41–50 of 243 posts
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.
Would CRISPR be the technology people would use to modify a bat virus to make it human transmissable? This stuff should stay in its box.
The allure of armies of supersoldiers without sense of emotions, conscience, and remorse is irresistible for dictators. I bet Chinese, or Russian militaries are already working on that.
this is one of the coolest paragraphs I've read in a while. if it's accurate, serves as a great reminder that we're in the future as we speak
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
Yes but the CRISPR engine is passed on to offspring which raises massive ethical questions. 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 thi…
There are things to worry about with cheap gene engineering, but that particular possibility won’t affect us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Both have inherent risks, none of which affect others. 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…
EDIT: and preventing young women from choosing sterilization.
The fact that we can apply these sort of therapies to an adult human who consists of millions upon millions of cells blows my mind. Having the ability to fix our "buggy" genetic code while we are alive is amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Both have inherent risks, none of which affect others. 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…
That is the line of reasoning that leads to banning abortions*. People have a right to alter their bodies. EDIT: and preventing young women from choosing sterilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the line of reasoning that leads to banning abortions*. People have a right to alter their bodies. EDIT: and preventing young women from choosing sterilization.
Precisely. Otherwise if we're going to walk the line of "well even though it's your body, 'us smarter people' say it's bad for you there for you cannot do it" will inevitably lead to the logic of dictating abortion rights as well. This is exactly the logic conservatives use with the Covid Vaccines but because liberals "know what's good for everyone," people shouldn't be allowed to make the "my body my choice" when it…
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.
What are the limits of gene editing?
https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/the-death-of-je...
> Doudna expressed similar concerns about CRISPR.
> “I hope that we don’t get ahead of ourselves with this technology. As exciting as it is, I really would like to see . . . people take a very measured and responsible path forward, where there’s careful vetting along the way,” she said. “Of course, the challenge is that patients are waiting, so you don’t want to delay unduly. But you also want to be safe.”