Slashdot Mirror
Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials (bloomberg.com)
Tom Randall, reporting for Bloomberg Technology:An experimental cancer treatment that alters the DNA of patients has won a key approval to proceed with its first human tests using the controversial gene-altering tool known as Crispr. Scientists from the University of Pennsylvania want to edit the immune systems of 18 patients to target cancer cells more effectively. The experiment, backed by internet billionaire Sean Parker, won approval from the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), a federal ethics panel set up at the National Institutes of Health 40 years ago to review controversial experiments that change the human genome. The trial still needs final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The experiment targets difficult-to-treat cases of multiple myeloma, sarcoma, and melanoma. The scientists will remove blood samples from patients and alter their T-cells -- central to human immune response -- to more effectively target and pursue cancer. The T cells will then be infused back into patients and studied for the safety and effectiveness of the technique.STAT News has an article in which it discusses the probable consequences of altering the DNA of a cancer patient.
They already have a procedure similar to this where they harvest and grow unmodified T-Cells. They extract them from vicinity of the tumor and then replicate them.
It's a little bit like cloning Osmosis Jones.
It looks like either approach is highly custom and not any sort of mass market thing.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yea, yea, you're going to post something like "alters the DNA of patients, what could possibly go wrong". But it is backed by a billionaire, so he is going to get to do whatever he wants. Stop complaining and move on, nothing to see here.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
This sounds like where the T-virus starts...
One thing I have to wonder about: If the mechanism involves using a virus, couldn't there be massive unintended consequences if the virus transfers to another host? Even if a virus isn't very communicable, and can't survive outside of a host, what if the patient transmits it sexually after treatment?
OK, so it will do me no good that way....
But Just think - a real way to 'fuck' cancer!
and the public service banners and posters, advertisements and announcements:
"Fuck around to prevent cancer!"
Hahahahahahaha.... wimper...
who will they be?
My fridge has a crisper, and i don't think it's doing a particularly good job at combating cancer
Hillary shill posing as racist Trump supporter detected.
This is incredible technology, The daisy chain gene drive though is about as hard core sci-fi as you can get. But genetics are essentially hyper complex software, and a lot can go wrong when jumping in on someone else's undocumented code.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
https://www.ted.com/talks/jenn...
and the main actor was a prince or something?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
In other to treat someone, they are used and aren't recreated so you have to buy more of them from wealthy corporations. Also, these corporations make it so that they work only for one person, so you can't share. This is why those hateful Republicans love it, just like they love the sterile Monsanto seeds.
We should be careful with any powerful new tool. Unintended consequences are likely.
We were created with two overpowering imperatives hardwired in. We have, built-in, an intense desire to a) live and b) mate. We were also built with a big brain for figuring out ways to do those two things. It seems that He/it/nature designed us to try to survive.
We were also, if you believe in the Bible, a bunch of tips on how to do these things wisely, also summarized as ten rules. Rhe rule about mating being "don't try to screw somebody else's wife" - that tends to cause trouble.
Nowhere do I see "thou shall not mess with DNA". I DO see the admonition to plan ahead before beginning any large project. I see the advice to have a solid backup plan. Nothing about DNA though. Interestingly, the New Testament DOES mention breeding horses with donkeys to make mules, an "unnatural" combination of DNA , and does not disapprove.
Les Enfants Terribles is right around the corner.
> There is no god. And no Santa or Easter Bunny either.
By around age six, most kids outgrow the cartoon image of Saint Nick as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. They gain a little more mature understanding of Saint Nick as someone who personified generosity.
Unfortunately, some people hold on to the same preschool, cartoonish image of God as an old guy with a white beard who gives out presents. Realizing that cartoons aren't real, they imagine they can deduce that God isn't real. Certainly the cartoonish conception of God that understood when you were two years old isn't real, just like cartoon Saint Nick.
I have altered your DNA.
Pray I do not alter it further.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Just to clarify, I believe in the one true God, born of God the father and a mortal woman, who wore a beard and sandals and traveled the mid-east doing miraculous feats and building a religious following. Yes, like many others, I worship Hercules. And of course I know that all other gods are false and all who worship them are idiots.
And I do understand that the story of my god sounds an awful lot like the religious myth of Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda. But that's just how religion works. Why make up a new silly story when you can just reuse a ludicrous story that it has already been shown that people will fall for?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
We should be careful with any powerful new tool. Unintended consequences are likely.
We were created with two overpowering imperatives hardwired in. We have, built-in, an intense desire to a) live and b) mate. We were also built with a big brain for figuring out ways to do those two things. It seems that He/it/nature designed us to try to survive.
We were also, if you believe in the Bible, a bunch of tips on how to do these things wisely, also summarized as ten rules. Rhe rule about mating being "don't try to screw somebody else's wife" - that tends to cause trouble.
Nowhere do I see "thou shall not mess with DNA". I DO see the admonition to plan ahead before beginning any large project. I see the advice to have a solid backup plan. Nothing about DNA though. Interestingly, the New Testament DOES mention breeding horses with donkeys to make mules, an "unnatural" combination of DNA , and does not disapprove.
I had a research methods class in my undergrad degree where we were assigned to research the validity of the concept of intelligent design and argue for or against as a final project. My presentation had a section on an example where intelligent design can be proven as a real thing. I put forth the concept that the only example of intelligent design on this planet is the dog. Humans carefully controlled the breeding of the wolf to enhance certain traits until the various breeds of dogs came about. Intelligent design has to have an intelligence behind it or it is not intelligent design. Evolution is not intelligent design unless there is a means to an end as there is in the case of the dog. No gene engineering needed, but the use of CRISPR for various purposes is possibly example 2 of intelligent design on this planet. Hopefully we handle it as well as we did with mans best friend.
Dick Pryer was a shit-skin (AKA a nigger).
how Deadpool came to be ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I had an internship at a place that did research bringing things like this to market. The problem isn't just marketability. The problem is being able to reproduce something. There is a big gap between what one very smart person can do in their lab, and what a factory can produce. A technique that can't be mass produced can't help the masses. Profit is obviously a motive, and that's an entirely different discussion. That being said, a lot of really interesting research is lost because it can't be made into a product, and it's a big problem. Even if a charity wanted to give this away for free, it's not possible without being able to make this into a mass marketable product.
And I do understand that the story of my god sounds an awful lot like the religious myth of Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda.
The latter of which sounds like a good name for a car dealership.
This is not about survival, it is a purely money making venture.
Saving people is a side-effect and they don't give one fuck if it happens or not.
The Nixon administration systematically-destroyed the commissioned-study by the Medical College of Virginia that showed Delta-9-THC killed many cancerous cell-types, both benign and malignant. From that study:
“Delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol (CBN) all inhibited primary Lewis lung tumor growth, whereas cannabidiol (CBD) enhanced tumor growth. Oral administration of 25, 50, or 100 mg delta-9-THC/kg inhibited primary tumor growth 8, 72, and 75 percent respectively, when measured 12 days post tumor inoculation. On day 19, mice given delta-9-THC had a 34 percent reduction in primary tumor size. On day 30, primary tumor size of 76 percent that of controls and only those given 100 mg delta-9-THC/kg had a significant increase in survival time (36 percent).”
In Feburary 2000, Dr. Manuel Guzman, et. al., of Complutense University found that THC killed 'incurable' brain tumors --emphasis added, as they're not as 'incurable' as once thought. The main findings:
“Delta-9 THC, the main active component of marijuana, induces apoptosis of transformed neural cells in culture. Here, we show that intratumoral administration of delta-9-THC and the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN-55,212-2 induced a considerable regression of malignant gliomas in Wistar rats and in mice deficient in recombination activating gene 2. Cannabinoid treatment did not produce any substantial neurotoxic effect in the conditions used. Experiments with two subclones of C6 glioma cells in culture showed that cannabinoids signal apoptosis by a pathway involving cannabinoid receptors, sustained ceramide accumulation and Raf1/extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation. These results may provide the basis for a new therapeutic approach for the treatment of malignant gliomas.”
Source for both studies is at: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/02/worth_repeating_1974_govt_study_showed_thc_shrinks.php
Apoptosis is the key word here. Everyone has cancerous cells most of the time in their life, yet our immune system should be capable of taking care of the problem. The main problem is that too many people are fat, sick, and tired from too many toxic 'hits' from the environment, e.g., pollution, off-gassing from the many plastics in our house and car, like carpet and dashboards. Not to mention that you can't have clean food without clean water and air...
It's been shown that The Gerson Therapy (Max and Emily, his daughter) can give your immune system that boost it needs to put cancer back in remission --remission is a weird word, as a healthy person is constantly in remission, as their immune system is working properly. These mainly-raw food diets have also been shown to reverse Type-2 diabetes, as well as help Type-1 diabetics use up to 60% less insulin.
Let's not forget about stem cells. They can do soooo much if only we could get over the concept that 'viable stem cells' need to come from fetal-only sources. A clinic in Broomfield, Colorado was having amazing results with cloning individuals' adult stem cells and injecting them, directly, to sites that were damaged; like torn tendon and ligament. In post-Jesus Bush's world, stem cells get the short shaft because of religious fundamentalism while researchers in Europe, China, etc. get to have all the fun.
So, why the hell is CRISPR getting human trials before mice, chimps, etc?? It's an amazing piece of technology that was bound to come along, but it's potential for abuse is probably being studied as I write this... The Pentagon wants super-soldiers that can heal like Wolverine/Deadpool, y'know. We all know what trouble that led to the crew of the Enterprise... KAHN!!!!!!
And, I can't help but remember that Star Trek:TNG episode where the researchers discovered that they were being sickened by the genetically-enhanced children, of whom they modified their immune system to perform at peak-operating level.
So, to cap it off, THC is good, m'kay..? Technology isn't bad, but the ethics of its use need to be properly discussed.
No sig for you! Come back one year!