Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday April 07 2015, @05:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the human-programming dept.

An article over at Science Daily is reporting that researchers at Duke University have developed a new method to activate genes by synthetically creating a key component of the epigenome that controls how our genes are expressed. The technique adapts CRISPR in order to deliver the enzyme acetyltransferase to promoters and enhancers rather than the well-known application of splicing DNA. Their research is detailed in a paper to be published in the April 2015 issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology.

From the Science Daily article:

Duke researchers have developed a new method to precisely control when genes are turned on and active.

The new technology allows researchers to turn on specific gene promoters and enhancers - pieces of the genome that control gene activity - by chemically manipulating proteins that package DNA. This web of biomolecules that supports and controls gene activity is known as the epigenome.

The researchers say having the ability to steer the epigenome will help them explore the roles that particular promoters and enhancers play in cell fate or the risk for genetic disease and it could provide a new avenue for gene therapies and guiding stem cell differentiation.

What (if any) are the medical and ethical issues surrounding therapies which might come from this sort of research? Should epigenetic therapies be considered "genetic engineering?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:26PM

    by morgauxo (2082) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:26PM (#167523)

    I don't see any ethical issues inherant to any form of medicine, including those involving genes. I think that anyone who advocates not eliminating pain and suffering where we have the technology to do so has no better system of ethics than someone who goes around causing pain and suffering directly. Of course any therapy wether it targets the genome, epigenome or just involves traditional drugs should be done carefully and with a large amount of testing. Protesting the use of science to eliminate suffering just because you don't understand it yourself is at best irresponsible and quite likely sadistic.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by rondon on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:43PM

    by rondon (5167) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:43PM (#167535)

    I'm curious, would you consider it to be less pain and suffering for an individual to be born smart and attractive? Because I think some would, which would seem to make it an attractive option from the words which you have written.

    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:36PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:36PM (#168316)

      I don't know. Are you suffering?

      Seriously if you condemn people to suffering from actual illnesses because you are worried that someone might misuse the same technology I don't think you are any better than someone who IS misusing that technology. There is no reason we can't promote the fixing of diseases while prohibitting designer babies. Yes.. I know.. given the chance some people will break the law and have those designer babies but.. so what? People break all sorts of laws and do all sorts of bad things. What technology that is used for good purposes isn't also misused?

      Use law and punishment to minimize the misuse but while doing so be sure to help everyone that you possibly can who needs it.

      • (Score: 1) by rondon on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:43PM

        by rondon (5167) on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:43PM (#168463)

        I'm not suffering [maybe a lack of sleep here or there, but no real suffering imo ;)], but I do see something potentially dangerous in designer babies. I see the potential for the government to assume complete control over populations and the world by mandating certain genes, and selling it as a world that is Utopian. I think I just (very briefly) summarized the plot of The Giver.

        Your first comment led me to believe that you thought designer babies, and the ramifications thereof, were completely acceptable. I agree that gene therapy should not be locked in a closet due to fear and angst, but I don't agree that it should be used willy-nilly (which I now understand that you do not believe that to be true either).

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:20PM

    by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:20PM (#167551)

    I believe there is evidence that early psychological and physical abuse leads to changes in the epigenome which can be later inherited by offspring of multiple generations, and can influence the personality, tendency to violent behaviors, and such of both the abused and the abused offspring. (e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969996109003349) [sciencedirect.com]
    I imagine it possible that these kinds of effects go beyond individuals to systemic abuse (e.g. slavery and post-reconstruction).

    Given the choice of altering epigenetics might be a game changer at both the individual and societal levels.

  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:42PM

    by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:42PM (#167566) Homepage Journal

    What about if the treatments were developed and / or finally tested on animals? What about if those animals happened to be primates and what about if that included humans? If the tests were destructive or caused suffering, would you still see no ethical issues at all here? These issues may not be inherent to medical science itself, but they are certainly ubiquitous in the field. I'm not personally making an ethical judgement one way or the other here, although I can't agree with your line of reasoning.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:46PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:46PM (#168322)

      How is that different from any drug? You start with testing on tissue samples rather than whole, feeling organisms if possible. You move to mice or something like that, up to primates and finally to informed humans who have given consent.

      Yes, some pain is caused along the way. I guess I have to concede that there is an ethical issue... you can't do this without causing any suffering whatsoever so you try to minimize it as much as possible. Here's the catch... that is the same with every kind of medicine. If you want to argue that it isn't worth it, that we shouldn't be doing it then fine. But.. to be consistent you have to argue that about every treatment, every drug ever discovered.

      It doesn't make sense to act as though one particular new technology is any different. If such testing is too unethical to be done then we have to give up all medicine and go back to a world where things like smallpox, measles and the black plague run rampant. We have to go back to dying from simple infections and in child birth.

      I know this is cruel and ugly but that's just how reality works.

      Fortunately.. new technology is allowing more and more to be done at the tissue sample level. Fewer animals are needed for testing than in the past. I'd just be happy about that!

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:16AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:16AM (#167689) Journal

    What you have to consider is the possibility of infectious diseases perhaps a Typhoid Mary [wikipedia.org] or genetic epigenetic traits that enable oppressive regimes. Or just long term effects. In most cases new developments are good but there's also a possibility really bad scenarios in some cases.

    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:53PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:53PM (#168324)

      WTF are you talking about?

      Infectious diseases don't come out of the epigenome? They come from viri and parasitic microorganisms.

      Opressive regimes? Do you think someone is going to turn on some embryo's dormant charisma and sociopath genes or something and create a dictator? There is a lot of debate over the roles of genes and enviornment in determining personality. I don't think anyone can say exactly how much of a person comes from which but that is because people are complicated. People are too complicated for your scenario to make any sense! Besides.. even if you could maximize someone's "dictator genes" I doubt you could get any thing worse than the politicians and CEOs our population already seems to be plagued with!

      I think you need to put the SciFi down for a while. A long while! Try an actual science book instead.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 10 2015, @12:59AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 10 2015, @12:59AM (#168569) Journal

        I meant that it may be possible to:
        a) Create the genetic code to spread disease without being affected yourself (like Typhoid Mary)
        b) Epigenetic can be (ab)used to create people that are more docile and compliant than the current population. Add peer pressure to complete the process.

        I were probably a bit unclear.