Ishee, a member of what's called the "biohacker" movement, says he is hoping to use inexpensive new gene-editing techniques to modify the genes of Dalmatians. By repairing a single DNA letter in their genomes, Ishee believes, he can rid them of an inherited disease, hyper uricemia, almost as closely associated with the breed as their white coats and black spots.
In early January, Ishee sent the agency a sketch of his plans to fix Dalmatians expecting to be told no approval was needed. He didn't immediately hear back—and soon found out why. On January 18, the agency released a sweeping new proposal to regulate cattle, pigs, dogs, and other animals modified with gene-editing.
The federal health agency already regulates transgenic animals—those with DNA added from a different species. But what about a dog whose genome has been tweaked to repair a disease gene? Or to endow it with the gene for a trait, like fluffy fur, already found in another canine? According to the newly proposed regulations, such creations will also need federal approval before entering the marketplace.
Is it government overreach, or do such restrictions make sense?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:00PM
Is it government overreach, or do such restrictions make sense? Sometimes it really seems to be a bit of both.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:05PM
They can take these restrictions and stuff them up their asses. They will be completely ignored if the ease of gene editing and the demand for the service go up.
As for the FDA... will anybody be eating the dalmatians? No? Then get the government out of there.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:11PM
And who will stop the hoards of ravenous demented mutated dalmations that will overthrow humanity and eventually rule the galaxy!?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:13PM
Geriatric Bruce Willis? Cruella de Vil? Nobody?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday February 02 2017, @07:20PM
Cruella de Vil?
Now *there*'s a reboot I'd watch. While she's at it, she can toss in a retrovirus to get rid of all those messy black patches.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:15PM
Which is all fine and good if you know what the gene does before you change it. If you're playing guesswork games you could really fuck shit up for everybody though. Direct DNA manipulation is not something that should be done lightly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:25PM
Modded up because it's apparently something that people here need said to them, despite how bleedin' obvious it is.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:51PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:56PM
Why not? If the zombie corpse of Hitler popped out of the ground and started shouting "Der sky ist blue!" at me, I'm not gonna start believing it's orange with purple polka dots just because it's Undead Hitler telling me the sky is blue.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:39PM
AC you had to poke. Now MB is reincarnated zombie. Btw AH, in what universe do the undead speak coherently?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:51PM
I didn't say Uzzard's a (literal) zombie, just making the point that the truth is the truth, no matter the source. No one can be wrong 100% of the time.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @02:23PM
At the very least, the undead in Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn [wikipedia.org] speak coherently, including undead Hitler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @02:04PM
Der Himmel ist blau, actually.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 03 2017, @06:18PM
That just makes you a literal grammar Nazi :D I don't sprechen Deutsch, sorry.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:44PM
I reckon that's a mark of integrity. When you can mod up somebody you mostly disagree with, it says you can rise above petty tribalism and give credit where credit is due. I salute AH for it. I hope others follow her lead.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @03:32PM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 02 2017, @07:46PM
So, how, exactly, is the regulatory agency going to prove that a Dalmation in the marketplace without hyper uricemia has been genetically edited?
Make the mod, fix the disease, observe 3 generations of offspring for any unintended consequences, if the great-grandkids of the edited embryos are good dogs, sell them as good dogs, not as frankenfurmutts.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:21PM
That is the point of regulation, unscrupulous scientists will make genetic changes based on how much they're paid and skip the entire unintended consequences aspect.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:23PM
Bingo.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:14PM
It should not be done at all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gringer on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:00PM
Direct gene manipulation will result in a lot fewer fuck-ups than the current "acceptable" methods of breeding dogs with their siblings and cousins. At least if you're manipulating a single gene, you know that the effects are specifically associated with that gene manipulation, rather than one of many different modified areas of the genome.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:22PM
Which is all fine and good until you flip the Super Mutant Hellhound gene. Or the Exude Toxic Sweat gene. And it somehow gets into the wild.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by gringer on Friday February 03 2017, @01:24AM
And it somehow gets into the wild.
A dog that caused problems of the scale that you're suggesting would be pretty quickly Darwined out of the population. We have a lot more to worry about from mutant bacteria and viruses (with generation times of days and hours) than we do from mutant mammals (except perhaps Donald Trump).
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:31PM
On one hand you have the ability to fix the fuck ups of human meddling with dog breeding which has introduced many genetic flaws thanks to inbreeding.
On the other hand, Who controls a breed? Once you have the ability to make designer animals, inevitably there will be patent and trademark issues. Licensing for breeding, court cases where unlicensed breeders are sued, and dictation of breed mating preventing mating between two different patented animals, a cross licensing issue.
Software patents are bad enough. Do we now want patented animals? Patented seeds and crops are bad enough. Now were fucking with livestock and pets.
Where do you draw the line for genetic modification? Personally, I'd rater it be limited to ONLY removing hereditary diseases, birth defects, and genes that increase chances of cancer. Otherwise, fuck off.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 02 2017, @05:56PM
Well, just wait until you've got humans with patented genes. If you want to have children, get a patent license.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:13PM
And the 'IP' laws surrounding medical waste are now bad enough that we will probably seen a new and appalling wave of Henrietta Lacks style appropriation and reselling of other people's genetic material.
I suppose the only bright side to it is that in the unlikely event your genes became popular (and ideally virulently contaminating like the HeLa cell line) you might be able to use it against DNA evidence against you since you or your ancestor's contaminated genes obviously threw off their 'irrefutable' DNA testing (even though it should barely be trusted today given the widescale corruption in the analysis industry.)
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday February 03 2017, @03:35PM
Even if someone was conceived with a patented germline gene, by the time the human is old enough to legally reproduce, the patent on this gene will likely have expired.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:26PM
In the United States, "Who controls a breed" is a question with an answer. The American Kennel Club.
They have, on previous occasions, made active decisions to alter the definition of a breed to facilitate good breed health. For example, puppies of a dog with Hip Displasia may not be registered Golden Retrievers for breeding purposes.
No one legally restricts you from calling those puppies goldens, but you can't get the "papers" that anyone looking for a certified pure bred dog might expect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:30PM
Get rid of software patents and disallow animal patents. Pretty simple, except that our government is controlled by corporations.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:13PM
Get rid of software patents and disallow animal patents. Pretty simple, except that our government is controlled by corporations.
Get rid of any biopatents for something that can survive and reproduce outside the lab, either animal, plant or whatever category of life. Or at the very least have extremely rigorous regulations about what can and cannot be patented.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @06:23PM
will anybody be eating the dalmatians?
Wait for the Phase II rulemaking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:32PM
In the case of crop modifications, I urge a great deal of caution given that we have already seen modifications escape into the wild, but in this case, the likelihood of this resulting in packs of wild mutant dal-wolves roaming the forests seems small enough to make the attempt permissible.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:21PM
Government overreach. I would like a bio luminescent glow in the dark dog.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday February 03 2017, @09:50AM
It's common sense, we shouldn't allow any genetically modified cattle, pigs, and dogs at all. You're only allowed aurochs, wild boar, and wolves, anything else is tainted by manipulation.