3 ms·

The choice of gene to edit is absolutely baffling. There are plenty of other major issues with this work, but this part is the most surprising. There are many

The choice of gene to edit is absolutely baffling. There are plenty of other major issues with this work, but this part is the most surprising. There are many safe choices of targets, simply reverting a known mutation that causes a well-studies genetic illness is such an obvious choice. Mutating the wild-type to a non-functional version that has known benefits but also drawbacks, and almost certainly has unknown drawbacks as well is such an insane choice for the first experiment of this type. Not that making a better choice there would have saved this experiment. The lack of informed consent, the highly experimental nature of the work and going ahead even when you know that you did not achieve exactly the mutations you intended damn this experiment in any case.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nabla9 8y ago
Each family had HIV positive father. It's likely that parents had misconceptions about modes of HIV transmission. Transmission is of course possible but not very likely. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00030972.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00030972.htm
- asituop 8y ago
  http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181126/p2g/00m/0fe/047000c http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181126/p2g/00m/0fe/047... "He said his goal was not to cure or prevent an inherited disease, but to try to bestow a trait that few people naturally have -- an ability to resist possible future infection with HIV" Hasn't it been clear that the goal was from beginning to build a stronger race ? They never said it was to save baby from a inherited disease but to make them more resistant to potential future infection
buboard 8y ago
Here 's an answer by George Church: > A: It struck me as bold choice to do CCR5. In some ways it doesn’t make sense, but in another way it makes more sense than β-thalassemia or sickle cell, both of which you can prevent with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. [These genetic diseases are two prime targets of many CRISPR researchers.] The real issue is what’s the best first case.
bleezy 8y ago
I believe he made the edit that he did because it is easier to do a knockdown than a functional edit, and he wanted to minimize the risk of anything going wrong.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nabla9 8y ago

Each family had HIV positive father. It's likely that parents had misconceptions about modes of HIV transmission. Transmission is of course possible but not very likely. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00030972.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00030972.htm

asituop 8y ago
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181126/p2g/00m/0fe/047000c http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181126/p2g/00m/0fe/047... "He said his goal was not to cure or prevent an inherited disease, but to try to bestow a trait that few people naturally have -- an ability to resist possible future infection with HIV" Hasn't it been clear that the goal was from beginning to build a stronger race ? They never said it was to save baby from a inherited disease but to make them more resistant to potential future infection

buboard 8y ago

Here 's an answer by George Church: > A: It struck me as bold choice to do CCR5. In some ways it doesn’t make sense, but in another way it makes more sense than β-thalassemia or sickle cell, both of which you can prevent with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. [These genetic diseases are two prime targets of many CRISPR researchers.] The real issue is what’s the best first case.

bleezy 8y ago

I believe he made the edit that he did because it is easier to do a knockdown than a functional edit, and he wanted to minimize the risk of anything going wrong.