4 ms·

If someone gets treated with this therapy, and then has children, will the children inherit the parent's original gene or the repaired gene?

refurb 9y ago
No. The genetic alteration is limited to the person who receives the therapy. Reproductive cells aren't affected.
- Amygaz 9y ago
  I mostly agree with that, with the caveat that it could... The part where it doesn't: AAVs do not integrate their DNA into the host genome, not by themselves at least. They form latent infections, which will persist until the cell divides or die. However, the part where they could: AAVs can infect any type of cells, including germline cells. While they persist, if the cell becomes infected with an Adeno or Herpes virus, which can also infect a broad range of cells, then they could integrate into the host genome, including germline cells.
- jstanley 9y ago
  So if you have this, at a cost of $850k, is it then unethical to have children, knowing that there's a high chance that they'll subsequently have to pay $850k in order to be able to see? I suppose, more generally, even in the absence of an $850k fix, if you have genetic blindness, is it unethical to have children?
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Not in our current human society, where new cures are invented every week. Its no longer a life sentence for your children; its a temporary setback.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      This is what I came to believe too, and it's yet another reason why I believe the highest priority for the society is to stabilize what we have now - as opposed to constantly try to tear everything down in order to win something for one's group. Looking at the last decades, it's no longer unreasonable to think we might cure things like blindness or deafness, or paralysis, in the next 100 years. But that can only happen if our technological civilization survives uninterrupted. If it spirals out of control and self-destructs, we'll be stuck in a pre-industrial age for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of years, until the Earth replenishes some of the easily accessible high-density energy sources we pretty much entirely mined out.

refurb 9y ago

No. The genetic alteration is limited to the person who receives the therapy. Reproductive cells aren't affected.

Amygaz 9y ago
I mostly agree with that, with the caveat that it could... The part where it doesn't: AAVs do not integrate their DNA into the host genome, not by themselves at least. They form latent infections, which will persist until the cell divides or die. However, the part where they could: AAVs can infect any type of cells, including germline cells. While they persist, if the cell becomes infected with an Adeno or Herpes virus, which can also infect a broad range of cells, then they could integrate into the host genome, including germline cells.
jstanley 9y ago
So if you have this, at a cost of $850k, is it then unethical to have children, knowing that there's a high chance that they'll subsequently have to pay $850k in order to be able to see? I suppose, more generally, even in the absence of an $850k fix, if you have genetic blindness, is it unethical to have children?
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Not in our current human society, where new cures are invented every week. Its no longer a life sentence for your children; its a temporary setback.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    This is what I came to believe too, and it's yet another reason why I believe the highest priority for the society is to stabilize what we have now - as opposed to constantly try to tear everything down in order to win something for one's group. Looking at the last decades, it's no longer unreasonable to think we might cure things like blindness or deafness, or paralysis, in the next 100 years. But that can only happen if our technological civilization survives uninterrupted. If it spirals out of control and self-destructs, we'll be stuck in a pre-industrial age for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of years, until the Earth replenishes some of the easily accessible high-density energy sources we pretty much entirely mined out.