3 ms·

The human body contains 35-40 trillion cells. By far the best way to make a whole body change would be to change one cell ( the embyro/egg/sperm ) and let natu

The human body contains 35-40 trillion cells. By far the best way to make a whole body change would be to change one cell ( the embyro/egg/sperm ) and let nature take it's course - however that has the 'playing god with human evolution' concern. Delivery mechanisms are key - you have to get your therapeutic inside each cell - this is hard and even harder to do in a cell type specific way. It's much easier to do ex-vivo than in-vivo: ( see the diagram on this page ) http://www.crisprtx.com/gene-editing/therapeutic-approach http://www.crisprtx.com/gene-editing/therapeutic-approach How many cells you need all depends on the biology of what you are trying to do - there is no universal answer. So you might need a small number cells if you are changing the messages the changed cells send to other cells through control networks. In other cases, where the change only changes that cell - you might need to change a large number to see an effect.

airstrike 7y ago
> 'playing god with human evolution' concern Don't mean to derail this entire thread, but even as someone who believes in God, I find it increasingly harder to understand what objectively is wrong about these purported ethical dilemmas (e.g. cloning)
- judah 7y ago
  > I find it increasingly harder to understand what objectively is wrong about these purported ethical dilemmas (e.g. cloning) Believer in God here, and, like you, I find these "playing God" concerns to be largely unfounded, and often based in fear-of-the-unknown more than objectivity. In the 18th and 19th centuries, some religious groups opposed surgery because it was playing god; "disfiguring the divine image." But today, we religious people almost invariably welcome such medical advances: the good they do far outweighs any theoretical fear-based concerns. I think the same will happen with modern medical advances. And, theologically in the Jewish and Christian Bible, God has given humans dominion over nature. I see medical advances -- including surgery, blood transfusions, vaccines, and yes, gene editing -- as exercising that dominion to help heal people and reduce suffering.
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    Gene editing on an embryo involves making a choice for an unborn person without possibility of consent - and their children, and their children etc. That assumption of knowing better than the person affected is 'playing god' in a way that doing a surgical procedure on a consenting person isn't. Obviously that stuff is already done today - abortion or medical intervention at an early stage where the parent acts on behalf of the person. One of the things that's different is the scope and power of these techniques. Look at the diversity of domestic dogs, from great danes to toy dog breeds - that all came through selective breeding from the same wolf ancestor in a few thousand years. Also remember that humans are 99% the same as chimps at the DNA level and about 85% with mice. Direct, untrammeled genetic modification of humans could unleash huge changes in a very short time. Until we are clear about how we want to manage that, it's easier to have a moratorium.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  I was using that as a short hand. The real ethical concern is about potential misuse of germline or embryo mods. ie how do you choose between the ethical ones and the unethical ones? So if I found a mutation I could make to make people of a compliant disposition I could make an army of slaves. Note this is someone changing people before they are born ( this is to some extent the playing god bit - you are making a choice for somebody else - not yet born ). Most people who consider that to be not acceptable. Or how about a mutation that made people better soliders - one of the problems with warfare is the soliders can be mentally damaged by the things they have done or seen - surely it's better to make a solider that is unaffected.... ie the opportunities for good and evil are enormous - but until you have a mechanism to decide between those, it's easier to blanket ban. Even something that, on the face of it is benign - like a mutation that reduces the risk of heart attack - what happens if you later find out that it increases the risk of something else? You can't undo it later ( only for subsequent children by the same procedure ) - for the people already impacted. Again, the cautionary principle applies.

airstrike 7y ago

> 'playing god with human evolution' concern Don't mean to derail this entire thread, but even as someone who believes in God, I find it increasingly harder to understand what objectively is wrong about these purported ethical dilemmas (e.g. cloning)

judah 7y ago
> I find it increasingly harder to understand what objectively is wrong about these purported ethical dilemmas (e.g. cloning) Believer in God here, and, like you, I find these "playing God" concerns to be largely unfounded, and often based in fear-of-the-unknown more than objectivity. In the 18th and 19th centuries, some religious groups opposed surgery because it was playing god; "disfiguring the divine image." But today, we religious people almost invariably welcome such medical advances: the good they do far outweighs any theoretical fear-based concerns. I think the same will happen with modern medical advances. And, theologically in the Jewish and Christian Bible, God has given humans dominion over nature. I see medical advances -- including surgery, blood transfusions, vaccines, and yes, gene editing -- as exercising that dominion to help heal people and reduce suffering.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  Gene editing on an embryo involves making a choice for an unborn person without possibility of consent - and their children, and their children etc. That assumption of knowing better than the person affected is 'playing god' in a way that doing a surgical procedure on a consenting person isn't. Obviously that stuff is already done today - abortion or medical intervention at an early stage where the parent acts on behalf of the person. One of the things that's different is the scope and power of these techniques. Look at the diversity of domestic dogs, from great danes to toy dog breeds - that all came through selective breeding from the same wolf ancestor in a few thousand years. Also remember that humans are 99% the same as chimps at the DNA level and about 85% with mice. Direct, untrammeled genetic modification of humans could unleash huge changes in a very short time. Until we are clear about how we want to manage that, it's easier to have a moratorium.
DrScientist 7y ago
I was using that as a short hand. The real ethical concern is about potential misuse of germline or embryo mods. ie how do you choose between the ethical ones and the unethical ones? So if I found a mutation I could make to make people of a compliant disposition I could make an army of slaves. Note this is someone changing people before they are born ( this is to some extent the playing god bit - you are making a choice for somebody else - not yet born ). Most people who consider that to be not acceptable. Or how about a mutation that made people better soliders - one of the problems with warfare is the soliders can be mentally damaged by the things they have done or seen - surely it's better to make a solider that is unaffected.... ie the opportunities for good and evil are enormous - but until you have a mechanism to decide between those, it's easier to blanket ban. Even something that, on the face of it is benign - like a mutation that reduces the risk of heart attack - what happens if you later find out that it increases the risk of something else? You can't undo it later ( only for subsequent children by the same procedure ) - for the people already impacted. Again, the cautionary principle applies.