General Science Thread

Can't they just modify human cells and leave future humans alone?

Secret Signature

I think the issue is that specifically in the case of testing for resistance to HIV, and more generally in the case of observing the effects of gene-editing, a more complex system is required to produce results that experimenting on single cells won't provide.

As for unintended side effects of gene editing, would they be less if it is used to fix genetical faults (cut out the 3rd chromosome from where only 2 are supposed to be, add a second one where there is only one of what should be a pair)?

Not entirely, because part of the side-effects come from the use of CRISPR itself, and the fact that they haven't perfected it yet, meaning there's still the possibility of random edits.

Ah ok. So it was just as much that as well, to borrow a simile from Fate/stay night, it being p-retty hard to try to improve on an already done complex thing such as the human genome, kinda like trying to improve on the Mona Lisa.

There is every reason to believe that our technology will someday be capable of editing specific parts of a genome with precision. Currently, it is not, and this means that applying the techniques we do currently have to living people is fraught with danger and is highly unethical.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I imagine a better metaphor would be building a Jet, sure the first planes weren't very impressive comparatively but once science and engineering had time to do their thing the end result was earthshaking.

No reason to assume that CRISPR must be different.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 13th 2019 at 6:09:07 AM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Fair enough, I used the comparison because as far as I know, for the most part CRISPR works with a genetic sample already there, not building one as well as they can.

Good point.

In that case, current CRISPR editing is like... the wood that could eventually be shaped into the early airplanes. I think that metaphor probably better describes the current status-quo

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

On that subject, I'm kinda curious, would it be possible to edit immune cells in a lab and then insert them to the patient to deal with whatever disease they were edited for? Ignoring that we still have quite a bit to go in replicating the body's cell replication rate and other functions in a lab environment if I'm not mistaken.

Secret Signature

It could be done, but I am pretty sure that techniques that don't rely on gene editing can be used to the same end without as many risks.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

You mean, take out some cells and then reinserting them into the same body they were taken from later after they were edited?

Edited by akanesarumara on Jun 14th 2019 at 1:05:20 PM

I'm fairly certain they are actually already doing that. Not with the immune cells themselves but with their precursor cells in the bone marrow. Basically modifying them so that they can recognise certain types of cancer cells so the body can attack the tumour directly rather than relying on chemo.

That would be why I clarified with "we need to do more research on the varied effects of the gene, as well as animal testing, before doing the editing in actual human beings." Opening with suggesting funding for functional cures was out of line, I will admit that, but the rest isn't 'appealing to worse problems,' just suggesting there are clearly additional steps that need to be taken first.

Edited by Pseudopartition on Jun 14th 2019 at 7:48:29 AM

Revising my previous statement, as Adoptive cell transfer is an experimental technique. It does rely on differentiated T cells though.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Gene-editing breakthrough in China comes with urgent call for global rules

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

So depopulation bombs or something like that?

Secret Signature

Why am I getting Mass Effect flashbacks...

I have to strongly disagree with one of their statements.

It's one thing to ban things like genetic weapons and weaponized retroviruses but to treat human augmentation as comparably immoral is just ridiculous bioconservatism. Obviously, such techniques need to be properly regulated and socially undesirable consequences should be avoided but the potential this technology has to improve human standard of living and capabilities is wonderous and should not be prohibited.

If we can improve humans then we can finally correct the mistakes of nature which have led to incalculable amounts of suffering. To oppose that is the actual grossly immoral position.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 19th 2019 at 10:14:58 AM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Exactly, I think the biggest use would not really be designer babies but cases where the fetus, thanks to already existing screening methods, is diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder, which gene editing could fix. This would not only raise the quality of life of the baby (and the family), but could potentially save the baby's life - certain chromosomal disorders such as Turner syndrome are known for being responsible for a huge proportion of miscarriages, to start with.

Edited by akanesarumara on Jun 19th 2019 at 7:17:18 PM

Indeed.

That's exactly the kind of benefits I'm thinking of, things like making superhumans are nice in a fanciful sort of way but I imagine the most impactful augmentation would be the little unsexy things that provide mass benefits like improved longevity and the elimination of inherited conditions.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Yeah it would be a major breakthrough if inherited diseases could be dealt with too. All we will have left then is get doubly behind vaccines.

The main problem is finding a way to conduct the research without experimenting on human beings.

At some stage I suppose human trials would be unavoidable, even if reams of tests would need to be done beforehand.

I kind of thought he was referring (borrowing from fiction) to things like the Eugenics Wars from Star Trek. And the usual emergence of classism between those that can afford it etc. not benign medical use.

Edited by TerminusEst on Jun 19th 2019 at 2:03:44 AM

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele