Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-ethical-issues-here dept.

A team of researchers led by Junjiu Huang at the Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou have reported human germline modification using CRISPR:

In a world first, Chinese scientists have reported editing the genomes of human embryos. The results are published in the online journal Protein & Cell and confirm widespread rumours that such experiments had been conducted — rumours that sparked a high-profile debate last month about the ethical implications of such work.

In the paper, researchers led by Junjiu Huang, a gene-function researcher at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, tried to head off such concerns by using 'non-viable' embryos, which cannot result in a live birth, that were obtained from local fertility clinics. The team attempted to modify the gene responsible for β-thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disorder, using a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR/Cas9. The researchers say that their results reveal serious obstacles to using the method in medical applications.

[...] A Chinese source familiar with developments in the field said that at least four groups in China are pursuing gene editing in human embryos.

While some embryos were successfully edited, the use of CRISPR/Cas9 was not nearly as reliable as desired:

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. "If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%," Huang says. "That's why we stopped. We still think it's too immature."

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:43AM (#174249)

    natural selection = survive and reproduce. = "Survival of the strongest"

    It's not reasoning but definition.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:31PM (#174263)

    > It's not reasoning but definition.

    Only if you define fertility as strength.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:42PM (#174269)

    Incorrect.

    It is 'survival of the fittest'- not 'survival of the strongest', and that is an important distinction.

    Lets say you have two competing genetic branches of lizard.

    The lizard in question gets in lethal fights ~1:6 during its lifespan, resources are plentiful but energy intensive to gather

    Mutation A causes the lizard to get armoured scales, larger size, devastating claws, and greater hunter-intellect.
    Mutation B causes the lizard to mature faster, be smaller, have softer more vulnerable skin, and generally be dumber.

    Given our outlined scenario (1:6 lethal fights, plentiful but energy intensive resources) mutation B will win out over time- all of the lizards will become smaller, more vulnerable, and dumber- because for every 1 stupid lizard that gets killed because of its lack of capability in a fight 5 will survive and reach breeding age sooner, whereas the energy requirements of being bigger, smarter, and having better natural weapons will plague all Mutation A members.

    Evolution does not select the 'best' route- It will develop A (singular) solution for a given niche, over time, but by no means will that be the best or most effective means to fill that niche.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:53PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:53PM (#174331) Homepage
      _OR_

      The larger slower smarter hunters will have a free lunch every day, and the lethal fight rate for the cute fluffy ones will approach 1:1.

      Keeping that ratio constant whilst everything else was changing is just absurd.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:15PM (#174278)

    natural selection = survive and reproduce

    So far you're right.

    = "Survival of the strongest"

    And here's where you go wrong.

    You've made the implicit (and wrong) assumption that it will always be the strongest who will be best in surviving and reproducing.

    The surviving one will be the one who is best adapted. While in some environments this may be the strongest one, in other environments it will be the one who is best at hiding, or who can survive the longest with no food or water.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:39PM (#174308)

    While you work out at the gym being "the strongest," I'll be at your house banging your wife. Ever wonder why your kids don't look like you?

    • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:15PM

      by Hartree (195) on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:15PM (#174360)

      I predict strong selection for the ability to hide in closets when hubby comes home.