Slashdot Mirror
China's CRISPR Twins Might Have Had Their Brains Inadvertently Enhanced (technologyreview.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: The brains of two genetically-edited girls born in China last year may have been changed in ways that enhance cognition and memory, scientists say. The twins, called Lulu and Nana, were modified using CRISPR, a new gene-editing tool, by a Chinese scientific team to make the girls immune to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Now, new research shows the same genetic alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, to a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.
"The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains," says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. Silva's lab lab has been uncovering a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory formation and the brain's ability to form new connections. "The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins," says Silva. He says the exact effect on the girls cognition is impossible to predict and "that is why it should not be done." The Chinese designer babies were created to be resistant to HIV. A team in Shenzhen, China, led by Southern University of Science and Technology He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells. The scientist, He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, has been fired from the university as He is under investigation in China. There is no evidence that He actually set out to modify the twins' intelligence.
"The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains," says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. Silva's lab lab has been uncovering a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory formation and the brain's ability to form new connections. "The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins," says Silva. He says the exact effect on the girls cognition is impossible to predict and "that is why it should not be done." The Chinese designer babies were created to be resistant to HIV. A team in Shenzhen, China, led by Southern University of Science and Technology He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells. The scientist, He Jiankui of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, has been fired from the university as He is under investigation in China. There is no evidence that He actually set out to modify the twins' intelligence.
I'm pretty sure there was an X-files episode about this.
If only we could get some politicians to undergo this procedure...
I am seriously looking forward to Battle Angel Nana!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So how much is it going to cost to get a super-baby in the next, say, ten years?
Captcha: normalcy
Did anyone really believe the AIDS story? This is China here. The gene just-so-happens to be cognitive boosting was not a happy accident.
Look at what they do to their Olympic athletes. Of course they will attempt to do the same to their future Han-Ubermensch students.
Perhaps it's not a popular opinion but I think the ends justify the means when it comes to genes. The better we become with Gene editing, the better for the progress of the human race. The human race has escaped darwinism because we have an over abundance resources given to the stupid people. If we don't do this, idiocracy is our future.
gets into a bunch of shit because he's working outside of ethical guidelines (btw,it's China), publishes his results and gets roundly castigated (Oh yeah, I think he got arrested. In China. For ethical somethings. In China). Nothing else matters. Dude got arrested in China for ethics. Nuff said.
What are the odds are he did something right, even though people who know much more than me say he's full of shit? I'm guessing pretty low.
Well, for one thing, HIV resistance has only been useful since the 70s.
Politicians are not stupid. They are disloyal. They seem stupid because they say they want one thing, and then put in plans that don't accomplish that thing. This is malice, not stupidity, at work.
Their public debates don't happen so they can convince each other of a damned thing. They do that to convince the masses to vote for them. Doing this, of course, requires that they make impossible promises. They are perfectly content to let everyone think they are stupid, because it allows them to get away with it.
Wake up, dude.
Re-read TFS. It is the absence of the gene which confers immunity, not the presence of it.
We do not yet know *every single exact* effect the modification of this gene will do to a human being outside of a lab.
That is the reason why. No data = big problem.
Modern science is inherently cautious... The bonafide "mad scientist" He Jiankui, decided to say "F*** the ethical standards!" and went ahead and made it happen without any standard regulatory oversight.
From what I've seen, various scientific agencies of different countries have been trying hard to keep the CRISPR genie inside the bag... Dr. He Jiankui opened the bag wide open.
Interesting, but what's the downside of the 'enhancements' done to these children? Likely we won't know until they're in their adult years (if they live that long).
do not welcome our new genetically-enhanced chinese overlords.
The chances of a single gene mod inadvertently helping cognition are less than a random mod of the pistons in your car helping engine performance. That is, about a million to one. Lots to go wrong, very little to "make right" for most of us. The sad part is that we'll never know whether any cognitive improvement (or degradation (not to mention mental health)) is due to the enormous scrutiny they'll be under for the rest of their life or due to some real effects of the mod. Call it the observer effect writ large. The only likely 'smoking gun' will be between some (biochemical) pathology they both display. Lots to go wrong.
If they do, it'll be the best god damned sandwich you will ever taste.
higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation?
Intelligence is negatively correlated to fertility. Have you not seen Idiocracy?
I've had two girls make me a bologna sandwich. I was the bologna.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Or, it will be poisoned, if their intelligence was really genetically enhanced.
You are welcome on my lawn.
where elderly are a drain on resources.
They are only a drain on resources, if they have a stroke.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So they are treating this guy like God now.
If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation?
Because it's a fairly recent mutation, on evolutionary scales, and it takes a long time to propagate even when there's a selection advantage against an infectious disease. The Wikipedia article on the gene gives a bit on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It also sounds like the advantage to intelligence is subtle. There was also not much of an intelligence advantage when much of human society consisted of subsistence farmers. Someone that had an education from those in walking distance, with few able to read, with superstition often being the norm than any real science, and generally a difficult life, there wasn't much to gain from being smarter than the average bear.
It seems that also there is an advantage with having only one of the genes. It might not be as effective against infection or grant as much of an intelligence boost but there is still an advantage. This will slow propagation as they still carry a gene without this CCR5 deletion.
Also, think of a possible heterozygous advantage such as with sickle cell trait. Sickle cell trait is "good" for heterozygous people as the reduction in oxygen flow is minimal, but carries a tolerance for malaria. Homozygous people for sickle cell trait can have a painful and short life without modern medical care. Lacking the sickle trait means nearly certain death where malaria is prevalent, again unless given access to modern medical care. The CCR5 deletion may be advantageous to a point but leave someone vulnerable in another way.
If there is any disadvantage to the CCR5 deletion then it might soon be considered a disease like sickle cell trait is today. Modern medicine has rendered HIV a chronic condition, much like sickle cell trait. It's not a death sentence any more. It's expensive to treat but very survivable. We don't need this gene to survive HIV. If there is any downside to it then that would explain it's slow propagation.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Health and Life insurance rates based on the presence of good and bad genes.
Highly competitive jobs and university programs only open to those with specific genes.
People with certain genes and abilities have their career paths chosen for them, and are forced to work for the state.
The presence of genes that contribute to violent behavior will be enough to push a jury towards an otherwise questionable verdict.
CRISPR-edited babies, combined with the massive wealth divides of a class-based society, will further stratify humans into Morlocks and Eloi.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
The CCR5-delta32 mutation doesn't provide absolute immunity to HIV... it just provides immunity to somewhere between 86 and 94% of HIV strains documented to exist "in the wild". Think of CCR5 as being like a T-cell's docking port for HIV (or alternatively, its identification beacon). Without the CCR5 gene, most HIV virions are either metaphorically unable to "grab on" and "dock" (to infect the T-cell), or are unable to even recognize it as an infectable cell in the first place.
Everyone has two copies of the CCR5 gene. If one copy has the delta-32 mutation, the person isn't immune at all to HIV... but could conceivably survive for a very, very long time after a short (but intense) primary infection. Basically, 50% of the person's T-cells express the gene, and 50% don't. After infection, half are infected and killed, but the remainder are primarily the nearly-uninfectable half. This is why, back in the late 80s and 1990s, there were a small -- but noteworthy -- cohort of HIV+ individuals who didn't progress beyond a certain point to AIDS.
Also, a CCR5-delta32 mutation isn't quite a "get out of jail free" card. People with the mutation, especially a heterozygous (2-copy) mutation, are ultra-vulnerable to respiratory illness. Therein lies another part of the late-80s/early-90s original HIV mystery... people with strong immune systems were easily infected, but people who'd been sick with one illness or another from the moment they were born seemed to be nearly immune to HIV. That's why... they WERE, and their life-long endless sequence of respiratory infections were the biggest drawback.
It's also important to note that late in an advanced HIV infection, HIV undergoes a mutation of its own that allows it to infect cells regardless of CCR5 deletion. The main defense against such mutated HIV is the fact that the same mutation that allows HIV to infect cells with a CCR5-delta32 mutation ALSO makes it less-capable of infecting a new host. The good news is that even the mutated HIV is readily-susceptible to modern HIV meds (and in fact, is generally EASIER to bring under control because the mutated virus itself is less robust and virulent).
Observations comparing this to sickle-cell anemia are apt. Back before effective HIV meds existed, having one or two copies of CCR5 with a delta-32 mutation could mean the difference between living long enough for real treatments to become available, and dying a horrible death within a few months or years. Nowadays, having one mutated copy is almost purely a drawback... a lifetime of respiratory infections, with benefits that are largely moot thanks to the effectiveness of modern HIV meds (which, for all intents and purposes, ARE a cure for "AIDS", even if they aren't literally a cure for "HIV").
Having two copies is somewhat of a bonus if you're otherwise at high risk for HIV infection... but once again, modern meds have largely negated THIS scenario too. If you take Truvada daily (Google: "PrEP"), your likelihood of catching HIV is practically nonexistent. In roughly 5 years, fewer than a half-dozen people worldwide who have been confirmed to have actually taken Truvada reliably have become infected... and AFAIK, all of those cases involved sex with someone who had a fairly advanced case of untreated full-blown AIDS. Putting it into perspective, you'd almost have to be willfully-indifferent and have LITERALLY no standards for whom you'll have sex with, because CCR5-mutated HIV is among the MOST susceptible to HIV meds(*).
---
Warning: very non politically-correct example with WAY too much information follows:
(*) Putting it less-delicately, you'd have to be a total manwhore-pig-cum-dump who likes being blindfolded, tied up, and and indiscriminately taking anonymous loads from random strangers that include crazy homeless people who are visibly ill. We aren't talking "active sex life" here, we're talking "complete abdication of anything that resembles common sense and/or having any standards WHATSOEVER". I think one of the confirmed cases admitted that he collected semen from several dozen guys with high viral loads, then gave himself an enema with it. Put another way... if you repeatedly taunt an angry pitbull, eventually you're going to slip on his dogshit and earn a Darwin Award.
Where are the jokes about creating evil super-villains? Or am I joking?
Actually I think it's way too early to speculate on the effects of this essentially random experiment. In nature most mutations are on the scale from bad to terrible, and the bigger the mutation, the more likely it's fatal.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
We smart ones can tell the difference between getting laid and breeding.
Mostly because we don't believe in ridiculous nonsense that keeps us from using means to prevent unwanted side effects of fucking.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, he did create new life.
On the other hand, we do know that he really exists, so... probably not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And also, relatively higher human intelligence is not selected-for. Once one gets a bit above average intelligence (for either gender), the smarter one is, the less likely one is to breed.
So, a gene that keeps one's intelligence limited to normal levels will have a selective advantage.
Ok, but while that may be the case for the past few generations, it doesn't change the fact that for thousands of years of human evolution, higher intelligence has been a good thing. It's what got us to the top of the food chain.
This isn't insightful, it's full on fucking Nazism. There are plenty of people who, despite not working as everyone else thinks they should who have made significant contributions to our society, particularly within science.
It's fuckwads like you who needs to be exterminated, not people with various neurological disorders.
Do you mean, if it's useful why haven't we all evolved to have it? You do know that evolution doesn't work that way, right?
Maybe because natural selection only favors variations which provide an advantage in reproductive success.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Maybe I was too harsh. As a person with neurodevelopmental disorder I didn't say that disabled people can't have any talents. There is just no scientific evidence that people with quite serious neurobiological developmental disorders have much more chance to be gifted or have any other significant advantage. For most of us it's just a curse which makes lives harder with no other significant advantage. It's like to win a lottery at best, 99.9999% only lose.
How is, for instance, minimizing the risk of an unborn child developing ADHD or autism spectrum disorder via gene therapy is Nazism? Parents just want healthy and happy children, not a cursed and, most likely, failed "geniuses".
Yeah, ironically being one of these people I'm becoming more and more convinced that it would be better for the humanity to firstly detect and abort irrational people like you.
I say embrace it and don't worry about it. In about 2 generations we will be in full gattaca mode
It's inevitable that it will be used extensively. We can make the human species immune to a lot of bad things and smart enough to survive. These smarter people could bring us closer to the singularity instead of waiting on AI to do so.
Kahn was just enhanced. If they end up perfect in every way, then you need to scream Reyyyyyyyyyyyy!
I read it thus:
He Jiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to delete a single gene, called CCR5, from human embryos, some of which were later used to create pregnancies. The virus that causes AIDS requires the CCR5 gene to enter human blood cells
and
a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke
So the end result is no CCR5 == no HIV == not smarter. ...
If you can't get HIV because you don't have CCR5 you also don't have the 'smart' gene
When do the Eugenics Wars start?
And it's quickly becoming unuseful given our current ability to treat the disease.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Now, new research shows the same genetic alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, to a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter, but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.
The alteration (deleting the CCR5 gene) makes mice smarter. Not the gene itself.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Maybe because natural selection only favors variations which provide an advantage in reproductive success.
Of the group or tribe. Examples that seem counter-productive at first look include having some non-breeders to help with raising children or some being willing to self-sacrifice to protect the group/tribe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It's complex. Seems the same gene combination that causes people to get AIDS gives immunity to the black death. There's also sickle cell anemia that protects against malaria.
Your other "undesirable traits" are just as likely to give advantages in some situations and situations change. New diseases, need for certain types of intelligence, needs for certain types of warriors are possibilities.
We have enough experience in husbandry, agriculture etc that while mono-culture has advantages, it also has large weaknesses compared to genetic diversity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If one mutation confers HIV resistance, AND higher intelligence... why doesn't everyone have this mutation? Does it increase metabolism too much or something? Perhaps stroke resistance is considered a downside, in societies where elderly are a drain on resources.
It's not that we don't want that. It's that we are no where close to being smart enough to go tinkering just because of situations like this. Unforeseen consequences. In this case the kids may have lucked out (although even that isn't certain yet) but in the future others may not be so lucky. We just don't know enough about our own genetics to start tinkering with them yet. Maybe in the future sure. But it's going to be a long time before we are really knowledgeable enough to start doing it responsibly. Keep in mind that these changes won't just affect the children they are done to, they can also propagate down their line in their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. We could accidentally introduce some new genetic disorder that may not even show itself until several generations later.
Think of it this way, imagine you and a team of brilliant software developers wrote a program that runs a giant company. It does everything from manufacturing control to payroll to HVAC. It even runs the automatic flusher on the toilets. Literally every function of the company relies on it.
Now imagine the company decided they want to make some changes to it, but you and your team have moved on so they hire some bright-eyed college grads to do it. Oh, and they don't have the source code or any documentation, so the kids need to study it in place and can only modify it using assembly language. And you can't really test it without pushing changes to the production system. How many unexpected disasters do you imagine would result from that? That's the stage we are at right now with genetic editing.
And no, this isn't some kind of argument for intelligent design, it's just an analogy.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
If the great Pooh bear lives long enough he may find himself being replaced by these girls.
Humanity evolved to AFFORD individual "catastrophes".
Failures die sooner than successes, but everyone dies which makes our species adaptable. We view death as bad because evolution selected for that viewpoint. That's not necessarily rational as our ability to direct our own evolution improves.
If there is a problem, abort the problem. If the problem manifests later then study and treat if practical. If not the host may die sooner than otherwise, but to the species that's no loss.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Our current understanding of how human intelligence works and the role genetics play is still somewhat crude.
Who can say that the same genetic code variation that makes mice appear smarter could have profound negative effects in humans. It could be a good thing if the consequences of this application of Crispr were better understood, but they are not.
To be so egotistical to roll the dice like that for personal benefit and whose consequences would be paid by innocent children is psychopathic.
.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Modern civilization and, especially, medicine almost eliminated natural selection, so harmful mutations will slowly but steadily accumulate in human populations if we won't prevent this with gene therapy. We will become sicker, dumber and more dependent on medicine. So what future potential adaptive traits are you talking about?
LOL! Everything that putrid wanker did stank of eugenics from the start. I guarantee you the ChiComms were all over it. They already harvest organs from "prisoners" to keep their own oligarch class alive and don't give it a second thought. Gene editing for the Peoples' Great Revolutionary Victory would be a logical step.
Oh and before anyone here starts getting all "hey sign me up for the transhuman upgrade path" remember they can just as easily insert a gene for a fatal protein deficiency that they can then use to blackmail recipients into being Proper Citizens Supporting the Rise of the Proletarian Struggle or else you don't get any of the protein supplements you need to keep your intestines from exploding.
And -- all these edited genomes walking around are 100% inheritable! They only need to get a few percentage of the current population -- and then give these Patriotic Elements of the Peoples Resistance enhanced reproduction support -- to eventually have a large percentage of the population under control.
This is not even speculation. This is guaranteed 100% to be the actual plan.
Humanity is screwed. Don't forget to get your kids immunized if you want to get the best post-partum gene upgrades.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Oh, fuck right off. You politically correct liberals make me want to puke.
You are welcome on my lawn.
We will become sicker, dumber and more dependent on medicine. So what future potential adaptive traits are you talking about?
I have no idea, the future is an unknown, but is likely to be surprising, and that surprise might not be good. Nuclear war is an extreme example of the possibilities that would change everything.
While you make a point about parents, the problem is if the State or even just heavy peer pressure forces these things on everyone.
Modern civilization is also not everywhere, so different selection pressures exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I meant that they wrote "He" instead of "he". A joke, not a very good one I guess.
Haters gonna hate. Seethe harder.
In this case, deleting the gene increases intelligence... which raises the question of why the gene spread so far. If it were the opposite I'd agree with you.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
If high functioning autism was that good it would be much more widespread in human populations, but what we see in reality, they're minority and the outcomes are more adverse in average. ASD/ADHD might predispose the person to certain professions (since they lack in many other areas) but the widespread mantra of disabled peoples' high predisposition to unusual talents or even genius is somewhat exaggerated and quite dangerous. Most disabled people are just disabled people, no more, period.
Again, I think that's a misunderstanding of genetics and evolution. It's not like genes are simply advantageous and disadvantageous, and advantageous genes are spread and disadvantageous genes die out. Genes might have multiple effects which might be advantageous or disadvantageous based on the environment the organism finds itself in.
But also, being advantageous or disadvantageous isn't by itself the issue. It had to be advantageous enough to increase your chances of surviving long enough to reproduce, or disadvantageous enough to decrease you chances of surviving long enough to reproduce. If it's just sort of theoretically disadvantageous to the human race in general, but you can still live to maturity and have offspring, and that gene will still get passed on. Evolution does not refine people to the point of perfection, it merely to the point of enabling procreation.
Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book talking about that very scenario and pointing out how the individual gene is the "actor" of evolution, not the group or tribe.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.