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.

28 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. alternate point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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?

    2. Re: alternate point of view by serbanp · · Score: 3, Funny

      He/she may be suffering from a Mitochondrial disease...

  2. 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 WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Among actual scientists, GMOs are a considered a beneficial technology and legislation to oppose GMOs is ignorant and detrimental to society. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    3. 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.
    4. Re:Do I have this right? by Copid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention that while everybody freaks out over Roundup, it's pretty darned benign compared to some of the herbicides it replaced. It disrupts a biological process in plants that does not exist in humans, has low acute and chronic toxicity and breaks down in soil pretty well. There's a reason it's popular, and contrary to what the checker at Whole Foods might tell people, it's not because Monsanto Men in Black show up and threaten farmers who don't use it.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    5. 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?

    6. Re:Do I have this right? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      The difference between herbicide and pesticide

      Technically speaking here, as per legal definitions, a pesticide is anything that kills an unwanted organism. An insecticide kills insects, a miticide kills mites, a rodentacide kills rodents, a fungicide kills fungi, an herbicide kills weeds, and all are technically pesticides, although in the common vernacular, pesticide and insecticide are frequently used interchangeably.

      I agree with what you're saying, and the parent poster most likely was using the word pesticide to mean insecticide (because there is a lot of confusion around those terms), but in case anyone tries to get pedantic on you for making the probably correct assumption that the parent posted didn't know what they were talking about, you should know that referring to an herbicide as a pesticide is technically correct, although imprecise and confusing.

    7. Re: Do I have this right? by Copid · · Score: 2

      Think of how much farther ahead we might be if people weren't wrapped around the axle believing false narratives like this. The organic industry PR machine and kooky environmental groups have done a great job of making the median intelligent person believe stuff that's largely nonsense.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    8. 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"
    9. Re:Do I have this right? by Copid · · Score: 2

      By my count:

      Medicine: 41
      Chemistry: 34
      Physics: 25
      Economics: 8
      Literature: 1
      Peace: 1

      I don't know how many holders of the price in Medicine are alive right now, but I would have to guess that 41 of them is a pretty substantial percentage. It seems like mostly relevant people. Not sure why the literature and peace price winners jumped in there. At a glance I don't see much that's relevant in their background. But yeah, I'd say that this list doesn't compare very closely to Jenny McCarthy's idiot brigade.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    10. Re:Do I have this right? by Copid · · Score: 2

      That's not a solution. It has to be mandatory or companies aren't going to bother putting the label on unless it's cheap to go without the GMO technology.

      It "has to be mandatory" if your goal is to push people away from GMO products, not if your goal is provide a supply of verifiable non-GMO food for people who want them. Your point about there being a "well defined market" for Kosher foods gives the game away. Your goal is not to find non-GMO foods to buy. You can already get that by buying Organic or "Non-GMO Project" labels. You want to create a larger market by putting a scary looking label on perfectly safe food and making "non-GMO" something people look for as a mark of safety or quality.

      But, the biggest issue is that non-Kosher foods do not destroy the Kosher versions. GMOs can and do destroy non-GMOs that are grown in close proximity.

      This is a very interesting comparison because the definition of "destroy" is pretty strange. We could likewise say that non-GMO plants in the proximity of GMO plants "destroys" the GMO plants through cross-pollination. It's a weird religious insistence on purity that's at stake, just like in the case of Kosher. Imagine this: I have a requirement that none of my food be grown near power lines and I refuse to eat any plant that has any power line plants in is family history. Now we have a problem: Nobody will create "non power line plant" labeled food for me, so I need a mandate. Fortunately, one I get the mandate, I can build a constituency of people who share my hangup. Unfortunately, we need to drive the power line plants out of existence, because their very presence can ruin entire fields of my non power line produce! Ruined, I tell you!

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  3. 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.
    1. Re:That's sort of the point by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      [...] if Europe takes the risks we still get the cure for cancer - just not the profits from it.

      Yeah...

      We would be benefiting from the very thing that we banned for ethical reasons.... The ban on gene editing should be tied to a ban on science, treatments and medicine derived from banned work as well. Otherwise, what's the point?

      I am, by the way, completely for unrestricted research into all aspects of science so long as no humans or animals are harmed.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:That's sort of the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What happens if we make a human that is toxic to other humans?

      I'm pretty sure George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton already exist.

  4. 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.

  5. Well if bob next door gets one... by jimbob6 · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. 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.
    1. Re:guinea pigs by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      You are implying some arbitrary normal human as a baseline reference. And the only difference between those two scenarios is whether you are moving someone up to that baseline or past that baseline. But why should we set the goalpost at average human instead of setting the goalpost of optimum human potential? Most of us who aren't Olympic-level athletes and super-geniuses all has some genetic conditions that hold us back from reaching the greatest heights of human achievement. If those conditions can be fixed genetically, then why shouldn't they be? That's like saying that only people who are bad at math should be allowed to use calculators.

    2. Re:guinea pigs by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      "But... Nazis!" I'm trying hard to fathom how having superb eyesight, hearing, strength, intelligence, memory, etc. is arbitrarily fashionable. The fundamental aspects that define the human experience is not something that is merely cosmetic.

      Besides, technology and society over time shapes us by removing natural pressures that select for positive traits. Since breeding kennels for humans would be considered immoral and impractical, using direct genetic manipulation is the only acceptable method for improving the human condition rather than to let it continue to deteriorate.

      I'll bet in a hundred years scientists will look back and shake their heads at how superstitious and gullible people were to FUD, where rather than try to fundamentally improve the human condition the only choice was to have 'God' babies and roll the dice on genetically inheritable diseases and inferiorities. It'll seem primitive and barbaric, and needlessly cruel.

  7. Re:Yes, it will prevent research within the US by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've always wanted to learn German. I didn't know I could learn it through gene modification technology.

  8. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Jzanu · · Score: 2

    The problem is more from restrictions on federal research funds, and the rules against related research in labs receiving any federal funds. See here for an example.

  9. Re:Yes, it will prevent research within the US by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've always wanted to learn German. I didn't know I could learn it through gene modification technology.

    Well, when they cross Homo Sapiens and the Suidae family of even-toed ungulates they will speak Pig Latin.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  10. Re:On the other hand by Jzanu · · Score: 2

    Jawohl, mein Führer!

  11. 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.

  12. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by kwbauer · · Score: 2

    Only limiting it in so far as no company sees any profit motive for risking its own money but plenty of profit motive for risking my money. I think that is what you meant to say.

    I often wonder how anybody gets along without the government sending somebody by to shove the food down their mouths and wipe their ass when it comes out the other end when I read such tomfoolery as that.