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.

Comments

Not quite the same thing is already being done.

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Not quite the same thing is already being done.

[The Real Dr John]

And why is the test of worthiness for a medical procedure whether it can be "mass marketed"? What neoliberal thinking. How about if it is cheap, and effective, maybe then it doesn't matter if it is not "mass marketable"? I find it fascinating that people don't care about solutions to problems if they think they won't make lots of money.

Crispr/Cas is a very interesting gene editing technology that looks like it is going to replace current methods. But as with all existing methods, getting it to edit exactly what you want, the way you want, is a bit tricky. But it works well enough that it is being used on a wide scale basis to make gene knockout animals and cell lines.

Re:Not quite the same thing is already being done.

[the gnat]

why is the test of worthiness for a medical procedure whether it can be "mass marketed"

Because someone has to pay for the research and development - which, please remember, involves large-scale clinical trials to get regulatory approval - and they're not going to front the money for a treatment that has no chance of recouping their investment, unless they have some other personal interest. You can wring your hands all you want about society's priorities, but new medical procedures aren't magically exempt from basic rules of supply and demand.

Re:quit your bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

You were not created to hypothesize about such things. Cease now or be punished for eternity.

Virus

[SumDog]

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?

Re:Virus

[ShanghaiBill]

If the mechanism involves using a virus, couldn't there be massive unintended consequences if the virus transfers to another host?

Viruses already exist, any many of them do things much more nasty than fixing T-cells. CRISPR is programmed to target a specific sequence of DNA, usually around 40 base pairs. Since each pair is two bits, the chance of this sequence just randomly occurring is around 2^80.

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?

If someone has sex with their identical twin, that twin's cancer may also be cured. Otherwise, nothing will likely happen.
Far more dangerous DNA modifications are happening naturally on a nearby toilet seat.

Re:Virus

[gurps_npc]

Ideally the virus is not sexually transmittable. They want to use viruses that do not have the ability to reproduce in a cell. They can only reproduce in the lab. So you manufacture the viruses in large quantities, remove T Cells, then infect the T Cells. The T cells have their DNA modified in a way to make them more likely to fight the cancer, but do NOT have their DNA modified to make more viruses - that code is not built into the viruses.

Then you inject them back into the human, where the T Cells make their way back to your natural immune system. The natural immune system sees the modified DNA in their T Cells and copies it - again without coying any of the original virus.

Re:quit your bitching

[frovingslosh]

Stupid AC. There is no god. And no Santa or Easter Bunny either. You were lied to.

Re:Crisper

[93 Escort Wagon]

My fridge has a crisper, and i don't think it's doing a particularly good job at combating cancer

You bought the wrong brand. We've had our General Electric fridge for over a decade, and we haven't observed even one case of vegetable cancer.

Just to clarify

[frovingslosh]

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?