CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

Post by huxley » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 5:35 PM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #42

smm11 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already had this. It was called Theranos.

I'm not sure what this comment is trying to say. Theranos was a company build from the ground up on fraud. Apple, for all its faults, is provably at the forefront of technology used in personal computing devices.

Post by ACCount37 » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

ikrenji wrote: post #51

ACCount37 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old concern, but it really doesn't work that way. Genetics don't respect human ideas like "nationalities" or "borders" - the targeting you can get by selecting on singular DNA variants is coarse enough to make ICBMs look like precision weapons. Like many things of this nature, people keep bringing it up because it sounds Very Scary and Very Dystopian - not because it's worth giving an actual fuck about.

I mean maybe not right now, but in 100-1000 years a complicated enough "nanobot/virus" could possibly be made to target a single person

Post by GaggiX » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

spligak wrote: post #50

ordinaryradical wrote: post #32

CRISPR is an extremely overhyped approach which found a marketing engine via popular science. There is 1 FDA approved CRISPR therapy as compared to 7 for AAV and 7 for Lentivirus. Counting all viral vector therapies that have been approved, we’re sitting at 19 approved therapies versus 1 for CRISPR. I think CRISPR ideas in a lab are just an easy way into the mainstream press, but viral vector delivery is the real fut…

You're correct about CRISPR Cas9. The off-target affects are difficult to manage. The paper describes Cas12a2. This is a different mechanism with discovery origins in - of all things - agriculture. It does not attempt in any way to reprogram cells. It uses a guide protein to locate a specific mutation with exacting precision and, when it activates, unleashes total destruction of the cell. The implications of Cas12a2…

Post by jagged-chisel » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 5:44 PM UTC

ordinaryradical wrote: post #32

CRISPR is an extremely overhyped approach which found a marketing engine via popular science. There is 1 FDA approved CRISPR therapy as compared to 7 for AAV and 7 for Lentivirus. Counting all viral vector therapies that have been approved, we’re sitting at 19 approved therapies versus 1 for CRISPR. I think CRISPR ideas in a lab are just an easy way into the mainstream press, but viral vector delivery is the real fut…

Post by Bjartr » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 5:46 PM UTC

roncesvalles wrote: post #55

ordinaryradical wrote: post #32

CRISPR is an extremely overhyped approach which found a marketing engine via popular science. There is 1 FDA approved CRISPR therapy as compared to 7 for AAV and 7 for Lentivirus. Counting all viral vector therapies that have been approved, we’re sitting at 19 approved therapies versus 1 for CRISPR. I think CRISPR ideas in a lab are just an easy way into the mainstream press, but viral vector delivery is the real fut…

CRIPSR was a game-changer for genetics research. A lot of gene knockout studies use CRISPR. However, it was always weirdly overhyped for clinical use from the beginning and this was obvious to anyone with a genetics background. The public in general doesn't have a good understanding of basic genetics and I blame high school science curriculums for not covering it well enough. Too much time is wasted on Mendelian gene…