Slashdot Mirror
Despite CRISPR Baby Controversy, Harvard University Will Begin Gene-Editing Sperm (technologyreview.com)
Even as a furious debate broke out in China over gene-edited babies, some scientists in the US are also hoping to improve tomorrow's children. From a report: [...] Amid the condemnation, though, it was easy to lose track of what the key experts were saying. Technology to alter heredity is for real. It is improving very quickly, it has features that will make it safe, and much wider exploratory use to create children could be justified soon. That was the message delivered at a gene-editing summit in Hong Kong on Wednesday, by Harvard Medical School dean George Daley, just ahead of He's own dramatic appearance on the stage (see video starting at 1:15:30).
Astounding some listeners, the Harvard doctor and stem-cell researcher didn't condemn He but instead characterized the Chinese actions as a wrong turn on the right path (see video). "The fact that it is possible that the first instance of human germ-line editing came forward as a misstep should in no way lead us to stick our heads in the sand," Daley said. "It's time to ... start outlining what an actual pathway for clinical translation would be."
Astounding some listeners, the Harvard doctor and stem-cell researcher didn't condemn He but instead characterized the Chinese actions as a wrong turn on the right path (see video). "The fact that it is possible that the first instance of human germ-line editing came forward as a misstep should in no way lead us to stick our heads in the sand," Daley said. "It's time to ... start outlining what an actual pathway for clinical translation would be."
Practice makes perfect so if you are going to start making improvements over a baseline then I think it would be logical to practice gene editing on something that isn't human and could really be improved. What fits the bill here is dog breeds. For the unaware, pure breed dogs have significant genetic defects because they are inbred which results in the expression of recessive traits. The current trend of buying cute dogs that are a genetic disaster doesn't seem to be receding so they seem like a prime target for genetic editing. When we've learned some important lessons (or succeeded beyond all expectations) then we should use what we learned on humans.
If you think it's a waste then you haven't considered the annual cost of animal surgeries that are a consequence of a small gene pool.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The part about fixing things like Huntington's and such isn't a moral debate. If we can, we should. Eliminating genetic disorders is to our general benefit. I'm worried about taking it too far. For example, I'm ADD (quite seriously so). Medications are not helpful to me because of side effects. However, in some ways it's a superpower. I have a knack for spotting the holes in plans at work because I draw on all of the odd things I picked up because of random curiosities. I can get multiple specialists involved because I draw on their various backgrounds, which means I get teams to talk to each other. Is it really a disorder?
Sort of, because it sometimes gets in my way. But if we edit to the point our minds form with less variation to avoid "disorders" we may be damaging our potential. My inability to mentally stand still has made me an odd success, but it took a long time to find a good niche for myself. Our society is bad at managing differences well, which is a shame. In tribal days, those differences allowed specialization which allowed the tribe to grow. Our society still needs these differences to thrive.
I don't think editing eye color is really a moral issue. Skin color might be because of society's racial issues, however. We're going to be running up against some tough questions very soon.
I know we have all this ethics crap, but if we eliminate something like Cystic Fibrosis, I don't see a downside here.
Many of the inheritable diseases we see are there because the genes don't just control one thing, but several. Often, a genetic variation does not only cause a negative, but is accompanied by something beneficial. Evolution has had a long time to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. If it were only disadvantages, they would generally have been eradicated from the gene pool.
The most famous example is sickle cell anemia, which protects against malaria for those who only have the gene from one parent.
And some HLA antigens give strong resistance to influenza A, at the cost of an increased risk of rheumatic diseases. What would you pick?
In the case of Cystic Fibrosis, it's an an autosomal recessive disease, meaning that 25% of children of two healthy carriers get CF. That it is present in the gene pool indicates that there may be an heterozygote advantage to being a carrier with the mutation on only one gene. Eradicating the genetic variation that causes CF would eradicate that benefit too, whatever it may be.
As for the benefit to individual couples, CRISPR doesn't add any benefit that isn't already there today. Prospective parents who both are carriers can test the embryo and terminate pregnancies where both genes are added.