Gene editing and the future: End of genetic problems and the start of designer humans?

[Hellken 1,658]

It's one of the most promising breakthroughs of the decade. CRISPR was co-discovered in 2012 by molecular biologist Professor Jennifer Doudna and Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier whose team at Berkeley, University of California was studying how bacteria defend themselves against viral infection. CRISPR is a biological system for altering DNA, giving scientists and doctors the ability to edit DNA.

The promise and the possibilities are enormous. There is hope for families suffering from genetic diseases or disorders. And hopefully, new ways can be found to edit genes to prevent faulty ones from being passed down to future generations. Gene editing could be the end for many genetic conditions.

Of course, there is also the very complex ethics issue. Give someone a centimeter and they want a kilometer; it's human nature. We could see the era of customized humans and the start of an equality problem in society.

Quote

 

A deeper quandary concerns the use of CRISPR to make discretionary tweaks to a person’s genome. There comes a point where therapy (removing genes that make breast cancer or early-onset Alzheimer’s more likely, say) shades into genetic enhancement. Some might see being short or myopic as problems that need fixing. But here, too, the right approach is to be cautiously liberal: the burden is on society to justify when and why it is wrong to edit the genome.

CRISPR, happier, more productive

It is not too soon to draw on these principles to come up with rules. Some countries may have gaps in their legislation or poor enforcement, letting privately funded scientists or fertility clinics carry out unregulated CRISPR research. The conservative, painstaking approach taken by Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in its decision on mitochondrial DNA is a model. Regulators must also monitor CRISPR’s use in non-human species. Changing animals’ genomes to spread desirable traits—mosquitoes that cannot transmit malaria, for example—could bring huge benefits. But the risk of unanticipated consequences means that such “gene drives” should be banned unless they can be reversed with proven countermeasures.

If CRISPR can be shown to be safe in humans, mechanisms will also be needed to grapple with consent and equality. Gene editing raises the spectre of parents making choices that are not obviously in the best interests of their children. Deaf parents may prefer their offspring to be deaf too, say; pushy parents might want to boost their children’s intelligence at all costs, even if doing so affects their personalities in other ways. And if it becomes possible to tweak genes to make children smarter, should that option really be limited to the rich?

Thinking through such issues is right. But these dilemmas should not obscure CRISPR’s benefits or obstruct its progress. The world has within its reach a tool to give people healthier, longer and better-quality lives. It should be embraced.

 

from: The Economist: Editing Humanity

 

 

Gene editing has already saved some lives. This young baby was saved from an aggressive form of leukemia:

Quote

 

Microscopic scissors - technically known as Talens - were used to precisely engineer the DNA inside a donor's immune cells.

The cells were designed to seek out and kill only leukaemia cells and be invisible to the strong drugs given to patients.

The designer cells were then injected into Layla and she also needed a second bone marrow transplant to restore her immune system.

Now, just months after her family was told she had incurable cancer, Layla is not only alive, but has no trace of leukaemia in her body.

 

 

The future looks promising. What are your thoughts?

More:

Gene editing technique could transform future

Gene editing: Is era of designer humans getting closer?

The promise of gene editing

CRISPR genome editing 'an important tool'

Gene Editing Treats Leukemia

 

 

 

 

 

  Edited June 11, 2016 by Hellken  

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I'm always afraid we'll lose a part of ourselves with this kind of thing. Maybe "perfection" isn't ideal. Maybe what makes people great is the struggle to overcome their deficiencies. Also, who is going to be able to afford this first? Of course it will be the rich, and this time they will gain an actual genetic advantage over everyone else. It isn't going to be a wealth gap anymore, it is going to be a gene gap. Those who can afford it will excel, whereas the rest will fall even further behind. Using kind of technology could be good for preventing diseases and birth defects, but as for actually "enhancing" humans I'm not sure it's a great idea.

Then again maybe I'm just a luddite.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Its stupid. For one, if you give everyone 'perfect genes' all you do is cut down our genetic diversity to a fraction of what it currently is. And then what? We become a race of inbred idiots with crippling genetic deficiencies because everyone has the same DNA? Brilliant. 

And then there is the ethical side as well. If you build your baby to be a really faster runner, and he or she grows up hating to run, well then what? You either wasted a lot of money on giving someone a genetic in a field thats useless to them, or you'll end up pushing people to do something in a certain direction without giving them a choice. 

No, all this does is give those stupid overbearing parents that want to use their kids to achieve goals they never could more power and influence over the lives of their kids. 

 

I'm a firm believer in making people better than would naturally be possible, but I believe that should be done through prosthetic enhancements. The potential for improvement is much greater, and for the most part it remains a choice to take them or not. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

35 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

No, all this does is give those stupid overbearing parents that want to use their kids to achieve goals they never could more power and influence over the lives of their kids.

That's a great point.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Once well understood and legal, genetic variation could potentially increase by taking one (or two different) optimum allele(s) from a pool of near equally optimum genes from within the entire mammalian gene pool. Do you want to smell as many scents as a blood hound? Do you want the ability to synthesize Vitamin C?

Designer babies using a limited variety of designer genes with appearance also genetically manipulated will no doubt be less diverse and less healthy than transgenetic designer babies.

[Sabretooth78 808]

For eradicating diseases, yes.  For "enhancements", a resounding NO.

[Spamoidutout 124]

We are actually already modifying our genes...

Having bad eyesight is not a handicap anymore.

Even blind people can live quite easily

People with physical disabilities can now live a normal life.

 

Science, medicine, our society made such things not as hard to live with now... and gave more chances for people suffering from them to have children and to pass on their genes...

Maybe gene editing could be a good thing if it was used only to correct things... but voluntary modifications are a big no !!

[Easy Bakes 253]

I foresee them just opening up more problems. changing one's genes to produce  advantages seem like it would backfire in some unforeseen way.

change one thing to be an advantage and you cause another to change in for the worse.

I still dont think they have the genome  completely figured out yet   as far as what changing one thing will do to another.

 

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

I don't see why everyone is so quick to jump on the anything beyond defect correction is wrong bandwagon. This tech will be necessary in the next century, if only to adapt people to make them resistant to calcium depletion in zero-g, give higher radiation tolerances and the like. I get that the speeding up of our brain's natural development curve is at best an ethical minefield, but frankly the species is sagging in the middle from overpopulation amongst an under educated majority. This may be the required jolt to move us out of the rut.

[CorinaMarie 29,556]

There is also the other side of the coin. Imagine selecting traits to make peeps totally subservient.

This came to my mind as I was reading this topic:

Quote

[Picard and Guinan are talking about the significance of the creation of multiple Datas]
Guinan: Consider that in the history of many worlds, there have always been disposable creatures. They do the dirty work. They do the work that no one else wants to do because it's too difficult or too hazardous. And an army of Datas, all disposable... You don't have to think about their welfare, you don't think about how they feel. Whole generations of disposable people.

^ From: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0001446/quotes

 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

We need to counter the effects of dysgenics soon. The best case scenario would be a sustainable population of healthy human beings supported by robotics.