3 ms·
I am pleased to see that they are at least being open about the fact that things aren't quite working as they expect: They also found a "surprising number of ‘
by madaxe_again 12y ago
I am pleased to see that they are at least being open about the fact that things aren't quite working as they expect:
They also found a "surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations," according to Nature News.
This is the thing which scares the daylights out of me around genetic engineering generally. While some genes expressing differently will present clear dysgenic properties, others may not evince until much later in life - or perhaps even in subsequent generations, by altering gametes or epigenetic in-utero signalling or whatnot in unanticipated ways.
Yes, we can do epidemiological statistical studies to understand what individual genes affect, yes, we can do this for combinations of genes - but we can't study the affect of genes on subsequent generations, apart from in drosophila studies and what-not - which frequently end up demonstrating that yes, these edits do have unanticipated affects a dozen generations down the line, particularly when multiply crossed with other variants, and random mutations.
If human genome tinkering ends up common place, we will end up either with strict reproductive controls, or we will end up reproducing through cloning, and our evolution becomes entirely self-driven. The alternatives are likely just too dangerous.
Edit: sorry, forgot one of my points. Right now, we rely on statistical studies to understand what parts of the genome do. This could be remedied by having adequate computational power and models to actually simulate an organism from the molecular level up. Only then will we actually have some degree of control, and true understanding of what we are doing.
- dbcooper 12y agoAs I posted earlier: > there did not seem to be much/any effort to design their plasmid to minimise these off target mutations. It's important to note that the off-target actions are a known problem, and that there are methods to minimise them. Much effort is needed to study and optimise this, of course!
- primroot 12y agoSpeaking of genetic engineering, I can foresee the moment when human genetic engineering turns into a profitable activity, and hence another desperately needed innovation for dealing with global warming, malnutrition, poverty, etc. that only Luddites and liberal anti-science anti-third-world-peasant elitists dare object to. UPDATE: I should say capital-intensive profitable activity.
- gwern 12y agoIf you are worried about off-target mutations, you sequence a cell and see if any showed up compared to the parents' genomes + intended edits, and if they did, you toss that embryo.
- dbcooper 12y agoYou may only be able to sequence 30% of a single cell's exome (not even its entire genome), so you will not have that level of certainty.
- gwern 12y agoSo grow the embryo further and sequence more of it, or draw upon the prior information about off-target rates to make the best use of 30% coverage and pick ones with inferred rates which are acceptably low. Or use even more CRISPR to get rid of existing mutations to maintain total mutation load at normal rates... Many options. (Really, all these comments sound like people trying to find an excuse for why it doesn't work, rather than consider how it could work.)