Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gene Therapy Cures "Bubble Boy"

Posted by michael on from the next-we'll-see-if-hemos-can-be-cured dept.

bofh31337 writes "NewScientist is reporting that Welsh boy Rhys Evans has been cured of the fatal severe combined immunodeficiency ("bubble boy") disease. The medical team, lead by Adrian Thrasher, was able to take the stem cells that give rise to immune cells from his bone marrow and add a normal copy of the gene to the stem cell using a retro virus. Seven months after treatment, Rhys was cured."

4 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Playing God? by flynt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that no matter what things humans do to the earth (good or bad), the ONLY time we're "playing God" is when we fiddle with genes. Very arbitrary criterion if you ask me. Did not God create the trees and the animals? Why when we destroy or create these things then are we not "playing God". It seems a bit illogical to me.

  2. Re:Playing God? by bani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When vaccination was discovered, the religious community spoke out against vaccination on the same grounds -- that dying of smallpox was "god's will" and that vaccination was "playing god".

    The claim is as stupid today as it was then.

  3. Name me one... by Convergence · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Name me one thing in nature we fully understand. Name me one thing.

    We don't know, *for sure* how atoms work or are built. We don't know if there is a 5th repulsive force in nature. There's lots we don't know..

    But what we do know.... To our knowledge, this therapy may help a guy who's *never* had a chance to go out into real life. Maybe it'll give him cancer in 30 years. Maybe it won't.. But just because it might possibly be catastrophic doesn't mean that nothing should be done.

    That way leads to stagnation and helplessness. We don't know and can't know. That is why this so-called 'precautionary principal', that something must be proved 'safe' before it can be used or sold is garbage. We can't know and won't know for *sure* anything.

    1. Re:Name me one... by k98sven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can't know and won't know for *sure* anything.

      How interesting.. this is called relativism (not the Einstein kind)

      Now, I would like to ask you, does that statement apply to itself?
      If yes, then we can't be sure that everything is unsure
      - which renders the possibility that things indeed can be known for sure.

      If no, then you are assuming that at least one thing -can- be known for sure,
      which means that other things may be as well.

      In short: That is a self-contradictory statement.

      Also, in stating that we don't know most things
      -for sure- , you seem to imply that everything is equally uncertain. This is not the case.

      For example, for the last 500 years or so, we have known that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice-versa.
      Of course we can't be -absolutly certain- this is the case, but I'd say that it would be very unlikely for the opposite to be proved.

      Science is not about solid truths, nor has it ever been:
      It's about knowing things with a known degree of certainty.