CRISPR: Chinese Scientists To Pioneer Gene-Editing Trial On Humans (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A team of Chinese scientists will be the first in the world to apply the revolutionary gene-editing technique known as CRISPR on human subjects. Led by Lu You, an oncologist at Sichuan University's West China hospital in Chengdu, China, the team plan to start testing cells modified with CRISPR on patients with lung cancer in August, according to the journal Nature. CRISPR is a game-changer in bioscience; a groundbreaking technique which can find, cut out and replace specific parts of DNA using a specially programmed enzyme named Cas9. Its ramifications are next to endless, from changing the color of mouse fur to designing malaria-free mosquitoes and pest-resistant crops to correcting a wide swath of genetic diseases like sickle-cell anaemia in humans. The Sichuan University trial, it is important to note, does not edit the germ-line; its effects will not be hereditary. What the researchers plan to do is enroll patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, Nature reported, and for whom other treatment options -- including chemotherapy and radiotherapy -- have failed. They will then extract immune cells from the patients' blood and use CRISPR to add a new genetic sequence which will help the patient's immune system target and destroy the cancer. The cells will then be re-introduced into the patients' bloodstream. The Guardian does note that CRISPR was approved for human trials in the U.S., but if it begins on schedule in August the Sichuan University study will beat them to the punch of being the first of its kind.

Comments

Eugenics

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary hints at the real plans, which are to experiment with human genes to vary appearance and other attributes, just like experimentation on animals. The obvious purpose is eugenics, in order to create designer humans and weed out the undesirables. This is morally and ethically wrong. And because it's a bit harder to get away with this in the United States, scientists have secret meetings like the one about making a custom human genome, and then move their work to China. This is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Say no to eugenics.

Re:Eugenics

[backslashdot]

Uh, gene editing is totally different than eugenics which literally prevented people with traits that were considered "undesirable" from reproducing. Eugenics involves infringing on someone's right to reproduce. Gene editing however is no different than choosing an green eyed partner because you want your kids to have that trait. Is that wrong? With gene editing you can choose a brown eyed partner and get an green eyed kid. It's not evil. You can have a kid with a black woman and your kids can still look white. Anyway, it's not eugenics. A person has the right to change their own genes. How can you tell me I can't change my own DNA? If I can change my own DNA, then why can't I change the DNA of my offspring as long as the offspring is not deliberately injured or made to suffer by it. You wanna talk about risk, what about women over 40 who have kids? That risks the baby to all kinds of stuff. While I don't advocate using CRISPR this early for gene editting this early. Long term, I see nothing morally or ethically wrong with using it once the technology is proven to be lower risk than say a woman having a baby after age 38.

You have no right to tell me that I can't change my DNA and, in addition, you can't tell me I can't fix any broken genes in my kids -- unless it is a trait deliberately to hurt them. I mean you have no right to tell me how to raise my kids either, unless it is child abuse. It should be the same way with gene editing.

Re:Eugenics

[ShanghaiBill]

This is morally and ethically wrong.

Why? Because you said so? Nazi style eugenics is morally wrong because it involved murdering people. This does not, so I don't see any moral or ethical problem. How is this any more morally wrong than, say, pregnant women taking folic acid supplements to reduce birth defects, thus "weeding out the undesirables"?

Re: Eugenics

[Anonymous Coward]

Abortion is mostly done out of convenience reasons. Things like wanting to pursue a career, or not being ready in current life's situation. Or because the partner doesn't seem to fit. The least people do abortions because of eugenic reasons. And in fact, some of the religious people who argue against abortion even still want to allow abortion of impaired children or children with very grave diseases. But that's only a tiny fraction of the abortions.

Don't get me wrong, I support the right for women to do abortion in the first few months of the pregnancy. But the discussion is not about eugenics but about convenience. Life should be easy for women and for men, regardless of which sexual life they lead. And its good for men as well. Ability to do abortions == more women liking to have promiscutary sex.

Re:Eugenics

[Hognoxious]

This is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

[pointing to a line of clones] This is Wong, Wong, Wong, Wong...

Re: Eugenics

[mentil]

If parents could eliminate the possibility of their child having any homosexual feelings, would they do it? Even in a tolerant society? Would "I can't help it, it's in my genes" be accepted as a reason for being different, when your parents modified their gametes and chose to leave that one in? What if parents modified their gametes so that their children would definitely be homosexual?
I imagine these questions have been asked before, but the answer was always "it'll never happen; we're here, we're queer, deal with it." Now people will have to start to deal with a potential 'treatment'; I seem to recall X-men had something to say about this.

Re: Eugenics

[backslashdot]

Well that is now but wait till political and financial considerations come into effect. I mean if you have to deal with a budget the way your decisions are made will change. For example a person who is lazy or has a slightly increased risk of getting a depression or disease that is expensive to treat will be undesirable in your eyes. Not to mention entire feared ethnic groups.

Eugenics is not only morally bad, it is evolutionarily shortsighted too. Eugenics says for example, that a person born with a condition that prevents them from walking should not reproduce. But then what if that person also has a separate gene that makes them super smart? With eugenics, the intelligence gene is lost. With gene editing the person can fix the walking defect and have offspring such that the intelligence genes propagate.

With gene editing people with obviously bad traits can still reproduce. We won't get any closer to solving the slippery slope issue but as everyone chooses the intelligence genes someone in the future can solve it.

Re: Eugenics

[angel'o'sphere]

As homosexuallity is not a genetic trait ...

Sorry? What are you actually asking?

Parents tinkering with stuff that is unrelated to anything?

On the other hand if it was a genetic trait, I - as a superiour ruler - would treat everyone to be bisexual and would demand every second sunday a official holiday with a mandatory orgy to attend for everyone above 30.

Don't worry!

[Black Parrot]

GMO humans will still be safe to eat.

Why do they call it CRISPR?

[mapkinase]

CRISPR is just a passive nucleotide constract. It's the CAS system that does the work.

CRISPR/CAS.

Goals

[nehumanuscrede]

Consequences or true motivations aside, if they can get a viable genetic treatment to work, it would be stupid not to cheer them on.

Cancer is one of our biggest killers and, to date, our methods of dealing with it are nearly as harmful as the cancer itself.

A year or two of treatments can easily bankrupt a person with zero guarantees the treatments will even be successful.

Technology and advances in science can be downright scary depending on intended use but we would not be what we are today without the willingness to take that risk.