Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the this-could-mean-superpowers dept.

A week after a Chinese team reported semi-successful modification of human embryos, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, has said in a statement that his agency will not fund any research involving human germline modification:

The concept of altering the human germline in embryos for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed. Advances in technology have given us an elegant new way of carrying out genome editing, but the strong arguments against engaging in this activity remain. These include the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent, and a current lack of compelling medical applications justifying the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in embryos.

Practically, there are multiple existing legislative and regulatory prohibitions against this kind of work. The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed (H.R. 2880, Sec. 128). Furthermore, the NIH Guidelines state that the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, "...will not at present entertain proposals for germ line alteration". It is also important to note the role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this arena, which applies not only to federally funded research, but to any research in the U.S. The Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act give the FDA the authority to regulate cell and gene therapy products as biological products and/or drugs, which would include oversight of human germline modification. During development, biological products may be used in humans only if an investigational new drug application is in effect (21 CFR Part 312).

However, some scientists aren't joining the chorus of "universal" criticism:

George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, disagrees that the technology is so immature. He says that the researchers did not use the most up-to-date CRISPR/Cas9 methods and that many of the researchers' problems could have been avoided or lessened if they had.

Although researchers agree that a moratorium on clinical applications is needed while the ethical and safety concerns of human-embryo editing are worked out, many see no problem with the type of research that Huang's team did, in part because the embryos could not have led to a live birth. "It's no worse than what happens in IVF all the time, which is that non-viable embryos are discarded," says John Harris, a bioethicist at the University of Manchester, UK. "I don't see any justification for a moratorium on research," he adds. Church, meanwhile, notes that many of the earliest experiments with CRISPR/Cas9 were developed in human induced pluripotent stem cells, adult cells that have been reprogrammed to have the ability to turn into any cell type, including sperm and eggs. He questions whether Huang's experiments are any more intrinsically problematic.

 
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 kaszz on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:45PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:45PM (#177898) Journal

    The American nation (USA) is not the best there is. But when taken into comparison of nations like Russia and China the choice is not that hard. The Chinese government will likely have less qualms and transparency in growing yes-men-drones.

    And of course the option of a synthetic womb is probably within grasp.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @05:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @05:40PM (#177905)

    If ever there was a country of yes men drones, it would be America. Most of you are too lazy to even vote and nearly all of those that do keep saying 'yes' to the same 2 groups of idiots.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:21PM (#177928)

      We vote for the first two because the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and beyond are crazier than the first two!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:52PM (#177937)

        Your post implies that the first two are sane.

        If the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and beyond are crazier than the first two, then you need more crazy, and less sane.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @09:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @09:05PM (#177959)

          It implies nothing of the sort.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:43AM (#178050)

        No one wants to run apart from those 2 because the rest of the population are yes-men.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:19AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:19AM (#178872) Journal

      How to cure yes-men..

      -Go kill yourself.
      -Yes sir!

          ;-)

  • (Score: 1) by dime on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:09PM

    by dime (1163) on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:09PM (#177909)

    You honest think that if amazing technology to modify genes comes out, it will be immediately forced onto the lowest class in order to make them drones? They're already drones. Everyone in the world will be a drone compared to the few (those who already have the influence or money to get this) who have first crack at this technology to breed out health problems and breed in (more) intelligence. Stick with your 1984 brush applies to everything ideology and live a bitter life as new technology and possibly the course of human evolution passes you by.

    I myself have a few qualms and suspicions on what this may be used for, but the compulsive backlash that articles like this get often remind me of the Ousters from the Hyperion Cantos. Thought of as the evil and barbaric race that we must be protected by our human-preserving hegemony must protect us from. Meanwhile, those who brave into new territories have already evolved beyond regard for those who refuse to adapt.

    • (Score: 1) by dime on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:15PM

      by dime (1163) on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:15PM (#177913)

      s/by our human-preserving hegemony must protect us from/from by our human-preserving hegemony/

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:34PM (#177931)

    I'm worried that these yes-men will have 14" or maybe even 16" penises, all thanks to gene splicing and modification. Doesn't that worry you? It worries the heck out of me.