I figure I got, at best, about another 40 years of life on this planet. I'd like to think that I'd be checking out when this becomes something akin to normal or common.
Yes, this is a lot better detail. Haha, I'm still trying to get through my BS neurobiology at UT... and on the phone... regardless this is perfect detail vs my small post.
I liked your explanation more than mine though. CRISPR right now is like string theory but for biochemists. It seems like all my friends think this is the be all to end all. Personally, I don't completely understand the science behind it (I'm a chemist/biochemist not a biologist or molecular biologist). China scares me because they could be reckless about it. It's racist I know, but in the back of my mind I'm picturing China the way the soviet union was during the space race. I think what also scares me about it is what it might do to medicine as a whole. I think the healthcare system as is already favors people with money. Age is somewhat proportional to money. As these technologies emerge I only see it getting worse. When you add that they want to extend this to food and crop practices I'm even more scared. I don't necessary believe in banning this emerging tech, but I'm also really reserved about the good it will do. Edit: that's more gloomy than I meant it to be, I'm cautious, heavily cautious but optimistic.
I am not religious and I am an atheist. It has quite a bit to do with what is and isn’t ethical and it is viewed that way within the scientific community as well, where the vast majority of scientists are not religious. My issue is that the most immoral government on the face of the earth has decided to go forward with the project. The Chinese government has no concern for their own citizens or anyone else for that matter. I have read your posts before on the Chinese government. You are free to believe it is civic pride or religion, or anything else. The issue is one of values and morality.
I agree with you on this, it worries me too and the space race is a perfect example. I mean with this behavior of just editing how they want, who's to say they don't release a bad type of crop that sterilizes other crops or edit too much in a human and cause all kinds of dangerous issues... It's all very concerning, and it also makes me wonder on the research that's happening that isn't getting reported because it goes way too far against ethics (this is probably a bit tinfoilly and I'm not into conspiracy theories but there's no checkpoints here/approvals). I mean just this experiment alone is very dangerous, especially for the newborns that didn't even get a say on this. I'd understand if the newborns had a really bad genetic trait and they'd die at birth, but just doing it because "we think we can" and using the rare AIDS immune mutation that some people have as an excuse is just not worth the risk. I mean, again, unless the patient/person had HIV/AIDS that wasn't responding to current treatment, you don't just screw around with genetics because "you want to". I also hope this dangerous play doesn't set back current research, iirc there was already a huge setback in the 90s (could be early 00s) when researchers created code to add an immune system back to children with a rare disorder (can't think of disease atm), and it worked but it unfortunately worked too well creating Leukemia in the children. All the FDA needs is to hear how this prevented HIV transmission but allowed something else unexpected to occur and it could cause a slowdown on proper research.
How long is it before people are having designer babies. Who would not want their kid to be bigger, faster, stronger, smarter? Its pretty much inevitable. You are going to have two classes of people. I guess you already have that with the rich and poor, but its going to get farther apart.
It isn’t racist. The Chinese government has a long history of highly unethical behavior and no regard for their own people. A number of posters were alive when the Chinese government decided to kill at least 45,000,000 of their own people on a whim. The actual number is likely closer to 100,000,000. There are serious and valid concerns with China being involved.
It's completely tangential, but what do you want to do with your neuroscience degree? I assume med school, but some really sadistic people actually take it to PhD too, so either could be possible. The reason I ask is you do have knack for explaining this stuff, and if I recall correctly UT has an a partnership with Alan Alda and the science communication folks. I did one of their workshops in grad school (at University of Oregon) and I even got a fellowship to pay for me from the science literacy program because I participated in it. It's an amazing experience, and it's definitely worth your time if UT still does it. Plus, it looks good regardless of your career path.
Right now kids are far in the future for me so i still have time. It's something that is always in my mind but i never really tried to think it through(well until now). It's a glimmer of hope that my problems won't pass to future generations, but honestly i'm also a bit torn beacuse i feel like the struggle i've been through made me a much better person and represent a big part of my character.
I think the future of this will be a panel of Crispr/Cas9-mediated modifications used to avoid genetically modified diseases. The idea of using it to confer viral or bacterial resistance is pretty interesting, but should obviously go through extensive testing in mice and non-human primates before use in humans.
I’m loling a bit at the unethical angle here...the “uncurable” disease spreading...whatever your opinion is on the matter , this technology will happen and will be widely available within the next 10-20 years. It’s too powerful to not be used. We’ve been looking at ways to cure disease, be stronger, faster, smarter, need less sleep, have a full head of hair, be able to stay rock hard into our 90s, live 20, 30, hell 100 years longer...it’s all there on the table. We’ve been going balls to the wall trying to find chemicals to cause these changes. We’ve never had issues using the chemicals we’ve created to give us the edge/desire we want...changing our genes to make it permanent will be no different. What will it do to society ? Probably not good in the long run, but regardless, it will happen. Just be ready...and save up for that 30 year longevity gene editing injection...I’m sure it will be expensive when they first come out.
I distrust the Chinese government as much as anyone, but this is just some hack working on his own in his private clinic. It's not some secret government military eugenics experiment. His university was surprised by this; the government wasn't anywhere near it.
If nine out of ten people in trials develop genetic anomalies from CRISPR mistake and die of horrible exotic genetic diseases by the age of ten, it won't. To be clear, that is very possible with this guy. He has no idea.
Personally, I don't think this will be even close to clinical trials for another 10-20 years. By then, who knows, maybe we've worked out the kinks. Now if you're talking about food sources that's a different story. I wouldn't be shocked if CRISPR cows aren't in use by then.
This isn't curing... you're creating an artificial replica from scratch to take over what was natural. So your super baby will be immune to AIDS, but the mutation in the sequencing will lead to another opening for bacteria. The earth has a delicate ecosystem and will always find ways to eventually protect itself from human negligence. It only hastens the ability of bacteria to wipe out a species. You won't get this if you don't have a human factor to you.
That's 100% speculative. By your logic progress would never occur. We are seeing in cat populations because we understand the medicine better they are living longer than they were even as early as 20 years ago. Curing one disease does not necessarily afford another, and even in situations where it does it doesn't mean the new disease is worse than the first. We aren't dying as infants nearly as much as we used to, does that mean there is some horrific disease that took its place? Also, science doesn't agree with your second assertion that the earth will protect itself. Hell, that's why climate change is a big freaking deal, because in a lot of aspects we will reach a point of no return. Again, ask yourself if you would want the medicine of the 1500s. The answer is probably a no. Now, that doesn't mean this technology can't be bastardized or exploited. I think you're kind of worried about the wrong things here.
Again, you're using a technicality to look over millions of years of the highest form of science - the ecosystem that created every living plant, animal, human etc. As the most evolved living forms, we can study it, understand it, but when we try to replace it, it will crush us easily. And without needing to think twice. Protozoal bacteria, mitochondrian pathways in apoptosis... they will do what they need to do and find a way. The invention of penicillin and modern medicine has nothing to do with REPROGRAMMING THE GENETIC CODE OF HUMANS. This category doesn't even fall into medicine. I am not worried about the ethics of it at all, dealing with Saudi Arabia, Palm Oil plantations etc. are far worse. I am pointing out the wide hole it opens up to take out huge chunks of the human race and the new problems it will bring in the name of a very low form of science compared to creation itself. Of course it does. Humans will kill themselves off by another millenia, the Earth will take 10-100,000 years to get back to it's pre industrial level strength, and a new species will take their place. They've been doing it for billions of years.
I say this with the utmost respect, you need to take both a biochemistry course and an evolutionary biology course my friend. The science doesn't agree with you. Environmental factors like penicillin can influence your genome in ways other than just reprogramming it, have you ever heard of differential expression. You also do not seem to understand evolution on a cause and effect basis. You have the two mixed up. I don't say this as some Joe Shmoe off the street, I have a PhD in chemistry (with a BS in biochemistry) and have been working in cancer research for almost 10 years now. The science of what you're saying is just... wrong. Like there is no other way of putting it without being derogatory.
