31–40 of 243 posts
What are the limits of gene editing?
This is awesome but I'm curious why they tried it first on this super-rare disease instead of something more common?
a) need to edit liver cells only, not the entire organism, b) the disease is deadly, so the patients do not have much to lose if anything goes wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knives can kill and save people. Almost anything can be used for bad purposes in the wrong hands.
Not that I agree we should bury our heads in the sand like luddites, but to be fair to OP, knives can only hurt or help in a tiny human radius. It's hard to make an extinction-level weapon (or extension level accident) out of them. Being able to edit genes at will is a different story.
This is awesome but I'm curious why they tried it first on this super-rare disease instead of something more common?
Ethical researchers are thus far being super-cautious about modifying the genome of someone who's likely to have children. While the article doesn't say, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he has explicitly agreed not to have any (more?) children.
What's wrong with "CRISPR gene editing shown to cure Transthyretin amyloidosis in patient study"
Maybe I'm now one of the old people who doesn't understand new usage of language. But I understand that usage dictates grammar rules, but I feel I missed something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I agree we should bury our heads in the sand like luddites, but to be fair to OP, knives can only hurt or help in a tiny human radius. It's hard to make an extinction-level weapon (or extension level accident) out of them. Being able to edit genes at will is a different story.
Viruses are an extinction-level weapon. CRISPR? Not so much. (And neither are likely to result in an extinction-level accident; you'd have to deliberately deploy potent bioweapons in multiple places to extinct us.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I agree we should bury our heads in the sand like luddites, but to be fair to OP, knives can only hurt or help in a tiny human radius. It's hard to make an extinction-level weapon (or extension level accident) out of them. Being able to edit genes at will is a different story.
Viruses are an extinction-level weapon. CRISPR? Not so much. (And neither are likely to result in an extinction-level accident; you'd have to deliberately deploy potent bioweapons in multiple places to extinct us.)
As I understand it (and hopefully I'm not way off base here) there is a technique that creates a "gene drive" which is kinda like an SDK that is inserted into the patients genome which improves the efficacy of CRISPR.
This code finds its way into the gametes which is then passed on to children. The children did not ask for this SDK, but now they have it and it potentially becomes immortal in human DNA.
On the one hand, cool: the SDK is there and possibly makes it even easier to alter DNA>
On the other hand, holy shit: there's a ticking timebomb in the populations DNA now.
It's called CRISPR-cas9:
https://wyss.harvard.edu/media-post/crispr-cas9-gene-drives/
https://scicomm2020.wordpress.com/2020/02/24/controversial-g...
Reminds me of this guy that cured himself of lactose intolerance. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a17804128/sc...
I think it's annoying people get upset that people who do this potentially damage their bodies. First of all, it's that individuals body. They can take whatever risks they want. I don't see how trying to alter your own DNA is any worse for you than skydiving. Both have inherent risks, none of which affect others. Secondly, because there is no red tape or ethical scientific practices required, this gives us the opport…
If you make germline edits, this does potentially impact others - you can have children who inherit the edit. They don't have any choice about that (depending on the edit they might randomly not receive a copy of the edited material, but that's luck) and its consequences in them may be undesirable even if the outcome for you, an adult, was fine and anyway your choice.
I feel like I missed something, and now everywhere I look we have headlines like this. What's wrong with "CRISPR gene editing shown to cure Transthyretin amyloidosis in patient study" Maybe I'm now one of the old people who doesn't understand new usage of language. But I understand that usage dictates grammar rules, but I feel I missed something.
I feel like I missed something, and now everywhere I look we have headlines like this. What's wrong with "CRISPR gene editing shown to cure Transthyretin amyloidosis in patient study" Maybe I'm now one of the old people who doesn't understand new usage of language. But I understand that usage dictates grammar rules, but I feel I missed something.
But it's a terrible title for an article meant for laypeople like us. The words "transthyretin amyloidosis" are utterly meaningless to me and most HN/NPR readers, but "He Inherited A Devastating Disease" tells me what kind of disease it is (devastating, heritable) and why CRISPR gene editing might be a big deal.
It also helps clue me into the contents of the article. Because it is as much a summary of a key research result, as it is a profile of Patrick Doherty, a man affected by the disease. That's entirely missing from your title.
None of this is new. "Write for your audience" is as old as writing itself.