Slashdot Mirror


What If Someone Uses This DIY CRISPR Kit To Make Mutant Bacteria? (vice.com)

Josiah Zayner, a research fellow at NASA Ames Research Center, is running an Indiegogo campaign to make DIY gene editing kits that use the CRISPR technique to modify DNA. The campaign has already exceeded its goal, and he points out an article at Motherboard noting the controversy surrounding cheap, DIY genetic modification. Quoting:The kits won't going to allow people to genetically modify humans, but Zayner is still getting some heat for the project. One medical doctor emailed him with "grave concerns" about putting the technology in the hands of lay people. "Reprogramming bacteria or fungi could have serious ramifications, such as inadvertent or intended multi-drug resistance, faster multiplication, toxin production, and persisting potency when aerosolized," the doctor wrote. ... There is no legal framework surrounding this at-home work, unless it results in a product to be distributed, said Todd Kuiken, a senior program associate with the Synthetic Biology Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "Who actually uses kits like these and what they are using them for will determine if any of these products they make would be regulated or not," he said.

115 comments

  1. Goddamnit... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought the Andromeda Strain wasn't a documentary.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Goddamnit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you actually *watch* the movie? Or are you the same guy who posts 'thats how we get skynet' on every AI/robot story?

    2. Re: Goddamnit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of SkyNET on Andromeda, saying MOO. It would be so evil. It would be so evil.

    3. Re:Goddamnit... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Do you want to get the Andromeda Strain? Because that's how you get the Andromeda Strain.

    4. Re: Goddamnit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to include references to either APK or hot grits.

    5. Re:Goddamnit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Plague Inc was just a game... Looks like, not anymore.

    6. Re:Goddamnit... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And those human/scorpion/locust things in Revelation WEREN'T real! They were supposed to be figurative, right?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:Goddamnit... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Funny, I heard this same shit about Linux 20 years ago. I guess we should get ready for Big Pharma Zombie Apocalypses? Hay that sounds like a great idea for a movie and a game.

    8. Re:Goddamnit... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Hay! Human/scorpion/locust things lives matter!

  2. You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Do-it-yourself mutant bacteria don't kill people! People kill people!

    1. Re:You know what they say... by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      If you're comparing this to the gun ban debate, I'd just like to point out that a single person with a gun can't wipe out millions of people accidentally or intentionally. These are even close to analogues.

    2. Re:You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the second amendment doesn't specify what type of arms, any and all should be legal.

    3. Re:You know what they say... by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother. I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax. For duck huntin'.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:You know what they say... by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      Maybe there is a RNA cure for Layers?

  3. doesn't even necessariy require much skill by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    A million monkeys poking at a million CRISPR kits could have some interesting results.

    1. Re: doesn't even necessariy require much skill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike a million trillion trillion bacteria mutating constantly?

    2. Re:doesn't even necessariy require much skill by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      The complete works of William Shakespeare written in bacteria DNA?

    3. Re: doesn't even necessariy require much skill by drunk_punk · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. You know how many kids got easy bake ovens?? Chocolate muffin my ass.

    4. Re:doesn't even necessariy require much skill by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Teenage Mutant Ninja .. err... Bacteria?

    5. Re: doesn't even necessariy require much skill by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Maybe from the rotting carcass of its inventor? Because bacteria don't mutate from nothing.

    6. Re:doesn't even necessariy require much skill by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      How about Quantum Computers?

  4. Sign Me Up by lazarus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm planning to use my kit to prolong my life... Oh wait. No. I could use it to FINALLY BE ABLE TO DIE!

    In 1272 I hung myself in a barn. It was 1348 before the damn barn fell down and I was able to walk away. Do you know what it is like to hang in a barn for 70+ years? Not fun. I'm ready for all this new-fangled gene editing technology!

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:Sign Me Up by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      The scary thing is there are 2878 Slashdot members older than you.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Sign Me Up by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hanged. You hanged yourself in a barn in 1272.

    3. Re:Sign Me Up by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, they signed up before he could get out of the barn.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Sign Me Up by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      how do you know he aint hung?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Sign Me Up by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

      The first ten million years were the worst, and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline. - Marvin

    6. Re: Sign Me Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He must be a Republican. He wanted to test the noose before he used it on us. Because he hates and wants us to die in a barn. In a barn.

    7. Re:Sign Me Up by aevan · · Score: 1

      Depends where he put the noose I suppose.

    8. Re:Sign Me Up by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Hanged. You hanged yourself in a barn in 1272.

      Simple Freudian slip. He was likely preoccupied thinking about how he'll finally be able to hung himself in 2016 with his DIY CRISPR

    9. Re:Sign Me Up by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I believe the difference between hung and hanged is if someone else hanged you or you hung yourself ... just kidding.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Sign Me Up by lazarus · · Score: 1

      Right. My first language was ancient Greek though.

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    11. Re:Sign Me Up by PRMan · · Score: 1

      - Vandal Savage

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    12. Re:Sign Me Up by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      Well, they signed up before he could get out of the barn.

      And even though he was well hung, it's incredibly difficult to operate a keyboard to sign up for an account with just your member. And those wooden clacker keyboards...one word: splinters.

      --
      ~X~
    13. Re:Sign Me Up by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Hanged. You hanged yourself in a barn in 1272.

      He hung himself - with acces to gene technology, that's what he did. Like a horse.

    14. Re:Sign Me Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bah, before wood was invented we had to make do with brontosaurus bone keyboards.

    15. Re:Sign Me Up by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      In 1272 I hung myself in a barn. It was 1348 before the damn barn fell down and I was able to walk away.

      Nice variant on a well-used trope! Is it your own, or did you get it from somewhere? (Someone below refers it to Marvin, which is fair, but it's a long way from Marvin.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Mutant bacteria? by p0p0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't all you need for mutant bacteria are mild germophobia and too much hand sanitizer?

    1. Re:Mutant bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, most mutations are harmful to the organism. In the quest to create the first X-Men you'll likely create a lot of unicellular sponge, broken blood vessels and the odd runaway cancer that doesn't really form into anything useful. We don't know the gene sequences for lasers and magnetism yet.

    2. Re:Mutant bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hand sanitizer doesn't cause resistance, antibiotics do. The alcohol in hand sanitizer actually denatures the proteins in bacteria by braking down the lipids in their outer layer. Kinda like taking the bacteria apart. It is not as effective against some viruses, but not because they mutated.

      To mutate around that they would have to develop a new type of "skin" or outer layer that protects them. Not as easy as changing a gene or two.

  6. They get a job at Chipotle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else?

  7. sharks with lasers by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    AND mutant bacteria

  8. Questions? by josiah.zayner · · Score: 2

    Though I don't know much about people being hanged in barns in 1272 or Chipotle, I could perhaps answer other questions about the kit

    1. Re:Questions? by josiah.zayner · · Score: 4, Informative

      PS. I am the NASA Scientist.Creator of the kits.

    2. Re:Questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PSS. I am The Walrus.

      goo goo g'joob

    3. Re:Questions? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      im windering more along the lines of what people will be able to do in places like colorado with different plants ;)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Questions? by josiah.zayner · · Score: 1

      Genetically Engineering marijuana seems to be an up and coming industry. Isn't Snoop Dogg engineering his own custom strains?

    5. Re:Questions? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      he is in deed however thats just normal cross breeding. But I was thinking more along the lines of crossing the benefits to other plants. Think simpsons tommacco episode

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Questions? by josiah.zayner · · Score: 1

      Not that I support genetically engineering yeast to produce THC because that would be illegal. I hope once THC is decriminalized federally people will do that. Imagine growing a "joint" in 6 hours. The future.

    7. Re:Questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have yeast that produces THC.

      I well imagine that will be a primary use of this technology, inserting genes responsible for THC production into microorganisms in order to get high.

    8. Re:Questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A NASA scientist and you think they will decriminalize THC federally?

      Tell me more about how the moon landing was real? Because until now I thought it was.

    9. Re:Questions? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      actually that is something i have heard is already in the works. I think they were aiming for CBD however

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:Questions? by josiah.zayner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, http://hyasynthbio.com/ are working on making CBDs in Canada.

    11. Re:Questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your opinion about the idea that these sorts of things should be regulated and kept from laypeople?

      To me it leads to a dangerous sort of scientific elitism. When science is made inaccessible, people will turn to unscientific things that are accessible.

    12. Re: Questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Irish biohacker space and maybe one public company was the last I heard about THC being made by yeast. My main question would be are the gene selection changes prechosen for any of the kits that actually do change the dna? I would assume they are. So what are the choices? I apologize if I am misunderstanding this. It seems like a great step to using the biobrick program having hands on experience.

    13. Re: Questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a Syn Bio researcher. Your DIY kit looks like fun, and kudos for developing it for young students.

      When you take flak from know-nothings, just tell them that it was all already available through Addgene (non-profit) and Life Tech (for-profit). Anyone could have purchased those plasmids and kits ... For expression in humans as well. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't tell them as they will simply flip out ;)

  9. Meh by sexconker · · Score: 1

    You need to know what you're doing to do anything successfully dangerous (or dangerously successful) with this.

    On the other hand, any schlub can create children, the world's nastiest petri dishes.
    Alternatively, any schlub can scrape up some black mold or whatever and gradually engineer it to resist chemicals, heat, cold, etc. by simply gradually exposing it to those things at a rate that still lets the colony grow. For bonus points, gradually change its diet to human skin and hair.

    Personally I'm working on a sentient Cheeto farm.

    1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you know what you're doing, you aren't going to be able to create anything dangerous. Germs require thousands of years and and trillions of trial and error mutations before one randomly emerges that can hurt humans (or anything else). The chances that a person is going to know enough to intentionally introduce something like this without screwing up some other part of the process is vanishingly remote. It just ain't gonna happen folks, except in the movies.

    2. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low chance does not equal zero chance.

      Sure, it COULD take millions of trial and error failures before something viable is produced. But the thing about odds, is that it could also happen first time out, and by accident.

  10. Brave New World by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

    First, I don't believe anything I read at Indiegogo.

    Second, if this is on the up-and-up... Cat's out of the bag, I guess. If this guy can do it so can any number of other guys, including your favorite bad guys. Quit talking about how to prevent it and start talking about how to cope with it.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    1. Re:Brave New World by josiah.zayner · · Score: 1

      Seems reasonable. I have also contributed to lots of campaigns that have never actually turned out. DIY Science.Bio, BioHacking whatever you want to call it, is already going strong. CRISPR is not so much different than most of the techniques people have been doing so theoretically it shouldn't be that much more difficult to make it also work outside of lab.

    2. Re:Brave New World by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a prefab kit. Everything difficult (designing the dna templates, PCR, cloning) is already done. So you just mix, plate, and incubate. Not much different than other similar ed kits that have existed for ages. You aren't going to be able to make arbitrary mutations with this. For that you will still need a lab.

  11. And whatcha gonna do about it? by guruevi · · Score: 2

    Anyone with interest is already building or can build something like it. Putting it on Kickstarter only gives those that want to trade time for money access to the same kit they could've gotten otherwise.

    Are you yelling at people selling beakers and bunsenburners?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:And whatcha gonna do about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you yelling at people selling beakers and bunsenburners?

      Yes. Mankind cannot be allowed to destroy itself again.

      Ad Victoriam.

    2. Re:And whatcha gonna do about it? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Are you yelling at people selling beakers and bunsenburners?

      Fun fact: In Republican stronghold Texas, you are not allowed to buy certain beakers and flasks without a license. "Conservatives" at their finest - the freedom to do what they want you to do, because otherwise you might do the wrong thing.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:And whatcha gonna do about it? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Are you yelling at people selling beakers and bunsenburners?

      One step at a time.... our governments are still in the process of trying to get drones (and firearms) made illegal to sell to consumers by requiring FAA registration / Background checks against the secret zero-accountability No-Fly List, which also happens to be a list that may include people for no reason other than they are politically opposed to both parties' views and/or to that list's existence.

    4. Re:And whatcha gonna do about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are you yelling at people selling beakers and bunsenburners?

      Nope. But in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of people are yelling at drone manufacturers for all the crazy shit that some drone owners have done. Trying to black-and-white the problem like you are doing is going to cause the heavy hand of regulation to give this stuff a massive smackdown. There is a middle ground, if you don't acknowledge it you won't even get that.

    5. Re:And whatcha gonna do about it? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There are a few hobbies that have fun into similar things. Orchid growers hit similar problems - the equipment needed for indoor cultivation of tropical plants is exactly the same as that needed for an indoor pot-farm. Growers know this. Police know this. So they will monitor purchases from stores that supply said equipment, and treat any domestic address as suspicious - if you buy some forced-ventilation, grow-light and hydroponics gear for your tropical plants, there's a significant chance that the SWAT team are going to smash your door down and hold you and your family on the floor at gunpoint as they tear your home apart in search of drugs.

  12. Woodrow Wilson to be purged from society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no legal framework surrounding this at-home work, unless it results in a product to be distributed, said Todd Kuiken, a senior program associate with the Synthetic Biology Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "Who actually uses kits like these and what they are using them for will determine if any of these products they make would be regulated or not," he said.

    If we wait a few months, this persons' employer will purged from society, so we don't have to listen to him.

  13. Non-Problem by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people were going to weaponize bacteria, they wouldn't have needed to wait until an Indiegogo campaign made a DIY kit.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Non-Problem by Idou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you realize how new and upcoming CRISPR is. . . before we just had a million monkeys. . . now we are about to give those monkeys typewriters. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  14. Potential dangers are vastly overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main danger comes from modified bacteria and fungi that acquire undesirable pathogenic traits. However, bacterias and fungi could be and have been extensively modified by using much simpler means then CRISPR. CRISPR is used for editing eukaryotic genomes, and commonly used to modify human cells. It is much harder then classical bacterial or fungi genetics. In some cases CRISPR it is REALLY hard.

    Millions of strains genetically modified bacteria and yeasts have been produced in the labs. A skillful undergradute student can make one. Probably few hundred more have been produced in a word while I was writing this post. Despite accessibility and ease of use these technologies have not resulted in catastrophe. I do not see how another, much more difficult to use, genome editing tool suddenly going to destroy the world.

  15. Way Over-Hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The ferret research that was redacted a few years back was scarier in all honesty. CRISPR is a powerful tool but synbio isn't easy - even when you know enough to do things it is typically because you have seen and have access to other things you copy from. CRISPR is just a much more reliable copy/paste function (whereas before you might have done the equivalent of copying a block of text and pasting it only to have ever Nth letter randomly swapped for another one, with a value of N very very low.) If someone wanted to make a powerful biological agent it would be far easier to house a bunch of animals in crappy conditions until something vile came from it than it would be to genetically engineer something new. Even if you did create a completely new organism comprised of genetic components of the most horrible things known to man it likely wouldn't do anything - bugs have been evolving alongside animals for a very long time and are every bit as precisely adapted to infecting things as animals are to resisting them. The notion of hacking together something dangerous from scratch or even via biological plagiarism enhanced via CRISPR is absurd. The more advanced synbio people take ridiculously long amounts of time to do things like make glowing yogurt and that is only a single very simple and straightforward copy/paste operation.

    1. Re:Way Over-Hyped by josiah.zayner · · Score: 0

      Hah AGREED!

    2. Re:Way Over-Hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't some random hackers coming up with something, the issue is now unskilled local terrorist cells could buy one of these things, download some instructions from a website created by someone who knows what they are doing, and replicate it locally.

      With this in place you can't easily prevent biological vectors designed abroad from crossing borders/oceans, nor easily prevent the release of such biological vectors from being coordinated at multiple points in such a way to overwhelm authorities.

      This is the same problem with *script kiddies* being able to launch sophisticated attacks on unsuspecting targets using off-the-shelf exploit tools except now can potentially add biological weapons to their arsenal mix with an off-the-shelf CRISPR kit.

      Although this might not be possible with this CRISPR kit (maybe there isn't an easy way to change yogurt bacteria into a bioweapon by cut-pasting a few genes), the actual problem is not that random-jane-bio-hacker is going to accidentally make a bioweapon, but that *someone* can do it and this information can be easily deployed by an off-the-shelf device with some easy to follow instructions.

      This is has the potential to be worse than 3d-printed guns, as the bacteria can multiply by themselves (e.g., think of your standard home yogurt kit vs wearing out a few 3d-printers creating a couple dozen poorly functioning 3d-gun the can only fire a few shots before they self destruct and you still have to buy the ammo somewhere).

    3. Re: Way Over-Hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also has the potential to create something wonderful and positive. Just like 3D printed guns could potentially prevent another Nazi Germany from forming, or some such. Every bad thing also has an inverse good thing. Every cloud has a silver lining, and vice versa.

    4. Re:Way Over-Hyped by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If I were an evil bioterrorist with mediocre laboratory skills, I'd just start with a really nasty but readily-available bacterium, something already proven highly fit - TB would be good. Then it's a simple matter of slowly increasing the concentrations of every antibiotic I can get my hands on, ideally while incubating in human hosts - plenty of places where it's endemic anyway. It'd be slow, but it should work - and at the end I get Omni-Resistant TB - highly contagious, long incubation time so it won't be noticed until too late, difficult to distinguish clinically from regular TB, and impossible to treat. One of the ancient plagues returns even to the medically advanced parts of the world.

  16. Re:Potential dangers are vastly overblown by josiah.zayner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know about much more difficult. Normally, for bacteria, people use lambda red recombination strategies which are much much more difficult than CRISPR. The main benefit of CRISPR is it's easy of use. All that you need is to clone in a new gRNA and template.donor DNA in a plasmid and you are good to go. I agree that no genome engineering tool is going to destroy the world.

  17. White Plague? by dyeazel · · Score: 1

    It will also make it easier for a rogue individual/nation to wipe us all out. See Frank Herbert's "The White Plague" http://www.amazon.com/White-Pl...

  18. Not Concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a molecular biologist that has quite a bit of experience in genetic modification of bacteria, cloning, and teaching these methods, I am not concerned. Many students fail to do these types of procedures correctly even when I stay with them and walk them through it. I also seriously doubt that any modified organisms would become a threat unless the person wanted to do that. If the person did want to do that I think they could do it much more easily: find a pathogenic bacteria (like get strep throat) and run the bacteria through many trials of UV-light induced mutations. Do this enough and you will get desired results. Combine this with creating antibiotic media and you will increase the chance of making resistant bacteria. Mix the cultures together and enjoy the HGT.

    1. Re:Not Concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for telling me how to do it.

    2. Re:Not Concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've ever taken a modern biology class, you'd already know how.

  19. They will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get used to the idea.

  20. #1 THC producing yeast by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Now see, I would've gone with "make bacon CRISPR".

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  21. If it only affects other Indiegogo hipsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I'm all for it. The self-proclaimed "Makers" can finally die off under the weight of their ironic beards.

  22. Million experiments by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A million monkeys poking at a million CRISPR kits could have some interesting results.

    Funny like 999'999 dead bacteria colonies,
    And 1 bacteria colony which produces a funny color fluorescent protein ?
    (That monkey got lucky, managed not to screw anything, and started not too ambitious and beyond his own capabilities).

    Hint:
    - producing functionality in DNA (as opposed just random garbage DNA sequences) requires skills and expertise
    - those who have the above skills and expertise already have access to the necessary facilities anyway.

    This kit won't suddenly enable a mad scientist to create their zombie plague.
    It's not targeted at mad scientist. (The mad scientist has all they need in the lab)

    It could be better targeted at high-school students and enthousiats: It would be better suited to help a nice science fair project (glow in the dark bacteria colonies).

    Complaining that a DIY CRISPR Kit will bring a bio-hasard end of the world, is like complaining that cheap Arduinos and Raspberry Pis put into the wrong hands could bring a singularity level evil AI.

    And like the other anonymous has mentionned:
    bacteria do mutate a hell lot in the wild anyway.
    They are way much more likely to acquire antibiotics resistance by swaping genes around and mutating/evolving in a antibiotics rich environment, than by the result of some under-qualified enthusiast poking around.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Million experiments by Bozzio · · Score: 0

      I'd MOD UP if I had the points.

      I came here to say exactly the same thing, but no need as you've already done a better job than I would have.

      Cheers.

      --
      I just pooped your party.
    2. Re:Million experiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that considering that giving antibiotics resistance is something you could do if you can edit the genome of an organism.

      Sure the current tech is crude and the summery is flamebait worthy of an award *currently*, but given enough time to iron it out, get some good procedures in-place and documented, and you could very well have an issue on your hands. Remember, you only have to figure it out once, then any cow / monkey can follow the directions. We may not have it now, but given time, how long before it becomes push-button to insert genes into a genome? With "libraries" of gene templates for easy insertion being created? Hell given our code-monkey problem, I don't want to think about genome-monkey problems.....

      The questions asked are valid ones, and as the tech gets more refined, more of these questions will (and should be) asked. Although, from a computer programming perspective, if what the summary describes does become a reality, it will be a never-ending cat-and-mouse game. Idiots / terrorists / etc. (Blackhats) creating bio-weapons and governments / researchers / etc. (whitehats) creating cures. (Or worse, governments / researchers / etc. (more blackhats) creating "treatments", banning modification of the "supplementary" immune system, forbidding dissemination of resistance or cure methods (must prevent them from falling into the wrong hands!), etc...)

    3. Re:Million experiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'll post this as an AC.

      When the Oxycontin started coming in their newer formulation the junkie crowd was rather displeased. It was a strange turn of events and watching these people work, really hard, to undo the molecular changes that had been made to these pills was quite amusing. People spent thousands of dollars trying everything from ether to soda (with varieties to suit), from nail polish to a foot-callous remover, and from a freezer to an oven. It turns out, a combination of heat at specific amounts and then some chilling and maybe more heat manages to defeat the time-release mechanism (to varied degrees). Then, with crushing, one gets to ingest them via their favorite route.

      That said, the reason I bring this up is because it's colloquially called "The Crisper Method." I do not know if it is effective, they claim it is. I'd strongly suggest not injecting pills or even "plugging" or snorting them. My layman's knowledge of organic chemistry suggests that the heat may work but the documentation prepared for the FDA indicates that the solvents do not work and, while some swear by it, I can assure you that the soda (regardless of brand) is unlikely to have any effect at all. It's basically like trying to find a single meatball in an Olympic-size pool full of spaghetti. Additionally, the efficacy of opiates begins to lower as temperature increases so one must be careful with that.

      They were quite like studious worker-bees in their efforts and it was quite an open-source type of project. It was most amusing to witness. As I have a few dollars and am disinclined to inject pill fillers and the likes into my veins, I am unable/unwilling to verify their success. They did seem quite pleased with the results and a good time was had by all. Strangely, some still swear that the soda works - despite evidence to the contrary. Conclusion: Some worker-bees are more skilled than others.

      Also, no, this was not posted by me. It was posted by someone who types a lot like me. If this post looks like a familiar poster's posting style then it's just a good impersonation job. And, for the record, I am not now currently using illegal drugs (other than weed) and I haven't for some time. *nods* Not that that matters, I just figured I'd share.

    4. Re:Million experiments by mikael · · Score: 1

      " It's basically like trying to find a single meatball in an Olympic-size pool full of spaghetti. "

      That sounds like some kind of Japanese game show, but with the addition of being blindfolded while the other team mates shout instructions from the side.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  23. what if..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if this were actually newz for nerds?

    1. Re: what if..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you crushed your head in a vice?

  24. The right of the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The right of the people to carry gene editing kits shall not be infringed. The fact that some of them use these kits to cause mass cancer is just a socialist plot to take away our editing kits and put ourselves at the mercy of the government.

    Wait... what do you mean you heard this before just with slightly different words?

  25. Alcool resistant by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Hand sanitizer doesn't cause resistance, antibiotics do.

    And sadly, at some point in time "mild antibiotics" were used in some sanitizing products.
    With dreadful consequences. Luckily people end up thinking better...

    The alcohol in hand sanitizer actually {...}

    and there are alcohol resisting bacteria around.
    Example: among the Aeruginas.

    Luckily, they aren't that much aggressive against humans.

    To mutate around that they would have to develop a new type of "skin" or outer layer that protects them. Not as easy as changing a gene or two.

    such external structure is called a "biofilm" in bacteria, by the way.

    A couple of mutation here and there could:
    - change the regulation of biofilm production (like triggering in presence of some bactericide like alcohol)
    - subtly change chemical property of biofilm (slightly better protection against alcohol)
    Such mutation give a clear advantage for a bacteria and can be selected for.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Alcool resistant by Prune · · Score: 1

      The trick is to use a combination of products that attack or interfere with the pathogen by multiple independent pathways. That would require a confluence of various near-simultaneous mutations to overcome, which is far less likely and would take much longer to develop resistance for -- unless there is transfer from populations which have been exposed to the products individually. A common, if rarely acknowledged example, is garlic. There are more substances than just allicin in garlic that interfere with various bacteria and viruses, and some fungi, than just allicin; moreover, the body's metabolic processing of these sulfur-containing compounds creates a number of others that are also active -- and not all of them have the same targets. This makes evolving of resistance by many susceptible microorganisms very unlikely.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  26. Dumb by samantha · · Score: 1

    Anyone than knows much of anything at all about genetic engineering knows that it is incredibly difficult to produce something at all viable, much less that will be a successful super deadly bug using this or any other technology non-experts in good labs are likely to get their hands on. It is really difficult even for said experts in well equipped labs. So less FUD clouding genetic engineering please!

  27. Silver Lining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While cometely unlikely, look at the bright side.

    If someone cooked up some crazy pathogen in their easybake kit and wiped out humanity, you wouldn't have to worry about gun violence anymore would you ?

  28. Re:goG4t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, this poor sap tried to use CRISPR on his brain and got FRIED instead.

  29. Re:Potential dangers are vastly overblown by Rutulian · · Score: 2

    Personally, I think recombineering is much easier than CRISPR. Transform in RED plasmid, induce, transform in targeting fragments, done. Whereas with CRISPR, identify protospacer with appropriate PAM sequence, synthesize this and subclone into a plasmid, design editing template, synthesize this and clone into a plasmid, transform with cas9 and plasmids, pick colonies, sequence to confirm mutations. For some things CRISPR is nice, but when other methods like recombineering are available, those are usually easier. The main appeal of CRISPR is in eukaryotic systems where other tools are not available.

  30. The result of an irresponsible genetic experiment by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    Donald Trump.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  31. Not that new by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's been around for about a decade.

    Probably a non-issue for the foreseeable future in any case. Even the people who *really* know what they are doing have a hard time getting the modifications to propagate, much less do anything at all.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Not that new by Idou · · Score: 2
      So what? LEDs have been around for over a century. People usually measure the "arrival" (aka "newness") of a technology when it starts having the biggest impact to society as a whole. Under that definition, both LEDs and CRISPR are very, very new, and we are only just starting to see their impacts.

      Even the people who *really* know what they are doing . . .

      I guess the "million monkeys with typewriters" was completely lost on you. . . The point is that not only do we have to worry about natural mutations causing a pandemic strain, but now we will have a new type of "script kiddie" form of mutation class. Just like natural mutations, most will be harmless, but all it takes is one harmful strain that has been played with in a completely unexpected way to wreck havoc.

      To give you some perspective, the economics are such that I still go to the doctor today with some illness and they give me antibiotics no matter what because it is too costly to diagnose whether I have a viral or bacterial infection (let alone, diagnose what actual strain I am infected with). So in THIS level of medical sophistication, you think allowing a bunch of genetic script kiddies start releasing a bunch of script kiddied strains into the wild is close to 0 risk? If so, you should be indifferent to being my guinea pig, right?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    2. Re:Not that new by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      So what? LEDs have been around for over a century. People usually measure the "arrival" (aka "newness") of a technology when it starts having the biggest impact to society as a whole. Under that definition, both LEDs and CRISPR are very, very new, and we are only just starting to see their impacts.

      You're missing the point. It's been around a while. Scientists have been using it for a while. It's a known quantity. It's effects are known. It's effectiveness is known. It's not some unknown technology being let loose to the unsuspecting hordes.

      I guess the "million monkeys with typewriters" was completely lost on you. . . The point is that not only do we have to worry about natural mutations causing a pandemic strain, but now we will have a new type of "script kiddie" form of mutation class.

      Think of it this way. Trillions of bacteria mutating billions of times over thousands of years under evolutionary pressure to be better and better at infecting and multiplying, and how many truly devastating pandemics have we had? A couple? And you're worried over the fraction of a chance of a fraction of a chance that someone would happen to make a new super-bacteria?

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Not that new by Idou · · Score: 1

      It's a known quantity.

      Right. . . It is not like there are tons of new discoveries every day , right? Sorry, but your assertion is absurd. Knowing how CRISPR, itself, works in no way reduces the risk when we use it on all the stuff (you know, life on planet Earth) we barely understand.

      How about we perform an experiment. . .you and I both get into fully automated cars. I allow you to randomly change binary bits of my car's programming (much like natural mutation). You allow me to randomly change source code functions, configuration values, etc. . . of your car (much like the genetic script kiddie activities you are asserting are complete harmless). Let's see who lives longest. . . : )

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  32. Difficulty by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Problem is, even if you know exactly what you are doing, it's still really hard to get gene mods to work at all. Even using a proven splice, it only works a small fraction of the time - you basically have to get lucky.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  33. THEY'RE NOT GONNA TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll need them to fight mutant bacterias from freely available CRISPR kits

  34. "The kits won't going to" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans...

  35. Won't Matter Much by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    We have quite a few graduates of solid colleges with degrees in biology and advanced degrees as well. Quite a few of these folks could brew up a plague bug but it has never become an issue. Perhaps the only people spending time, money and energy to develop biological weapons are in the employment of governments around the world.

  36. Fairyland by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    https://www-users.cs.york.ac.u...
    A good book, might be a bit hard to find nowadays, uh, nevermind found it on Amazon.
    http://www.amazon.com/Fairylan...

    Basically people hacking genomes to create new drugs to get high on (and other stuffs) been a while since I read it.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  37. maybe we'll see CRISPR science fair projects soon by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Either from these public kits or some kid interning at a biomedical lab. Thats when you know DIY is easy.
    P.S. I briefly googled to see if there CRISPR science fair projects in 2015, but didnt find anything.