Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Human Embryos Edited In US (technologyreview.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the there's-a-first-for-everything dept.

randomErr shares a report from MIT Technology Review: The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon, MIT Technology Review has learned. The effort, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, involved changing the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos with the gene-editing technique CRISPR. Until now, American scientists have watched as scientists elsewhere were first to explore the controversial practice. To date, three previous reports of editing human embryos were all published by scientists in China. Now Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases. In altering the DNA code of human embryos, the objective of scientists is to show that they can eradicate or correct genes that cause inherited disease, like the blood condition beta-thalassemia. The process is termed "germline engineering" because any genetically modified child would then pass the changes on to subsequent generations via their own germ cells -- the egg and sperm. Reached by Skype, Mitalipov declined to comment on the results, which he said are pending publication. But other scientists confirmed the editing of embryos using CRISPR.

6 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Gattaca predicted the outcome in 1997 by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...

    This is heading us into a scary and evil world. Not to mention all the screw-ups that will happen. Edit gene blah to fix pimples... whoops that gives you an automatic heart attack at age 30.

    A few years back I remember seeing all the Chinese scientists talking about editing human genes so that they would not crave meat. It'd be cheaper to feed them that way. GREAT IDEA, WHAT COULD GO WRONG?!!!!

    1. Re:Gattaca predicted the outcome in 1997 by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Edit gene blah to fix pimples... whoops that gives you an automatic heart attack at age 30.

      TLDR: it will be illegal to perform the type of edits you're worried about.

      Doctors doing this to people would be legally required to follow ethics guidelines. Researchers in lab don't have to since they're not doing research on people*.

      Those ethical guidelines were already being debated heavily when it was even more hypothetical than it is now. Steven Pinker is probably the most gung ho guy for "do germline editing" and even he seems to suggest no edits for purely cosmetic reasons. The guidelines will be codified into policy for clinics wanting to do this in people. The safe money is that they specifically ban any edits that aren't correcting life-threatening conditions like cystic fibrosis. I would bet that there will be a short list of conditions and mutations that would be approved for correction. These would be well documented mutations that are purely negative, and the fixes approved will be restoring it to "normal" sequences.

      I would bet my house that human augmentation, making embryos that are better faster stronger (Work is never over) than normal would not be allowed in the US in the foreseeable future.

      "What could go wrong" is that the editing could fail in some cases, and you'd abort the pregnancy, much like people do now when they discover via amniocentesis that their embryos have life-ending mutations.

      Also superhuman zombie babies could destroy the earth like in "I am Legend" only with smaller vampire creatures. In movies which will inevitably be made.

      (* Any pro-lifers out there wanting to debate this off-topic point are free to instead yell it into the wind and get it out of their system faster)

    2. Re:Gattaca predicted the outcome in 1997 by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      even he seems to suggest no edits for purely cosmetic reasons. The safe money is that they specifically ban any edits that aren't correcting life-threatening conditions

      And even safer money says a huge industry of cosmetic edits will pop up before life-threatening conditions even start regulatory approval trials. You'll just need to fly out of the country to do so.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Gattaca predicted the outcome in 1997 by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really, gene editing has zero useful social functions like curing congenital heart defects, or adding aids resistance or any of the thousand of benefits? You are a moron.

      You have to admit that this new ability to edit human genes does have the potential to be used in some pretty damned creepy and dangerous ways. Couple that with human nature and you're almost assured it will be, at some point. Do you believe someone like Kim Jong Un and N. Korea would hesitate to create "super-soldiers" and more with this?

      An abundance of caution going forward is not uncalled-for considering the possible uses and results along with their depth, scope, and implications for humanity's future.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Gattaca predicted the outcome in 1997 by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well in this case, the claim "by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes", is a bit fat lie. The only way that it is possible to demonstrate that is to allow the experiment to reach maturity. You might have managed your change but it is extremely hard to tell how much damage you have down especially to what they used to call junk genes, which in reality are a complex set of interrelated genes that don't turn stuff on or off but adjust how much they are turned off or on. Do not claim value or safety until the experimental subject has achieved maturity, else it is a lie.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Re:So... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long until real-life catgirls? Or all women with a C-cup chest size as the minimum?

    Or all blondes with blue eyes? I think someone was fixated on that a few decades ago and it didn't turn out very well.

    Why does it have to be about gratuitous cosmetic crap? People can already get plastic surgery, they don't need genetic modifications to look good if so inclined.

    But what about no sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis? What about improving the human genome in a voluntary way without committing genocide?

    Dream a little bigger than chest size! Not everyone like C-cups and catgirls, but no one likes to die young.

    And given that some people won't even take vaccines, which have been around for at least 200 years (?), I think it's safe to say that there is no danger or the whole population immediately undergoing genetic modifications.