4 ms·
I wonder if using Crispr would create a new class of pathogen that are tailored to a small set of population (or even to one individual). That would make resear
by yalogin 7y ago
I wonder if using Crispr would create a new class of pathogen that are tailored to a small set of population (or even to one individual). That would make research on that impossible and so cure also impossible. We can use Crispr only if we have studied and understood how the pathogen impacts our DNA. But over time, if the pathogen and individual DNAs divert far apart then no single research can be used as a generic cure. That would really suck and make cure a feature for the rich. Hope someone tells me I dead wrong.
- jcims 7y agoSure. You could even do a STUXNET type attack where the pathogen is highly transmissible and perfectly benign to everyone but your target. Release it in a train station in Budapest and wait.
- sambroner 7y agoI think this was the most effective strategy in the board game pandemic (or video game Plague Inc)
- COGlory 7y agoExtremely unlikely. Viruses would lose the gene if it's non-essential, before it got to your target. They're designed to make lots of mistakes in replication to diversify quickly, and without selective pressure, will not retain high fidelity genetic material. Sure, you could mutate the polymerase, but then you have a replication problem as well. How is this virus spread? Particularly without inducing a cough. There's no guarantee of exposure. Bacteria have more genetic stability but are even harder to spread because most people are already colonized and disruption of that homeostasis is often difficult, and symptomatic. None of that even addresses how you'd engineer something to be benign to everyone but one person.
- jcims 7y agoI know you're right but technically neither of us mentioned virus. :)
- COGlory 7y agoThere's only so much variation between people. Everyone uses the same proteins, more or less, to do the same things. Therefore, there's only so many ways to attack cells and you can bet that nature has already tried them all. There's a limited angle of attack, plus we already have broad immune systems to protect against most ways. There's other problems with bioterrorism as well. If you make something lethal, it tends not to spread well because it kills the host too quickly. That's why way more people get the cold than Ebola. Pathogens tend to reach equilibrium within a generation inside a population. The narrower and more specific the group it infects, the harder it is for it to transmit.
- p1mrx 7y agoYou just need to combine a harmless virus with a deadly one, such that the whole thing gets copied, but the deadly part remains dormant until it detects a particular sequence in the host. I'm sure that's easier said than done, but it seems plausible that genetic engineering could progress to the point where targeted bioweapons become a real concern.