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: 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.