Slashdot Mirror
U.K. Researcher Receives Permission To Edit Genes In Human Embryos (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: Developmental biologist Kathy Niakan has received permission from U.K. authorities to modify human embryos using the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology. Niakan, who works at the Francis Crick Institute in London, applied for permission to use the technique in studies to better understand the role of key genes during the first few days of human embryo development.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which grants licenses for work with human embryos, sperm, and eggs in the United Kingdom, approved Niakan's application at a meeting of HFEA's license committee on 14 January. The minutes of that meeting state that, '[o]n balance, the proposed use of CRISPR/Cas9 was considered by the Committee to offer better potential for success, and was a justified technical approach to obtaining research data about gene function from the embryos used.'
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which grants licenses for work with human embryos, sperm, and eggs in the United Kingdom, approved Niakan's application at a meeting of HFEA's license committee on 14 January. The minutes of that meeting state that, '[o]n balance, the proposed use of CRISPR/Cas9 was considered by the Committee to offer better potential for success, and was a justified technical approach to obtaining research data about gene function from the embryos used.'
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
(and some filler to make sure Slashdot doesn't block this because of excessive capitalization)
welcome our new crispy overlords...
Aside: Anyone else think of a drawer in the refrigerator or apples when anyone mentions CRISPR?
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
No. The UK's regulator is the first in the world to give permission.
Dumbest title ever....
The same it feels about you telling it what to eat, what to wear, and what to think.
chmod -R 777 /embryo/human/DNA
or...
Open C:\embryo\human and right-click on folder "DNA". Click on the "Security" tab and then click the "Edit..." button. In the "Permissions for DNA" window, click the "Add..." button.
Now, in the "Select Users, Computers, Service Accounts, or Groups", click in the "Enter the object names to select (examples):" text box and type, "UK\Users" then click "OK".
Assure that the checkbox "Full control" is selected in the "Permissions for Users" area.
Finally click "OK".
Please call support if you have any problems or further questions.
...how the babies feel about the Drs Frankenstein modifying their DNA?
Does the chicken embryo complain when you fry it up for breakfast?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The Nazis and others abuses did a very poor job with eugenics, and destroyed the reputation of the field. Now it's impossible to even bring the subject up without immediate cries of 'NAZI!' killing the debate.
20 years or so from now, people not genetically "optimized" for a certain sport won't make it into the top ranks.
I don't mind, though, since everyone else can still enjoy sports for the fun of it. It's not like people stopped playing chess just because a PC is better than a grandmaster in that discipline...
Ever wonder why North Koreans all look alike?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If you think molecular biology isn't 'nerdy' than there is little hope for you.
Back to Reddit, son.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
i guess your parents could have requested you be genetically engineered to grow a pair and not be frightened of registering yourself on /.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Have you watched any of the GOP presidential debates?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Eugenics predates Nazism by quite a number of years. Nothing good ever came of either.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The problem with the field is that while for some genetic diseases, it's obvious that the elimination of those genes would in general be good, there are a good many traits that are either not really that bad, or where questionable methodologies have been used to declare them bad, or even worse where there is no genetic component whatsoever (ie. some if not many forms of mental disorder have little or genetic causation).
Forced sterlization, or even the nearly as insidious notion of "encouraging" sterilization (either through financial or other inducement) are just plain wrong. If there is any notion of human dignity, of basic liberty and freedoms, the idea that someone can be declared sufficiently atypical that you're going to disable their ovaries or testes has to be seen as wrong at the most basic level.
The other issue, of course, is what evolutionary sciences ACTUALLY teach us is that "purity" is the worst thing you can have. Variation in sexually producing species is absolutely tantamount to a species surviving in anything but the most closed environments. Accepting that essential notion of biology, that diversity is the engine of evolution, means accepting that sometimes evolutionary forces, at the individual level, are going to produce variants that will have some degree of lesser fitness than the norm.
I'm not arguing that we can't edit embryos, or even applying gene therapies to people after birth, and indeed there are genetic afflictions that I don't think anyone could argue we shouldn't try to eliminate. But eugenics is inevitably going to drift into areas where, even if there is a genetic "fix", the case that we are even looking at some trait generally agreed upon as sub-optimal should be insufficient to simple excise those genes from the gene pool.
And really, there was no "good" eugenics. There were certainly more strident applications of eugenics, of which the Nazis were the most egregious examples, but North America's flirtation with eugenics, which lasted well past the middle of the last century, were completely unethical and violated the most basic liberties anyone can ever have.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I can't wait for Emacs to have a CRISPR mode.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Didn't we hear the same thing in the mid-90's, before the biotech industry collapsed the first time. (It's crashing now ... again ... )
Why, yes, it is 20 years later. Still no designer babies.
Required reading for internet skeptics
May be, but we're smart enough to know that most North Koreans look alike. :p
Exactly. The record in the rest of the world was of forced sterilizations of people who, in many cases, had conditions for which there is no genetic component, or only a partial genetic component. There were a lot of victims of eugenics programs in the US and Canada, and it is indeed a shameful episode in North American history.
There's no "doing it right". It's one thing to repair genes that lead to conditions like autosomal disorders. It's quite another to sterilize people because they have mood disorders.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Imagine if Galileo had to 'ask permission' from the church to be allowed to use a telescope to look at the sky and 'ask for permission' to take observations that could propose heliocentric theory. We would still think the earth is the center of the universe, absurd.
Real scientists don't ask for permission... they just methodically investigate.
Also, real scientists aren't afraid of being punished by authorities, because their results disagree with popular notions.
"Now, would you like your child to have feet, or pods?"
vi or emacs?
I can see a way to do it right:
1. Identify people who have genes that are, quite clearly, not desirable in a very strong way. Huntington's would be a good place to start.
2. Explain to these people that they really ought not to breed. It'd be foolhardy. If they absolutely insist then there's not much that can be done to stop them, but they ought to have some sense of responsibility.
3. Here's a voucher for fast-track fostering/adoption processing, free sterilisation and IVF with PGD where possible. Use a sperm donor or surrogate if you must, just accept that your genes suck. Sorry. Make the best you can of it.
Look at the qualifications for fostering a child. They vary by country, but in general you have to go through a background check. You have to be vetted by a government authority to ensure your home will be a healthy environment. You have to be able to demonstrate a secure income and ability to meet the material needs of a child. When you get it, you'll be closely monitored for a time. Right now there's a family in the US taking legal action against the state because they believe in corporal punishment as a religious requirement and the state requires potential foster-parents sign a 'no violence' agreement. These are the standards which society has decided that a person must meet in order to take on the difficult, dangerous and vitally important task of raising a child.
Or, on the other hand, they could take the other route: "I got's me a pair 'o balls, guess that means I'm-a qualified to be a daddy." A standard that any idiot can meet, often accidentally, resulting in a great many children being born into families that do not have the support, resources or education to raise them.
1. invasive.
2. Be ready for lots of "Fuck off out of my face or I'll make you eat your nose, you fucking Nazi."
3. Be ready for lots of "Fuck off out of my face and stick your voucher up your arse as far as it'll go, and make sure there's enough room for my fist because that's going up there as well to rip out your spine."
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Your bank balance is not genetically predisposed to be a particular size. You're ridiculous post demonstrates why eugenics is bad. It ends up being used by fools and racists like you to punish people for attributes which have nothing to do with genetics.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Which is another attempt at incentivizing sterilization. It is unethical. Period.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It is.
But allowing people to breed, knowing they will create offspring doomed to die of a terrible genetic condition, when there are alternative options available? Also unethical.
Life does not give you nice right-and-wrong dilemmas. Sometimes you have to decide which one is the least wrong. I'm going with the eugenics option. It isn't even that invasive: There are alternative options available for obtaining a child without passing on the bad genes.