19 ms·
Update: CRISPR
- e40 10y agoA little unusual, this post. I don't remember seeing podcasts posted to HN. In any case, it's a good episode, which includes the original it updates. Highly recommended.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dmix 10y agoHere is the original podcast they reference at the beginning: http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/
- scentoni 10y agoThe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive is one of the most frightening developments I've heard of in genetic engineering.
- hyperbovine 10y agoYou might enjoy reading this paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/205/2/827 http://www.genetics.org/content/205/2/827
- soVeryTired 10y agoCould you give a quick explanation for the non-biologists among us? The wikipedia article goes a little over my head.
- macca321 10y agoYou can edit the genes so they are always passed on, rather than passed on half the time. This means that the genes will eventually spread to every organism in the species (given enough generations, but it will be an exponential rate). It's cool you could encode your name into your genes and then it would live on as long as humanity.
- dnautics 10y agoseveral indications already that gene drive won't actually work. Turns out that hampering reproductive fitness is easy to select against.
- nilved 10y ago> Friday, February 24, 2017
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cyanbane 10y agoFantastic piece. This makes me wonder if we today are technically the "backup". The (potential) last non-CRISPR gene-driven generation that someone in the future may have to revert to.
- theWatcher37 10y agoGit checkout -b 2017
- therein 10y agoForget about the greatest generation. We will be known as the LKG (last known good) generation.
- taneq 10y ago“I’ve told you before, Daniel: roach isn’t an insult. We’re the ones still standing after the mammals build their nukes, we’re the ones with the stripped-down OS’s so damned simple they work under almost any circumstances. We’re the goddamned Kalashnikovs of thinking meat.” ― Peter Watts, Echopraxia
- jwcrux 10y agoThis podcast mentions that only testing against non-viable embryos has been done. It's worth noting that just the other day, the results of the first testing against viable human embryos was released [0]. Also, I thought it was interesting when they talked about "who would turn down the ability to remove diseases for $x?" My answer would be people who simply don't have that kind of money. This makes things complicated. I'm not even close to an expert in this area, but I don't think it's too far a stretch to consider that having technology like this where you can theoretically pick and choose "add ons" for set prices would lead to class divides that are clearly visible when these add ons stop being just internal changes and start including exterior traits. [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-o...
- NotreDev 10y agoHealthcare (as an industry) is full of schemes to replace chronic conditions with fixed cost solutions. If there is an insurance mandate for individuals, then actuaries who work at the payers (insurance companies) will absolutely fund CRISPR on embryos to reduce future costs.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- diamondlovesyou 10y agoWouldn't that incentivise insurance company treatment exclusivity?
- Amezarak 10y agoI firmly believe that the advent of human genetic engineering marks the end of humanity, at least as we know it, and if we had any sense, we'd abolish it right now and and punish any research into it with the most severe penalties possible. We lost our chance with nuclear weapons, we still might have a shot with genetic engineering. Yes, we can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering. But as you allude, it won't stop there. People will pick and choose external characteristics for their children. The idea that doctors will somehow be able to keep this in check is to ignore history and the huge incentives that are set up here. First, it will be diseases. Then it will be, for instance, the genetic propensity to obesity. Then 'disadvantages', like being too short or a little too dull. Then it will be external traits, like blue eyes or blonde hair. Then it will be mental traits and personality characteristics. And where it will end will be totally inhuman and beyond our present comprehension. The result will be massive suffering, inequality, and possibly even the extinction of humanity as human genetic diversity is replaced with an ever-accelerating social competition that ends in a monoculture that will probably be ill-suited for survival the same way modern dog breeds often end up unsuited for survival. Yes, it would be lovely if we could use genetic engineering technology safely and responsibly. We can't. That's to say nothing of the risks inherent in the technology if it became simple and cheap for anyone to use even on non-humans.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nardi 10y agoGene-driving (forcibly replacing a gene in an individual and all of its descendants, forever) is how the world will end.
- robg 10y agoI'm surprised these reviews don't include the recent history of science funded by the wealthy - eugenics, asylums, lobotomies, thalidomide, and now kids taking psychotropics. That doesn't mean the same will be true of CRISPR but why create test subjects just because you can afford it?
- kolinko 10y agoYou might want to get educated about the history of psychiatry. Asylums were an amazing upgrade to people being tied up in basements by their families. Medications helped people who otherwise would spend their whole lives in asylums, or simply kill themselves. Even lobotomies kind of made sense, although thankfully far better treatments were invented at roughly the same time, so they were short-lived. A nice book on the history of psychiatry: https://www.amazon.com/History-Psychiatry-Era-Asylum-Prozac/dp/0471245313 https://www.amazon.com/History-Psychiatry-Era-Asylum-Prozac/...
- robg 10y agoI'm very familiar, thanks. I didn't say these efforts didn't work in some cases. I pointed out that the early beta testers were the wealthy. That said, minors are still getting psychotropics without their consent and where their lives aren't in any danger (ADHD). Again, a phenomenon driven by wealthy parents.
- tgb 10y agoRe: gene driving. Does this mean they 'quine' the CRISPR genes inside the CRISPR? Any details on how that works?
- spoinkaroo 10y agoIs there a way to listen to podcasts without ads? I have tried Podblocker on the mac app store. It doesn't work very well.
- nyolfen 10y agomany (most?) podcast apps have 'skip' buttons that allow you to set (say, 15 or 30 second) increments. if you have your podcatcher downloading mp3's of the shows, you can control what you listen to
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- greggman 10y agoFirst off let me say I'm 100% for this tech because IMO there's no way to stop progress. You can't control 7+ billion people. That said, the first thing that came to my mind when they mentioned putting the CRISPR engine in new cells so they make more of the same and spread kind of like a virus... They mentioned they tried it and it worked first time. So, unless I'm missing something, it's only a short matter of time before some disgruntled person could try to destroy the world's food supply or cause many other large scale issues. Maybe that's harder than it sounds but it just seemed like a crazy amount of power for any one person with access to the tech to have. And, unlike nukes there's really no way to prevent this power from getting stronger, easier, and more accessible. Nukes you need the fuel. This you mostly just need the knowledge. Sorry I'm not suggesting any course of action. It's just I believe we won't make it past The Great Filter because as tech progresses it gets easier and easier for a single person to destroy the world. Embedding the CRISPR engine so it spreads seemed like a step in that direction.
- wcrichton 10y agoOne possible solution to the crazy person scenario is the use of counter gene drives. I think they discussed this in this podcast or elsewhere, but the idea is that if a species has a particular gene drive inserted, then you can create a new member of that species with a second gene drive that deletes the first and/or writes over the original CRISPR'd gene sequence.
- nolite 10y agoThis is also true for many domains. Space travel for instance... in just a few hundred years, it'll be relatively easy for a disgruntled individual to trigger a nontrivial sized piece of space debris to hurl towards a major city. Once we begin harnessing asteroids to mine them in earth orbit, Someone could eventually alter its orbit to destroy a city or worse.. The clock is ticking, and we might not make it
- Chris2048 10y ago> to trigger a nontrivial sized piece of space debris to hurl towards a major city How? Also, maybe with personal space travel, comes an extension of the usual 'air'-space. That said, 9/11 shows how both easy, and how hard something like this might be.
- folli 10y agoRe: Gene Drive The emergence of gene drive resistance in modified mosquitoes might help relieve some of the fear expressed in this thread: http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence-of-resistant-organisms-1.21397?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence...