Since 2012 scientists have been using a tool called CRISPR-Cas9 to find and correct mutations in genes that can cause disease. Some call it a medical miracle that will eliminate genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia, Alzheimer's, and even some cancers. Others call it a science fiction nightmare waiting to happen.

All of the research had been on animals until last year when Chinese scientists reported that they had experimented on human embryos. There was a call for a world wide moratorium on human gene editing, but in February a group of scientist in the UK announced they were going forward with research on human embryos. All embryos will be destroyed within days, so there is still no plan to allow altered human genes to enter the reproductive pool, but everyone knows it is the first step in that direction.

Apparently if an adult has his genes altered to treat a disease the alteration is not passed on to his offspring (not sure how this works), but if the genes are altered in the embryo stage the change is permanent and will be passed on to future generations.

To me this is more than just a fear of a "slippery slope". What I consider a "slippery slope" is looking for unintended or exaggerated consequences from a policy. But in this case it is clear that the only possible goal of these experiments is the ultimate editing of human genes at the embryo level.

At this time I am not against the research, but this is a very very dangerous road to start down.

BTW I thought about posting this in the P&R forum, but it is toxic over there right now. So let's try to keep the discussions reasonable and not turn into an abortion debate or something like that.

This is a GATTACA scenario.

There is a great Ted talk on this topic Fred.   I will try and find it.....  The talk of in favour of this but no matter where you stand on the issue it's informative.

Found it. I would embed it but I don't know how.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely

I often find it strange when people who are not religious are against the science.
I can understand the religious people wanting humans to be as God intended.

Fred, are you saying the slippery slope is that of making "super humans", lizard men, ect ?

(03-16-2016, 02:43 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I often find it strange when people who are not religious are against the science.
I can understand the religious people wanting humans to be as God intended.

Fred, are you saying the slippery slope is that of making "super humans", lizard men, ect ?

The thing that concern me the most is that if there are unforeseen consequences it won't be like fixing a hole in the Ozone layer.  Instead any damage will be passed on genetically forever.

Geneticists are a lot like experts on the brain.  They don't know nearly as much as they act like they do.  Even the best and the brightest geneticist can not go into a human genome and decide exactly what the resulting human will be like.  the don't fully understand it all.  So I am afraid they will do something that seems simple like determine hair color and accidentally effect something else.

(03-16-2016, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The thing that concern me the most is that if there are unforeseen consequences it won't be like fixing a hole in the Ozone layer.  Instead any damage will be passed on genetically forever.

Geneticists are a lot like experts on the brain.  They don't know nearly as much as they act like they do.  Even the best and the brightest geneticist can not go into a human genome and decide exactly what the resulting human will be like.  the don't fully understand it all.  So I am afraid they will do something that seems simple like determine hair color and accidentally effect something else.

This is a legit concern. You have to also look at how this will be used in a more mainstream basis. How soon until people start ensuring their kids aren't fat anymore. Or start treating for minor things instead of just the big things like Autism.

They already have DIY Geno facilities around the globe where people just tinker. No education required. Can be anyone.

(03-16-2016, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The thing that concern me the most is that if there are unforeseen consequences it won't be like fixing a hole in the Ozone layer.  Instead any damage will be passed on genetically forever.

Geneticists are a lot like experts on the brain.  They don't know nearly as much as they act like they do.  Even the best and the brightest geneticist can not go into a human genome and decide exactly what the resulting human will be like.  the don't fully understand it all.  So I am afraid they will do something that seems simple like determine hair color and accidentally effect something else.

Ok, that makes plenty of sense to be weary of such things.

I'd have to say that I agree.

(03-16-2016, 11:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Since 2012 scientists have been using a tool called CRISPR-Cas9 to find and correct mutations in genes that can cause disease.  Some call it a medical miracle that will eliminate genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia, Alzheimer's, and even some cancers.  Others call it a science fiction nightmare waiting to happen.  

All of the research had been on animals until last year when Chinese scientists reported that they had experimented on human embryos.  There was a call for a world wide moratorium on human gene editing, but in February a group of scientist in the UK announced they were going forward with research on human embryos.  All embryos will be destroyed within days, so there is still no plan to allow altered human genes to enter the reproductive pool, but everyone knows it is the first step in that direction.

Apparently if an adult has his genes altered to treat a disease the alteration is not passed on to his offspring (not sure how this works), but if the genes are altered in the embryo stage the change is permanent and will be passed on to future generations.

To me this is more than just a fear of a "slippery slope".  What I consider a "slippery slope" is looking for unintended or exaggerated consequences from a policy.  But in this case it is clear that the only possible goal of these experiments is the ultimate editing of human genes at the embryo level.

At this time I am not against the research, but this is a very very dangerous road to start down.  

BTW I thought about posting this in the P&R forum, but it is toxic over there right now.  So let's try to keep the discussions reasonable and not turn into an abortion debate or something like that.

I think it is both, medical miracle and scientific nightmare. Like anything else, it depends upon how the science is used and how much society elects to police that usage (read as 'regulation').

I'm generally on-board with new medical developments. However in the case of something like this, slower is better as we need to examine the possible problems and ethical situations that can be created.

That said, I see nothing wrong with what the Chinese and Brits have done so far.

I don't have a problem with it. If you edit a gene, you are simply changing the nitrogenous base sequence. The trick is to have the edited gene still be viable. The fear of unintended consequences, while reasonable, should not be as great as you think. Once the genome was successfully mapped, its not that difficult a leap to determine which genes code for what traits. Also, epistatic genes are fairly easy to determine also. As to the point of the new "dangerous" genes would be passed on in the gene pool forever... that's only true if the individuals who have those genes would continue to choose to pass them on and reproduce anyway. It could get to the point that by the time those individuals are of reproductive age, the technology may exist to re-edit those genes and make them "safe" again. I say go ahead with the research.

This could be a slippery slope...and I'm not very religious.

like fred said, it could **** up future generations, who knows.

Well, if you can still edit the gene in an adult and it's not passed on, it seems fairly common sense to wait until the disease manifests (in most cases) and gene therapy would be another tool in the treatments available.

No reason, for example, to alter an alzeheimer's gene in an embryo if it can be done as an adult long before any onset.

I think I remember hearing that our genes go through changes throughout our lives. Generally, the genetic material degrades as we get older (something about the livelong bombardment with free radicals that knock genetic material out of place or something like that as I recall). This is why our hair changes to silver, white or grey when we get older. It is also why the longer a couple waits to have children, the less of their original genetic material they pass on and the greater the chance of complications. And there are things that we do or expose ourselves to in the environment that changes our genes. Smoking, for example. Smoking increases the free radicals in a body and thus reduce the original genetic material at a faster rate. That increase in free radicals is also why smokers are more prone to getting cancer, I believe I heard.

I'm sure genetic editing will initially center upon replacing genes that free radicals have modified over time, thus prolonging life and possibly youth in the future. And what sort of world will that be? Science fiction writers have imagined it often. Overpopulation is probably a concern due to increasing scarcity of resources. And the inevitable afterbirth of that concern is fear and fear mongering, etc. We can't even deal with problems like reasonable distribution of resources and countering fear mongering now. Heck, we can't even deal with saving the world from global warming problems because some folks are afraid they might lose a buck or two. What would make us think we can deal with those issues in the future?

Here is an article on what I had mentioned above:

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes

Quote:Grandma's Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes

Your ancestors' lousy childhoods or excellent adventures might change your personality, bequeathing anxiety or resilience by altering the epigenetic expressions of genes in the brain.

Fascinating reading.

(03-17-2016, 01:35 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, if you can still edit the gene in an adult and it's not passed on, it seems fairly common sense to wait until the disease manifests (in most cases) 

This is what threw me because I did not understand the difference.

(03-16-2016, 07:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: I don't have a problem with it. If you edit a gene, you are simply changing the nitrogenous base sequence. The trick is to have the edited gene still be viable. 

This is not an ares where I really know enough to get into a detailed debate.  But i did see a show a while back about how complicated gene modification is.  Apparently even after they discover which gene controls which traits there are still other parts of the DNA that control when genetic activity is turned on and off.  Researchers also admitted that they were still not sure exactly how changing one gene could effect other parts of the DNA.  

(03-20-2016, 10:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is not an ares where I really know enough to get into a detailed debate.  But i did see a show a while back about how complicated gene modification is.  Apparently even after they discover which gene controls which traits there are still other parts of the DNA that control when genetic activity is turned on and off.  Researchers also admitted that they were still not sure exactly how changing one gene could effect other parts of the DNA.  

Well if you saw a show....

But in all seriousness, if your reason is that you are worried about the complexities, then you should want the research to continue and figure things out.

(03-20-2016, 08:19 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here is an article on what I had mentioned above:

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes


Fascinating reading.

The article was interesting, but left me wondering two things:

1. What produced the methyl groups? Were they chemical in nature, say from hormone response, or were they simply free methyls that attached themselves in response to nurture or the lack of it.

2. Why do the methyl groups only attach to cytosine? If that's true, then sequencing the DNA to see which genes contain cytosine would allow certain genes to be targeted for treatment.

They also said there were markers in the blood. If that's the case, then blood tests could reveal who is a viable target for treatment. And can treatment include injection of acetyl groups that would/could maybe offset the changes caused by the epigenetic attachment of the methyl groups.

(03-20-2016, 04:32 PM)Beaker Wrote: The article was interesting, but left me wondering two things:

1. What produced the methyl groups? Were they chemical in nature, say from hormone response, or were they simply free methyls that attached themselves in response to nurture or the lack of it.

2. Why do the methyl groups only attach to cytosine? If that's true, then sequencing the DNA to see which genes contain cytosine would allow certain genes to be targeted for treatment.

They also said there were markers in the blood. If that's the case, then blood tests could reveal who is a viable target for treatment. And can treatment include injection of acetyl groups that would/could maybe offset the changes caused by the epigenetic attachment of the methyl groups.

Thanks for reading the article.

1. I honestly have no idea. I would assume the latter, but I'm no scientist (obviously).

2. Once again, I don't know. But I would think targeted treatment would be possible and likely in the future.

(03-20-2016, 04:11 PM)Beaker Wrote: Well if you saw a show....

But in all seriousness, if your reason is that you are worried about the complexities, then you should want the research to continue and figure things out.

Personally, I am for the research for the reasons you noted. I think my concerns are more about the ethics of the users of the research rather than the creators of it, which seems to be how technology has been abused in rare cases in the past. And if a technology is abused by users, we need the research to fix the problems.

I am more about protecting the researchers and the research until it is ready for common use rather than preventing them from doing their thing. As an example, immunotherapy is having remarkable results in retraining the bodies existing immunity network to "eat" cancers. In a recent clinical study on humans saw the treatment totally remove cancerous tumors in 25 of the 27 subjects. As exciting as this is, this treatment is not ready for the public. It may never be. The researchers need to answer a lot more questions.

BTW - When I said the research should go slow in my earlier post, I think that the current pace qualifies. As I said I don't have a problem with it. And I think it is also inevitable that we will be researching this more in the future.

(03-20-2016, 04:11 PM)Beaker Wrote: Well if you saw a show....

Well if the info was wrong then tell me.