Re-Engineering the Immune System

destinyland notes a microbiology professor describing "Immunity on Demand" (or "Immunity 2.0") and wonders whether we could genetically engineer all the antibodies we need. "...there's a good chance this system, or something like it, will actually be in place within decades. Caltech scientists have already engineered stem cells into B cells that produce HIV-fighting antibodies — and an NIH researcher engineered T cells that recognize tumors which has already had promising clinical trials again skin cancer. Our best hope may be to cut out the middleman. Rather than merely hoping that the vaccine will indirectly lead to the antibody an individual needs, imagine if we could genetically engineer these antibodies and make them available as needed?"

Comments

Unintended Consequences?

[assemblyronin]

FTA:

All this is, of course, a delicate proposition. In some ways, an overactive immune system is as much of a risk as an underactive one: more than a million people worldwide a year die from collateral damage, like septic shock after bacterial infection, and inflammations that may ultimately induce chronic illness such as heart disease and perhaps even cancer.

This is just one possible outcome to programming new antibodies. I'd also be concerned with how the treatments mitigate any risk to shutting down our own immune system.

Hypothetical speculation: Say the treatment works well while you're taking regular doses of new Immunity 2.0 shots, but as soon as you can't afford to pay anymore, you're off the Immunity 2.0 shots. Well, it's been a while since your real immune system has had to work, so the next mutation of a virus comes along and 'oops'.

Most questions to risk will probably be found in lab research and trials, but it's still something to think about.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[samkass]

I'll stick with a doctor who isn't an agent of the government, thanks.

You mean like Canada?

There are a lot of systems by which you can accomplish universal health care. The UK version in which doctors are federal employees is one, but the Canadian system where the federal government is essentially the insurer is another. Another option is the system that the current US reform bill proposes which is very similar to the Republican one from the early 90's. The only really bad option is doing nothing.

Re:I was under the impression

[eparker05]

For most diseases the antibodies are easier to see because they are more widespread. It only takes a few virally infected cells to set off a massive immune response. The difficulty in engineering an antibody is the same difficulty as engineering any protein. Our knowledge of protein folding is still in it's infancy. So far, we have used evolutionary methods to find new antibodies. Perhaps someday we will be able to build them from the ground up, but not now.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[LWATCDR]

Actually there is a theory that a lot of the autoimmune dieses we get are and artifact of the Black Death.
Those with a very strong immune system lived so now our immune systems maybe a little too good for our own good.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[osu-neko]

Lets cure all natural causes of death through the miracle of modern science. Then starve to death as the world becomes grossly overpopulated.

Problem: All evidence suggests the opposite. Eliminate all the most egregious morality concerns from a population, and they stop reproducing like rabbits. In the healthiest parts of the first word, population growth is going negative.