Einstein or Frankenstein???? Human gene editing trials approved in the United Stataes
Options
bambu
Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
Now that a federal biosafety and bioethics committee has approved what would be the first use of the trailblazing genome-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 in people, the obvious question arises: Could anything go wrong?
1. CRISPR edits DNA it isn’t supposed to
The experiment would alter the immune system’s T cells only after they’re removed from a patient. That gives scientists the chance to screen the CRISPR’d cells to make sure only the three intended genes, all involved in making T cells find and destroy tumor cells, are altered. But after those T cells are infused back into a patient to fight melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma, the CRISPR system can keep editing DNA, and tracking such edits becomes like following a polar bear in a snowstorm.
2. CRISPR hits its targets, but then genetic hell breaks loose
When CRISPR’s DNA-cutting enzyme snips the genome, the severed DNA strands don’t just smoothly reconnect like an electronic document that closes up the space between “just” and “reconnect” if “smoothly” is deleted from this sentence. No. Random DNA floating around rushes into the gap.
3. The Energizer Bunny problem
The components of CRISPR usually don’t just slip into T cells on their own. That requires a virus, since viruses are adept at infiltrating cells. A spokesman for Penn said the scientists were not available to answer questions about their proposed procedure, but if they do use viruses, they run the risk that virus-infected cells will keep cranking out the DNA-snipping Cas9 — by one estimate, for 10 or 20 years. That leaves lots of time for unintended genome-editing to occur.
4. Dollars triumph over data
Study after study has shown that when clinical trials involve entities with a financial interest in the outcome, as the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and Penn have in this one, the reported outcomes are more likely to be favorable than when the trial is sponsored by, say, the National Institutes of Health. In studies where the sponsor has a profit motive, scientists are also less likely to adhere to best practices, research has shown. “If you really believe in a [bio]technology and it’s not completely clear whether a side effect is the fault of the disease or the technology, your bias could influence how you interpret that,” said Atkins.
In 1999, members of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee pointed out, a young man died in a now-infamous gene therapy trial at Penn in which the lead scientist had a multimillion-dollar financial stake in the technology. That conflict of interest, scholars have argued, may have led him to make dangerous decisions. Although the Parker Institute will handle patents for any discoveries that emerge from the research it funds, “each site owns its intellectual property,” said chief legal counsel Melinda Griffith. “If you invent it, you own it.”
Or, everything could go well and CRISPR cures cancer.
https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/23/crispr-humans-penn-clinical-trial/
https://youtu.be/2pp17E4E-O8
1. CRISPR edits DNA it isn’t supposed to
The experiment would alter the immune system’s T cells only after they’re removed from a patient. That gives scientists the chance to screen the CRISPR’d cells to make sure only the three intended genes, all involved in making T cells find and destroy tumor cells, are altered. But after those T cells are infused back into a patient to fight melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma, the CRISPR system can keep editing DNA, and tracking such edits becomes like following a polar bear in a snowstorm.
2. CRISPR hits its targets, but then genetic hell breaks loose
When CRISPR’s DNA-cutting enzyme snips the genome, the severed DNA strands don’t just smoothly reconnect like an electronic document that closes up the space between “just” and “reconnect” if “smoothly” is deleted from this sentence. No. Random DNA floating around rushes into the gap.
3. The Energizer Bunny problem
The components of CRISPR usually don’t just slip into T cells on their own. That requires a virus, since viruses are adept at infiltrating cells. A spokesman for Penn said the scientists were not available to answer questions about their proposed procedure, but if they do use viruses, they run the risk that virus-infected cells will keep cranking out the DNA-snipping Cas9 — by one estimate, for 10 or 20 years. That leaves lots of time for unintended genome-editing to occur.
4. Dollars triumph over data
Study after study has shown that when clinical trials involve entities with a financial interest in the outcome, as the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and Penn have in this one, the reported outcomes are more likely to be favorable than when the trial is sponsored by, say, the National Institutes of Health. In studies where the sponsor has a profit motive, scientists are also less likely to adhere to best practices, research has shown. “If you really believe in a [bio]technology and it’s not completely clear whether a side effect is the fault of the disease or the technology, your bias could influence how you interpret that,” said Atkins.
In 1999, members of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee pointed out, a young man died in a now-infamous gene therapy trial at Penn in which the lead scientist had a multimillion-dollar financial stake in the technology. That conflict of interest, scholars have argued, may have led him to make dangerous decisions. Although the Parker Institute will handle patents for any discoveries that emerge from the research it funds, “each site owns its intellectual property,” said chief legal counsel Melinda Griffith. “If you invent it, you own it.”
Or, everything could go well and CRISPR cures cancer.
https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/23/crispr-humans-penn-clinical-trial/
https://youtu.be/2pp17E4E-O8 Comments
-
I was learning about this in biology class, my teacher showed a video of one of the founders explaining crispr to I'm guessing scientist ....not 1 black person in the room....but this is interesting because so many things could possibly go wrong....and right
-
This is excellent news and as it develops will get even better if you are rich
-
We don't share the same enthusiasm for genetic manipulation.....
I feel that the answers for several genetic questions will eventually be unlocked and could possibly spark some type of genetic warfare.....
However, I agree that it will benefit the rich.....
-
Just as it was in the days of Noah......
-
This is great news and can prevent dangerous diseases in children. Good stuff.
The religious fanatics always have disdained for technology then use it for whatever excuse. -
If it can prevent dangerous diseases or medical conditions for babies, then I don't have a problem with it.
-
@zzombie I don't consider you a religious fanatic, just someone who is religious.
-
its crazy ....just this morning my wife gave me a paper on this...they are saying the lady might be up for a nobel prize
-
For medical use great but we all know things like this and the budget needed its a military programme would not be surprised if they found a way to wipe certain people out
-
@bambu ...U nailed it. Genetic annihilation is their biggest fear. Factor in their infant mortality rate, skin cancer ( from the dam SUN! The one source that sustains and maintains all life and plants that require it Kills them.... kinda ironic)and just plain dying off got em shook. ? with all kinda cyberhumanism ? . Sad when u truly think about it and funny at the same time. U can't play mother nature tho. Gon back fire on they ass. Watch. I know I will be.
-
Real life captain America coming soon
