Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
1–10 of 178 posts
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#2This is really exciting news.
However, a big challenge that makes this work extremely difficult to bring to fruition is that you have to let an embryo develop fully to figure out to determine if the therapy actually produces a healthy human. At which point the consequences of failed experiments become increasingly difficult to work with for obvious ethical and moral reasons.
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#3[deleted]
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#4This is really exciting news. However, a big challenge that makes this work extremely difficult to bring to fruition is that you have to let an embryo develop fully to figure out to determine if the therapy actually produces a healthy human. At which point the consequences of failed experiments become increasingly difficult to work with for obvious ethical and moral reasons.
They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be considered ethical for science as well.
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#5I've often wondered about Cystic Fibrosis and DNA editing. For people with two copies of the variant gene, they get the disease. But there are indications that having one copy of it can bring benefits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage).
So what if the optimum for humans is to have both variants? It would seem appropriate to move the newer CF gene variant to a different place on the chromosome so that doesn't need to displace the original gene. I imagine nature may eventually figure this out, but embryonic DNA editing could bring it about sooner. Of course this is speculative on my part and people would obviously debate taking such action even if the science really suggests it's a good idea.
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#6>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism.
If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will.
I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exert control over their environment, it's inevitable that we also learn to control our own evolution. Rejecting this seems like tying our hands behind our backs unnecessarily. But I get that huge swathes of the population reject it for religious reasons or what have you. I argue that the "arms race" argument could work well to sway these people, and then before we can send super-soldiers into battle, our much more intelligent children will realize total species improvement is a better investment than squabbling over arbitrary borders, and carry on the race without these disputes.
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#7This is really exciting news. However, a big challenge that makes this work extremely difficult to bring to fruition is that you have to let an embryo develop fully to figure out to determine if the therapy actually produces a healthy human. At which point the consequences of failed experiments become increasingly difficult to work with for obvious ethical and moral reasons.
They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be considered ethical for science as well.
The issue would be abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks considered ethical by whom?
There's nowhere near consensus on that issue in society. Also the ethics of abortion wouldn't be the same as the ethics of such experiments; in abortion the rights of the mother are at play, minimally, and there are reasonable discussions about when an embryo obtains rights as well as whose rights reign supreme.
Even if considered legal, given that law != ethics, the balance of rights is not the same as abortion.
I would also expect the scientists to deal with this pretty conservatively because if they push those limits, the likely cries to stop funding, etc, etc, would become much more pronounced and the likelihood of the work hitting a political wall much higher.
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#8This is really exciting news. However, a big challenge that makes this work extremely difficult to bring to fruition is that you have to let an embryo develop fully to figure out to determine if the therapy actually produces a healthy human. At which point the consequences of failed experiments become increasingly difficult to work with for obvious ethical and moral reasons.
They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be considered ethical for science as well.
Uh no? Pregnancy is usually not an elective experiment. Standards are much higher for experiments, c.f. standards applied to human subject studies vs. medical treatment.
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#9This is really exciting news. However, a big challenge that makes this work extremely difficult to bring to fruition is that you have to let an embryo develop fully to figure out to determine if the therapy actually produces a healthy human. At which point the consequences of failed experiments become increasingly difficult to work with for obvious ethical and moral reasons.
They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be considered ethical for science as well.
Currently there's limits on how long you can keep embryos going -- the '14-day rule':
http://www.nature.com/news/embryology-policy-revisit-the-14-...
Will be interesting to see the moral and ethical debate on any change here.
Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos
#10>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…
Actually, the take away from this experiment is not that 'designer babies' are becoming more likely. In fact, when the researchers tried to genetically add synthetic DNA to the male genome it ended up rejecting it and took the copy from the female genome.
>> They injected a synthetic healthy DNA sequence into the fertilized egg, expecting that the male genome would copy that sequence into the cut portion. That is how this gene-editing process works in other cells in the body, and in mouse embryos, Dr. Mitalipov said. Instead, the male gene copied the healthy sequence from the female gene. The authors don’t know why it happened.