Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Argue the US Ban on Human Gene Editing Will Leave It Behind (vice.com)
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.
depends on the editing
Which scientist? Dr. Moreau, Dr. Jeckyll, or Dr. Frankenstein?
China's rise to #1 status will be through the next genetic technology revolution.
Putting in place these limitations allows us to find alternative solutions, its great to fix unborn babies, but currently 100% of the human population has been born, so fixing problems in aged individuals maybe better to encourage.
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."
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.
Behind countries doing gene splicing to create Frankenfoods?
Yeah, not a big deal. We just outsource the wet lab part of the study to Canada or the EU anyway. Then we do the grunt work here.
Want to know what's leaving us behind?
Money spent on higher education and grants.
That's where the missing part is.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
Ah come on guys. China is getting mutant super solders.
Science may now be capable redefining the human condition and if we aren't at the forefront of this crime against nature
well then that's just un-American.
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.
(Sec. 749) Prohibits the FDA from acknowledging applications for an exemption for investigational use of a drug or biological product in research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification. Provides that any submission is deemed not to have been received, and the exemption may not go into effect.
While this prevents any FDA approval, I don't see how it would stop scientists from performing experiments, and it doesn't seem to have any criminal or civil penalties attached to it. Are there other bills that provide for this?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Genetically-enhanced communist super-humans are going to seduce our undersexed Millennials! Sexually-transmitted retroviruses will modify their genome to make them more communist! Code Red! Code Red! *starts breathing into paper bag*
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Meanwhile, the NIH is lifting it's ban on chimera research.
All it does is prevent the procedure from being performed in the US. It also keeps the U.S.A. out of the initial lawsuits. Quite frankly if your doing germ line editing then everyone involved needs their "rights" voided. It's dangerous enough and the U.S. can't afford the lawsuits.
But of course U.S. companies are going to be involved in the "research" and profits. The procedures just won't be performed here.
Jawohl, mein Führer!
Eichmann: If we don't drown Jews in the freezing tanks of water, we will FALL BEHIND in the study of human thermodynamics and hypothermia!
Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD.
There are some things that it's perhaps better to "fall behind" on?
-Styopa
How long before some company GMOs a human, copyrights them, and claims ownership?
But then iot turned out that the best treatments are from stem cells harvested from your own body. Stem cells from other bodies turned out to become cancerous.
I'd be less concerned about the effects of the ban and way more concerned about the ignorance and hostility to science that's behind it.
Log in or piss off.
Conversation overheard in Syria in 2028...
"Who wants to go to the U.S.?"
"Not me. I hear that hyper religious shithole still has people who have Type 1 diabetes and Huntington's disease... can't you freaking imagine?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If this is developed in the US, its going to cost the world 200X as much money. Let Europe do it, and just license it to us. Besides, once it is pioneered, we will all just go to Mexico to have our unborn modified anyway, its only 10% of the price, and ...... almost as good.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
How bad science starts. "No we are not going to do this" lasts about 20 years. Then Rogue nations start doing it, and then we think we need to protect ourselves from a SuperRace [Star Treks Khan Type] So we start research. Now we also have research into artificial brains. So in the near future those two will get together and eliminate humans. The rise of the machines Fade to black.
Du bist ein unwissender Übersetzer, du sollst lernen, Deutsch zu sprechen!
Is that not the real problem? The interpretation of a 2000 year-old book, by just a few really and then a larger number of people have to accept their word, determines what is acceptable research and what is not. Then given enough elected legislators among that larger number and it affects laws around the research.
The interpretation is sometimes confusing though. I've never read it but I'm led to believe there is an assertion within it, "Thou shalt not kill", but the interpreters of the book don't object to extremely well funded military research. There won't be anything in the book about human germline modification because of being written 2000 years ago but apparently the book would still forbid that.
How am I supposed to get my augmentations without becoming addicted to Neuropozyne if Sarif's gene therapy is outtlawed? Darrow or Taggart must be behind this!
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
How do you square [patent infringement lawsuits] with your belief that GM seeds aren't replantable?
I mentally resolved this cognitive dissonance into alternative pleading to the following effect: "Some GMO plants introduce a terminator gene, whose intentionally failing pollination could cause defects in neighboring farmers' crops. And even those that don't have a terminator gene are a patent hazard for neighboring farmers."
We label for ingredients, not for processes.
For one thing, DNA is a material present in uncooked food, making it arguably part of an ingredient. (I admit to not having read your definition of "ingredient". If you wish, I can discuss this issue in the context of on a cited definition.) For another, the nutritional value of each ingredient depends on the plant's phenotype, which is affected by changes to its genotype.
we'd repeal the DMCA
A complete repeal of the DMCA would include a repeal of 17 USC 512, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. This would take away the defense that allows sites that display user-uploaded-works, such as YouTube and Slashdot, to continue to operate without requiring editorial review of each post. Instead of forcing one comment off Slashdot, Scientology would have been able to close Slashdot entirely.
A complete repeal of the DMCA would also include a repeal of 17 USC 117(c). This would restore the dangerous precedent set in MAI v. Peak, which forbids independent repair shops to turn on a device that contains copyrighted firmware.
Or did you refer only to 17 USC 1201, the circumvention ban, and not its riders?
I think we've pretty much decided that the only thing we'll ever produce here is crappy super hero movies.
And even that bubble is due to burst by the end of this decade. Luis Prada explains.
Cancer is not something that can be cured. You can't cure "virus".
So say "No", but that is precisely what is meant by "overly rigid definition"
Again, no. It's clear from the original quote that they don't think that broad categories can be cured ('cancer', 'virus'), rather than (for example) thinking cancer can be 'treated' but not really 'cured'. Changing the definition of 'cure' wouldn't affect their critique, but saying "cure every kind of cancer" instead might.
You really are a useless twit.
Absolutely correct, good on you for spotting the obvious. But then again, I'm not a cowardly useless twit, like some people.