Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Argue the US Ban on Human Gene Editing Will Leave It Behind (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the hard-questions dept.

Alex Pearlman, reporting for Motherboard: As the biotech revolution accelerates globally, the U.S. could be getting left behind on key technological advances: namely, human genetic modification. A Congressional ban on human germline modification has "drawn new lines in the sand" on gene editing legislation, argues a paper published today in Science by Harvard law and bioethics professor I. Glenn Cohen and leading biologist Eli Adashi of Brown University. They say that without a course correction, "the United States is ceding its leadership in this arena to other nations." Germline gene modification is the act of making heritable changes to early stage human embryos or sex cells that can be passed down to the next generation, and it will be banned in the US. This is different from somatic gene editing, which is editing cells of humans that have already been born. The ban, added by the House of Representatives as a rider to the fiscal year 2016 budget, could have far-reaching implications if it continues to be annually renewed, according to the authors. It "undermines ongoing conversations on the possibility of human germline modification" and also affects "ongoing efforts by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to review the prevention of mitochondrial DNA diseases," including some kinds of hearing and vision impairments, among other serious illnesses that tend to develop in young children.

12 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Do I have this right? by kwbauer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    GMOs are the worst thing to ever be unleashed on the world because it is gene-splicing done by mainly US firms but it is horrible that the US is not engaging in "unnatural" (not sperm and egg) gene-splicing of human DNA?

    Or restated as "direct manipulation of non-human DNA is worse than admiring Hitler but direct manipulation of human DNA is the best thing ever."

    1. Re:Do I have this right? by CountZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least among the people I know, GMOs aren't bad because of the gene manipulation itself. Instead, they are considered bad because that manipulation results in significantly higher concentrations of pesticides being used on GMO crops (as the crops are now "roundup ready" or whatever). It is these higher concentrations of pesticides that are considered dangerous, not the genetic manipulation.

    2. Re:Do I have this right? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not all gmo crops are "roundup ready." Strawberries that are resistant to frost are just one example. Tomatoes that have a longer shelf life, GMO tomatoes have been around for 2 decades with no problems. Turns out the people you know are none too swift. Most of the food on store shelves contains gmos.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Do I have this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      At least among the people I know, GMOs aren't bad because of the gene manipulation itself. Instead, they are considered bad because anti GMO people are morons.

      Fixed that for.

    4. Re:Do I have this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what is wrong with labeling them? We label vitamins. We label prescriptions. We label water bottles. Why is labeling GMOs so terrible?

    5. Re:Do I have this right? by Copid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually I think most of the problem with GMOs has to do with them being modified such that they don't produced replantable seed. That scares the hell out of me. If for some reason the company that produces it goes away then you can't continue using it. Become dependent enough on it and you are entirely dependent on that company and they can pretty much charge whatever the hell they want.

      1) This isn't a real thing. It was an idea that never got into marketed products. It would actually probably be a good thing because people would shit their pants less about GMOs "getting out" and ruining the world if they were sterile. But they're not. You can absolutely harvest seeds from and replant the GMO seeds that you buy. You'll just be violating the agreement you signed with the provider.

      2) Farmers buying seeds every year isn't a new thing. In many industries, farmers never save their seeds. Often, it's because they're using a special hybrid that doesn't breed true (the second generation gets a whole variety of unpredictable traits instead of the traits you want). Sometimes its because the seed saving process for that plant is not worth the effort and is better left to the professionals. The idea of farmers saving their seeds closed-loop as the norm is a myth believed mostly by non-farmers.

      Additionally these companies have a tendency to sue the crap out of farmers that don't use their product if they find any evidence of their product on that farm.

      1) This is also false. Look through the actual legal cases in question. There are relatively few of them, and they don't involve "accidents" at all.

      2) How do you square this with your belief that GM seeds aren't replantable? It's not surprising that scary myths get around, but it's kind of amazing that people can hold two mutually exclusive myths in their heads at once.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    6. Re:Do I have this right? by Copid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's nothing wrong with labeling per se. It's just that labeling mandates are basically a scam to allow this to happen:

      Scientists: This stuff is safe.
      Organic industry: If it's safe, why not label it?
      [labels go in]
      Organic industry: If it's safe, why are there MANDATORY LABELS? BOOGA BOOGA! Buy organic!

      The problem of people wanting to find GMO free food is easily solved by voluntary labels put on by companies that want to cater to people with food hang-ups. It works for Kosher, and there's already a "Non-GMO Project Verified" label that's perfectly happy to scam you out of your cash by putting its stamp on salt and bottled water.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  2. That's sort of the point by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A: Human gene editing could lead us to a dark place, let's not do that.

    B: This will cause us to be left behind in the science of human gene editing!

    A: Yes, well, that was rather the point, wasn't it?

    Obviously this was the intent. I'd personally be willing to take a few risks to get the cure for cancer, but if Europe takes the risks we still get the cure for cancer - just not the profits from it.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. People who get upset over GMO Foods by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seem surprisingly willing to push Frankenpeople.

    Oh well the U.S. also pioneered eugenics but was left in the dust by European nations and that worked out well.

  4. guinea pigs by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the adjustments are "simple" fixes like curing a disease by correcting a mutation or two, I see no problem with it.

    But if it's about making a "super race" by fiddling with body type or the brain, then I say let other countries be the guinea pigs and learn the hard road lessons of fiddling.

    We can gradually adopt practices that prove themselves over time.

    However, I can image a scenario where a given set of tweaks makes say 95% of the subjects faster, smarter, and/or more disciplined, etc., but 5% have nasty side-effects. Such countries may conclude the trade-off is worth it and have an overall better GDP even if some suffer because of it.

    That creates a conundrum: how do you compete with a country ready to throw a percentage of their population under the bus to get aggregate gains, especially if they become a military risk to us.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. Re:alternate point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree with your assertion. The OP didn't come across as an asshole in the slightest. Your post was literally jarring. You made a good point and then finished it so crudely for no reason. What's wrong with you?

  6. Re:Behind what? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We used to consider that important, we used to brain drain other countries. Now look at us.. stuck in a spiral of trickle down economics. Nobody wants to do anything grand or do any kind of leadership in any field. We're more happy collecting less taxes.