3 ms·
Gene therapy has been an extremely slow game. Part of that is ethics, and part of that is technology. A single death in a single trial slowed down gene therap
by dekhn 2y ago
Gene therapy has been an extremely slow game. Part of that is ethics, and part of that is technology. A single death in a single trial slowed down gene therapy for decades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gelsinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gelsinger
I dedicated much of my biology training to learning how to carry out gene therapy only to conclude that it will continue to be the underdog in disease therapy for a long time. I do not expect to see large-scale germline modification for non-disease purposes in my lifetime (another 20-30 years).
- financetechbro 2y agoDo not underestimate the entrepreneurial spirit when there is a profit to be made
- CSSer 2y agoI expected to read that and find it was a fluke accident. Instead, it reads like the scientists shrugged before the injection and said, “What’s the worst that could happen?” That’s unreal. It killed monkeys under similar circumstances and the kid wasn’t at his healthiest at the time of treatment either. Did they not care or was there some reason to believe that outcome was virtually improbable?
- dekhn 2y agoI honestly don't know what they were thinking. BTW, most gene vectors today are based on lentiviruses... specifically, from HIV. It took a few tries before they found a method to reliably remove all the bad bits from the vector. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-018-0106-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-018-0106-0 and other articles on the evolution of HIV as a gene therapy vector.
- naasking 2y agoBioethics is a lot stricter than you think. They did not simply shrug and say that.
- DarkNova6 2y ago> I do not expect to see large-scale germline modification for non-disease purposes in my lifetime (another 20-30 years). Could you please share what makes you think so?
- dekhn 2y agoTwo lines of argument: social opposition (people are scared by the technology and many religions strongly oppose human GMO) and lack of adequate technology (we couldn't actually make a permanent change that does what we want without side effects). Note, germline modification means making changes to future children, and all their cells would permanently be modified, and they would pass the changes on to their children. Look at what happened with Jianku He- who ignored all the advice to do this (amazingly, they eventually let him back in the lab).
- jasonfarnon 2y agoSo you're only pessimistic about the deployment of germline modifications rather than therapies like this?
- dekhn 2y agoYou missed the part where I'm describing germline modifications for non medical uses. Like, intelligence augmentation for your children. Very controversial.
- surfingdino 2y agoPublic acceptance of those modifications could increase if such treatments are marketed as new or alternative approaches to what the cosmetic surgery and erectile disfunction treatment industries are making money off today.
- Salgat 2y agoOne good thing about this specific case is that it only persists in the cells exposed to it. New cells and reproduction are unaffected, which helps with the ethics surrounding gene therapy.
- codeulike 2y agoI do not expect to see large-scale germline modification for non-disease purposes in my lifetime (another 20-30 years). I had to read that twice. Non-disease purposes? The term "Gene-therapy" to me means therapy as in treatment of a disease or condition. If we're talking about non-disease purposes like enhancements then you're damn right thats still a long way off. I would have put it further off than that, its going to be a minefield. (Although with 200 different countries in the world it seems like someone will just do it anyway. Maybe someone is doing it now?)
- Jensson 2y ago> If we're talking about non-disease purposes like enhancements Like extending lifespan since death isn't seen as "disease", is probably what most people are after.