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This discussion has been archived.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: 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).