats. I never used CRISPR when I worked in a molecular lab, just a TOL2 system which was pretty cool in its own right. But CRISPR needs a DNA probe (probes are attached to CRISPR to target very specific sequences of DNA for editing) and a way to deliver itself into the cell. I didn't read the paper myself, but I'm guessing they just do a little microinjection of CRISPR into the embryo. And these gene edits for various hemoglobinopathies (G6PD and thalassemia), while impressive, are very simple. These are very specific mutations that when fixed, should yield a normal/working protein and a healthy phenotype.
  - caustiko 10y ago
    Thanks for replying. I'm a layman in this field, so I'm not quite sure about how to parse your response. But wanted to make sure you were aware of the existence of Gene Drive. To me it seems dangerous, but I'd love to hear thoughts from someone more educated in the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR#Gene_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR#Gene_drive This is the point where my thought process forked off into wondering about the implications if the capabilities of Gene Drive could somehow become airborne.
    - Para2016 10y ago
      Gene Drive with CRISPR is pretty neat, thanks for sharing, I honestly haven't worked with molecular techniques in over 4 years now, so it's been quite a while since I've reviewed a lot of this kind of stuff. From the gene drive wiki, this is one of my favorite lines: "Endonuclease gene drives work by cutting chromosomes that do not encode the drive at a specific site, inducing the cell to repair the damage by copying the drive sequence onto the damaged chromosome. This is derived from genome editing techniques and similarly relies on the fact that double strand breaks are most frequently repaired by homologous recombination if a template is present, and less often by non-homologous end joining. The cell then has two copies of the drive sequence." So that is pretty sweet. The researcher just hijacked the cell's repair mechanism in order to ensure the gene is present in both chromosome copies (I'm assuming the human 2n chromosomes here). That mean's all sexual progeny (zygote) will have to inherit one of these copies - and once that happens the single copy can duplicate itself by breaking the chromosome received from the other mating partner and then replicating the gene/drive via homologous repair. If you want to say it could be dangerous then yea, I'll agree with you. It would obviously depend on the gene you would include with the gene drive (the gene drive I'm assuming is just the homing endonuclease and RNA guide sequence used to target the drive-less chromosome). If a deleterious gene somehow managed to attach itself to the drive system - either artificially or randomly acquiring the sequence in vivo, then that person may have permanently ruined their chances for normal offspring. As far as an "airborne" vector with the gene drive/and bad gene someone wanted to be propagated, that would be a lot harder I think. I believe you would need the vector to be a virus, so it could gain access to the host's cells and DNA. So you would need a pretty high powered lab working extensively to make an infectious but not virulent virus - with the gene drive and harmful gene it carries. Those labs would be highly regulated and controlled bio weapons facilities. So yea, it could be dangerous. Or it could be fantastic and something like this could be used to cure all of sickle cell disease by coding for a normal beta hemoglobin gene. Sickle cell only occurs from a single amino acid change, it's not a super complicated genetic disease. It's just one amino acid change that causes red blood cell sickling shape and fragility - which leads to a lot of pain and eventual early demise. There are other genetic diseases that are very simple that could be cured as well. Anyways, sorry for the late response. I think there is potential to do a lot of good and a lot of harm with this technology. Let's hope we keep it in the right hands.

89 points by artsandsci 10y ago

These things fascinate me, and it makes me wonder how close we are to the Gattaca-esque ethical debate. All the same, the fact that we're close to gene editing feels like something our of a SciFi book, and I think that's pretty cool.

benmcnelly 10y ago
Yeah, its reminding me more of the ones with bad ending though.
- mason240 10y ago
  Sci-fi with a happy, conflict free world is pretty boring though.
omegaworks 10y ago
[Potential Spoilers] The society of Gattaca not only embraced germ-line modification, it also created a caste system around genetic viability. The main character was unable to pursue his chosen field because the society decided that people in that field needed to be genetically tailored for that field. I think our moves toward creating a more pluralized society, where people that have been historically deemed "genetically inferior" (the disabled, non-white people, trans people, women) have made slow and steady gains, are such that erasing that progress would require more changes to society than simply allowing genetic modification. Genetic engineering an easy scapegoat, a slippery-slope argument that lets us jump too fast to the dystopic ending of our choice. A storyline that reduces societal, intra-personal progress to individual genetic choices is missing a big chunk of the puzzle.

creaghpatr 10y ago

Strikes me as equal parts awesome and terrifying.

baldfat 10y ago

We ethically shouldn't do this. We should not edit human embryos. I can't write 5 pages of why we shouldn't but the fact that we could make the difference between the have and have nots will only get bigger and bigger. Doctor: So do you want the $500 edit to ensure your child won't have diabetes. How about the $2,000 Autism edit? Then the gender change edit is to late to perform. We could do artificial semination and guarantee the gender of your child. Here is a decent general article on the pros and cons. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/human-gen...

empath75 10y ago
Ethics or not, some country will do this, and they'll leave everyone else behind economically in a few generations.
- astrange 10y ago
  Or they won't, or they'll get worse somehow, or we'll all drown first.
- jszymborski 10y ago
  At the risk of being too simplistic, I'd say that Nazi Germany tried doing this, to little avail.
  - theWatcher37 10y ago
    That's like saying the nazis tried rockets so SpaceX will fail
sfeng 10y ago
If we truly want to eliminate disease though it's not enough to cure disorders, sometimes you have to be able to prevent them, and sometimes they're going to be genetic. Not allowing scientists to use every tool in their arsenal is condemning a lot of people to a lot of pain. I agree that humans aren't always going to make the right calls, but us doing our best might be better than doing nothing.

0xbadf00d 10y ago

I would agree that this is a significant milestone - however I would have thought that there's still a large amount of randomness in protein expression meaning you would still be painting in "broad strokes" as opposed to granular detail of traits.

sfeng 10y ago
I don't really know what you mean. Genes encode to proteins, if a disorder is genetic it generally means one or more genes are incorrect, encoding to the wrong proteins. If genetic expression was significantly random, how would we identify genetic disorders to begin with? How would they be hereditary?
- nxc18 10y ago
  Not an expert, but there is a lot that is probabilities. E.g. many genes play a part in disease, so changing one set may get you a risk reduction but not full prevention. The other issue is epigenetics. Gene expression is regulated by various factors and that gene expression can be passed between generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
- badosu 10y ago
  Well, broadly speaking, the idea is that there may be a subtle underlying mechanism in gene expression that we are unaware of. So maybe you'll be able to remove a gene that could cause albinism in an individual, then 25 years later discover that the individual has become sterile. It may seem otherwise but we still know very little on how a set of genes encodes information of how an organism will develop.
  - sfeng 10y ago
    While I'm sure some variant of that will occur at some point, many genetic disorders are relatively simple and well understood. Even if we are still learning, there are dozens of disorders we could eliminate if we had robust genetic editing capability with pretty good odds of success.

influnza 10y ago

We are terrified, because we don't know, how to handle it yet. This should not stop us, the humanity. Our descendants will figure it out. There is no progress, if we are afraid of mistakes. The real problem is when we don't learn. Gattaca is a good example, what we should avoid.

sfeng 10y ago
FYI: I don't know if English is your first language but you are using commas excessively. All the commas in the first four sentences should be removed and the final comma should be 'of'. EDIT: Also, the second sentence should be "This should not stop us (humanity)."
- iklos55 10y ago
  FYI: I don't know about your language skills in general but https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commata#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commata#English. Point I want to make: Please stop correcting so many people in general on HN. Edit: Yes, this was not a perfectly warranted criticism. Yes, I may come off as smug. It's my opinion that needing perfect english should not be a requirement to have a conversation about tech in general. I often get the feeling that in an academic setting every native English speaker assumes that everyone needs to be perfectly conversational in his English but when asked which other languages they even tried to learn you often learn that the English native hasn't put considerable amount into learning something else. Again, did not want to offend anyone. I personally do not get offended, I like to learn. Still, I often experience corrections by an English native which are simply not called for.
  - tomdell 10y ago
    He gave a helpful pointer on comma use, and you wrote a smug and incorrect response. Congrats.
  - sfeng 10y ago
    While I appreciate your linguistic relativism, comatta is just not used: http://english.stackexchange.com/a/151261 http://english.stackexchange.com/a/151261

jbreckmckye 10y ago

If there's one thing a species like ours needs - with our exposure to so many disease vectors and with so many ways to spread epidemics so quickly - it's definitely not less genetic diversity.

itchyjunk 10y ago
But is diseases really the type of diversity we want though? Some mutation that is generally bad does turn out to be good in some cases [1] but I am still not 100% convinced that the disease causing mutations is diversity that needs to be preserved. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499995/
- jbreckmckye 10y ago
  Sickle-cell anaemia is the ur-example. There will no doubt be others we haven't discovered yet.
  - itchyjunk 10y ago
    Right, even if there are many, would you be able to justify keeping sickle cell? There was even a recent post on HN about it (thought I can't find the same link here's a jist [1]). People will probably benefit from some type of cure as opposed to trying to save mutation that causes extreme discomfort (maybe death). I totally agree with importance of variety but i think it's equally important to understand and revert some of these unwanted mutations. [1]http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/07/did-gene-therapy-cure-sickle-cell-disease-10950 http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/07/did-gene-therapy-cure-si...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Right, even if there are many, would you be able to justify keeping sickle cell? Would you be able to justify eliminating genetic malaria resistance? It's the same allele, of course, heterozygotes get the benefit, homozygotes get the disease. OTOH, if you can do in vivo editing with appropriate testing, maybe you only edit embryos that would otherwise have the disease, which may marginally reduce the distribution of the allele (in a first order analysis; but if it makes know carriers less unattractive as mates, it might actually increase the distribution), but doesn't eliminate it. There are lots of issues like this, and overzealous editing could eliminate beneficial traits whose genetic origins we don't understand as side effects of targeting undesirable traits.

jlebrech 10y ago

there's no ethical issue, it's just Vaccination 2.0

dragonwriter 10y ago
There are substantial ethical issues with vaccination as a general thing; there are specific cases where the facts have supporter a fairly broad (though not universal) consensus on the general best approach, but that doesn't change the fact that there are ethical issues in the area of vaccination.
goatlover 10y ago
The real ethical concerns are what lies beyond just removing nasty inheritable diseases, which is the possibility for designer babies. But also the possibility for weaponizing CRISPR, either to create nasty viruses, or make a gene editing weapon. But beyond all that, it's the worry that a few people get to make a decision that will impact the genes of future generations. And with a gene drive, you could guarantee that all descendants would have the desired modification.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I have to imagine that CRISPR will be weaponized regardless of what the civilian world decides to do with it. When it happens, we'll be better off if we have as much experience with it as possible.
pottersbasilisk 10y ago
are you kidding. I know tons of asian parents who want blue eyed babies and would pay thousands for it.

TrumpMightWin 10y ago

Jokes on you! Abortion laws have tightly given time periods on when embryos and fetuses exist in the human/non-human spectrum, and thus, this simple legal loophole will allow you to do anything you want to it during the non-human phase. Roe vs. Wade will always win forever. There's an army of pinkhats who will kill you if you say otherwise.

wavefunction 10y ago
Yes, all those anti-abortionists who have been killed simply for expressing their opinions by pro-choice advocates...
- TrumpMightWin 10y ago
  And now, a short list of people refusing to undergo abortions (anti-abortionists) being killed by people who demand they have an abortion. (pro-abortionists) http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2002/Pa-Men-Gets-Life-For-Firebombings/id-154f7d5446a665b04600c8d1c231ae7a http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2002/Pa-Men-Gets-Life-For-Fireb... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/maine-man-accused-killing-shaniesha-forbes-thought-pregnant-article-1.1345779 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/maine-man-accused-kill... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-man-convicted-in-2005-murder-of-pregnant-lover-1.1357452 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-man-co... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338710/Man-begged-friend-kill-girlfriend-refused-abortion.html#ixzz3DASvi9eZ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338710/Man-begged-f... https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-north-carolina-teen-murdered-by-boyfriend-over-abortion https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-north-carolina-tee... http://www.whio.com/news/local/woman-shot-man-demanding-abortion/dmsL29scbPuEkeimuAzaXO/ http://www.whio.com/news/local/woman-shot-man-demanding-abor...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Abortion laws have tightly given time periods on when embryos and fetuses exist in the human/non-human spectrum Untrue. While claims about where a fetus lies on the human/non-human spectrum are often central to anti-abortion arguments, the Constitutional cases starting with Roe on abortion do not address that issue or dictate a result on it. (The anti-abortion camp tends to misrepresent this because they believe that such a decision must control abortion policy, so they read the mere fact of a particular abortion policy as being a decision about the human/non-human issue, ignoring that that is factually not the basis of the Constitutional outcome in question.)

timdeneau 10y ago

Radiolab did an episode about CRISPR recently, for anyone interested in learning more about CRISPR in general: http://www.radiolab.org/story/update-crispr/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/update-crispr/

gwern 10y ago

Fulltext: "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein" Tang et al 2017 https://www.dropbox.com/s/7pbn0ueet0a1r8d/2017-tang.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/7pbn0ueet0a1r8d/2017-tang.pdf

caustiko 10y ago

There are first of all the obvious worries about the impact of genetic engineering. But worse than that is the method described on Radiolab where the genetic changes produce more instances of CRISPR itself so it passes along from generation to generation. But worse than that is the idea of CRISPR being airborne such that it can infect and change all of our genetics. Or the genetics of only some particular targeted subset of the population.

Para2016 10y ago
That sort of sounds like a familial prion disease but really - I don't see that as a legit concern. The enzyme is already present in Strep pyogenes which is practically ubiquitous. A lot of us have that same bacteria colonized in our throats. I never used CRISPR when I worked in a molecular lab, just a TOL2 system which was pretty cool in its own right. But CRISPR needs a DNA probe (probes are attached to CRISPR to target very specific sequences of DNA for editing) and a way to deliver itself into the cell. I didn't read the paper myself, but I'm guessing they just do a little microinjection of CRISPR into the embryo. And these gene edits for various hemoglobinopathies (G6PD and thalassemia), while impressive, are very simple. These are very specific mutations that when fixed, should yield a normal/working protein and a healthy phenotype.
- caustiko 10y ago
  Thanks for replying. I'm a layman in this field, so I'm not quite sure about how to parse your response. But wanted to make sure you were aware of the existence of Gene Drive. To me it seems dangerous, but I'd love to hear thoughts from someone more educated in the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR#Gene_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR#Gene_drive This is the point where my thought process forked off into wondering about the implications if the capabilities of Gene Drive could somehow become airborne.
  - Para2016 10y ago
    Gene Drive with CRISPR is pretty neat, thanks for sharing, I honestly haven't worked with molecular techniques in over 4 years now, so it's been quite a while since I've reviewed a lot of this kind of stuff. From the gene drive wiki, this is one of my favorite lines: "Endonuclease gene drives work by cutting chromosomes that do not encode the drive at a specific site, inducing the cell to repair the damage by copying the drive sequence onto the damaged chromosome. This is derived from genome editing techniques and similarly relies on the fact that double strand breaks are most frequently repaired by homologous recombination if a template is present, and less often by non-homologous end joining. The cell then has two copies of the drive sequence." So that is pretty sweet. The researcher just hijacked the cell's repair mechanism in order to ensure the gene is present in both chromosome copies (I'm assuming the human 2n chromosomes here). That mean's all sexual progeny (zygote) will have to inherit one of these copies - and once that happens the single copy can duplicate itself by breaking the chromosome received from the other mating partner and then replicating the gene/drive via homologous repair. If you want to say it could be dangerous then yea, I'll agree with you. It would obviously depend on the gene you would include with the gene drive (the gene drive I'm assuming is just the homing endonuclease and RNA guide sequence used to target the drive-less chromosome). If a deleterious gene somehow managed to attach itself to the drive system - either artificially or randomly acquiring the sequence in vivo, then that person may have permanently ruined their chances for normal offspring. As far as an "airborne" vector with the gene drive/and bad gene someone wanted to be propagated, that would be a lot harder I think. I believe you would need the vector to be a virus, so it could gain access to the host's cells and DNA. So you would need a pretty high powered lab working extensively to make an infectious but not virulent virus - with the gene drive and harmful gene it carries. Those labs would be highly regulated and controlled bio weapons facilities. So yea, it could be dangerous. Or it could be fantastic and something like this could be used to cure all of sickle cell disease by coding for a normal beta hemoglobin gene. Sickle cell only occurs from a single amino acid change, it's not a super complicated genetic disease. It's just one amino acid change that causes red blood cell sickling shape and fragility - which leads to a lot of pain and eventual early demise. There are other genetic diseases that are very simple that could be cured as well. Anyways, sorry for the late response. I think there is potential to do a lot of good and a lot of harm with this technology. Let's hope we keep it in the right hands.