Slashdot Mirror


New US Experiments Aim To Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos (npr.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A scientist in New York is conducting experiments designed to modify DNA in human embryos as a step toward someday preventing inherited diseases, NPR has learned. For now, the work is confined to a laboratory. But the research, if successful, would mark another step toward turning CRISPR, a powerful form of gene editing, into a tool for medical treatment. Dieter Egli, a developmental biologist at Columbia University, says he is conducting his experiments "for research purposes." He wants to determine whether CRISPR can safely repair mutations in human embryos to prevent genetic diseases from being passed down for generations. So far, Egli has stopped any modified embryos from developing beyond one day so he can study them. "Right now we are not trying to make babies. None of these cells will go into the womb of a person," he says. But if the approach is successful, Egli would likely allow edited embryos to develop further to continue his research. Egli's research is reviewed in advance and overseen by a panel of other scientists and bioethicists at Columbia. Specifically, Egli is trying to fix one of the genetic defects that cause retinitis pigmentosa, an inherited form of blindness. "If it works, the hope is that the approach could help blind people carrying the mutation have genetically related children whose vision is normal," reports NPR.

35 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. So where does society draw the line? by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 1

    Blind? Deaf? Skin color? Sexual orientation?

    1. Re:So where does society draw the line? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      So where does society draw the line?

      Since a "complex" modification is really anything more than an edit or two, most everything is far beyond our reach. No lines needs to be drawn for quite some time.

      You might as well be striking up an argument about AI person-hood because you're just invented the transistor in 1925 and are sure AI is just around the corner.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:So where does society draw the line? by mentil · · Score: 2

      You say 'line', I say 'goalpost'. In either case it'll keep being moved, and no legion of pearl-clutchers will stop that, for better or worse.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re: So where does society draw the line? by mentil · · Score: 1

      There are real benefits to modifying skin melanin content/production. Don't be too quick to dismiss that.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:So where does society draw the line? by mentil · · Score: 1

      If some people can argue that a zygote counts as a person, why can't a single transistor also be?

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re: So where does society draw the line? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Why should "society" (i.e.: government) be drawing the line?

      Why shouldn't individuals be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions?

      Keep your laws off my body.

    6. Re:So where does society draw the line? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      A zygote has a lot more intelligence, and is a lot more complex, many orders of magnitude more complex, than a single transistor. A transistor isn't much.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: So where does society draw the line? by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Technically not your body, but your kids. And yes, the government has some say because your kids' problems will eventually be society's problems.

    8. Re:So where does society draw the line? by vyvepe · · Score: 1

      Eventually there will be no line. People will design their bodies whatever way they like it when the technology evolves enough.

    9. Re: So where does society draw the line? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Technically not your body, but your kids. And yes, the government has some say because your kids' problems will eventually be society's problems."

      Eventually? Jenny MaCarthy already made that happen. Every years hundreds of people die because of that bitch and her 'vaccinating cause autism' shtick.

    10. Re: So where does society draw the line? by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Take away the single greatest joy in life we are biologically capable of experiencing, our hard-coded happy button the orgasm? What is this make other things more important by removing everything more appealing? Its Hard enough to be happy in this complicated world.

    11. Re: So where does society draw the line? by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Selective breeding is just basic common sense. don't breed with people who have traits that you do not wish to have in your kids. Given that there are other people without those traits why take the risk? As long as you breed with is consensual .society's opinion is irrelevant

  2. I heard there are a bunch by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    of Chinese Scientists who have some experience with this currently looking for employment.

  3. Re:Hmmmm yes, pure genetics by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Purity, in the context of genetics, means very badly inbred.

  4. You know ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... there's an Emacs mode for this.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. Sexual orientation's more complicated than genes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Hormonal levels in the womb, temperature differences, nutrients and other environmental factors can play a role. Not saying we won't work it out, but it won't be as easy as, say, curing hereditary blindness or hearing loss. Meaning we've got time to sort some other odds/ends out before we move on to that thorny issue.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. Someday by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    We're all gonna die! Someday

    1. Re:Someday by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      Birth is 100% fatal (well except for 7 billion exceptions but just wait).

  7. Re: I don't believe a word from the medical idio by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    A/S/L = Age/Sex/Location last time I used it.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  8. Hidden Danger by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All the societal impacts aside, fiddling with the human genome, when we BARELY understand how this stuff works seems like a really dangerous idea.

    Who knows what sort of new problem you're introducing into our genome, that may not be expressed for a few generations?

    You think you solved some awful human condition, start doing it widespread, and 150 years down the road, we're all fucked cuz it did something unintended like made everyone sterile, or have some other much worse disability.

    1. Re:Hidden Danger by djinn6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A bug introduced by early 21st century technology will be trivial to fix with 22nd century technology.

    2. Re:Hidden Danger by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      All the societal impacts aside, fiddling with the human genome, when we BARELY understand how this stuff works seems like a really dangerous idea.

      We understand the CRISPR mechanism in great detail. It's simple and reliable (relatively speaking). My Cal-student daughter uses CRISPR in her lab experiments. I'm astounded by this but there you are.

      What we don't really understand, and what Egli is trying to figure out, is how reliable this is in an embryo and whether it actually works to correct gene defects. I'm surprised he's doing this in human embryos instead of some other organism but I'm willing to trust he has his reasons. I personally don't know if we've shown this concept works in, say, pigs or rabbits. Or zebrafish, everyone's favorite biological model organism.

      I heard and interview with Egli. It sounds like he's proceeding the right way. He's not being secretive and he's run his experiments past various review panels ahead of time. I'm sure they've thought of all these objections already and trust he had compelling answers.

  9. Someone doesn't like this. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 4, Informative

    as a step toward someday preventing inherited diseases

    "the hope is that the approach could help blind people carrying the mutation have genetically related children whose vision is normal"

    Very surprisingly to me, this is generally NOT an immediate accepted topic / action / result. IT'S GONE NOW -- I read it and was shocked. I immediately thought of Ender's Game book 3? where the ?antagonist? -- who had to start and follow wood grain lines until the gods were satisfied -- didn't want to be cured, but also couldn't disrespect her father, so was cured against her will.

    There was an article (actually, an opinion piece) that was (not any more!) at: https://www.pluralist.com/post....

    It said: A prominent disabilities activist spoke against the use of genetic editing to eliminate diseases from birth because it would be tantamount to a "genocide" against the culture of the disabled.

    Link. Other link Discussion

    We're talking about removal of diseases," she said. "That's forever. That's a change -- a modification -- that will be passed on to future generations. So that's actually genocide. It's a form of eugenics where certain lived experiences are seen as undesirable and unimaginable."

    ... argued that disabled people are a community unto themselves and that eliminating their conditions means erasing the potential future of their culture. She asked, "Where is the line between what society perceives to be a horrible genetic mutation and someone's culture?"

    The Eye of the Beholder

    I'm like: DO IT. And do it AGAIN just to make sure. And if you're bored, check to see if you need to do it AGAIN. If you want to be deaf, you can always stick bananas in your ears. Or your eyes. Or any other random orifices.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re:Someone doesn't like this. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      I have the same response to people trying to save mosquitoes from genetically engineered extinction.

      There's 600,000 people on one side of the trolley track, a swarm of annoying bloodsuckers on the other, and we keep letting the trolley run over the people.

    2. Re: Someone doesn't like this. by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Well if it's culture then they are free to continue to do those things as cultures are just shared ideas and information passed down. I can continue to share those ideas. Old culture adapts and morphs overtime until eventually does not resemble anything recognizable as what their ancestors practiced and believed. It is normal for culture to come and go or metamorphosis. these are not things that should be feared but rather recognise as normal dynamics of culture

    3. Re:Someone doesn't like this. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      At least with eliminating mosquitoes there's the possibility that it might have some horrible ecological effect that would be worse than leaving them alone.

      Curing genetic diseases is unlikely to have widespread negative consequences.

    4. Re:Someone doesn't like this. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      There's over 3500 species of mosquitoes. Research is directed at removing just a few of those species that spread disease.

    5. Re:Someone doesn't like this. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You didn't say "a few species of mosquitoes that carry particular diseases". There are lots of people who would like to remove all mosquitoes, and the possibility has been studied. Also, you have to specify what you mean by "spread disease." Malaria, sure. Zika? West Nile?

      In everything from immigrants to genetically modified crops, people fail to state their positions precisely and that just invites others to argue past them.

    6. Re:Someone doesn't like this. by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      I have the same response to people trying to save mosquitoes from genetically engineered extinction.

      There's 600,000 people on one side of the trolley track, a swarm of annoying bloodsuckers on the other, and we keep letting the trolley run over the people.

      Generally speaking, I'm fine with exterminating mosquitoes, hopefully in an extremely painful way. However, we've seen time and again that when we introduce or destroy a species from an area, there are unexpected consequences. I think it behooves us to be a bit more humble before just going out with flamethrowers or gene drives.

      To be more specific, perhaps there's a way to just kill the malaria parasite without killing the mosquitoes. And perhaps there is some critter which eats the mosquitoes who we'd adversely affect. Or there's some critter who's numbers are kept in check by malaria infestations. Or there's some reason humans need the occasional malaria infection to keep our immune system from attacking us. These are just the questions I can think up. I'm sure the biologists involved can come up with a hundred better questions.

  10. Re: We all know the cure for this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point is that thanks to CRISPR, we might be able to do eugenics without sterilization. Since most people with some bad genes also carry a lot of good genes, this is not only more humane, but also good for genetic diversity.

  11. US vs China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So it's okay for US to do it, but not China...

  12. Re: Gattaca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We should also stop developing cybernetics because of Robocop, AI because of Terminator and jewelry because of Lord of the Rings...

  13. Screw that I want by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Superpowers. :)

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Screw that I want by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      Two words: gamma rays.

      Works every time. Except when it kills you.

  14. Re:There is no way ... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    When have we ever taken and twisted a technology to its moist perverse extreme?

    I see what you did there.