SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The stakes, however, have changed. Everyone at the Napa meeting had access to a gene-editing technique called Crispr-Cas9. The first term is an acronym for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats," a description of the genetic basis of the method; Cas9 is the name of a protein that makes it work. Technical details aside, Crispr-Cas9 makes it easy, cheap, and fast to move genes around—any genes, in any living thing, from bacteria to people. "These are monumental moments in the history of biomedical research," Baltimore says. "They don't happen every day."
Using the three-year-old technique, researchers have already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. Agronomists have rendered wheat invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew, hinting at engineered staple crops that can feed a population of 9 billion on an ever-warmer planet. Bioengineers have used Crispr to alter the DNA of yeast so that it consumes plant matter and excretes ethanol, promising an end to reliance on petrochemicals. Startups devoted to Crispr have launched. International pharmaceutical and agricultural companies have spun up Crispr R&D. Two of the most powerful universities in the US are engaged in a vicious war over the basic patent. Depending on what kind of person you are, Crispr makes you see a gleaming world of the future, a Nobel medallion, or dollar signs.
The technique is revolutionary, and like all revolutions, it's perilous. Crispr goes well beyond anything the Asilomar conference discussed. It could at last allow genetics researchers to conjure everything anyone has ever worried they would—designer babies, invasive mutants, species-specific bioweapons, and a dozen other apocalyptic sci-fi tropes. It brings with it all-new rules for the practice of research in the life sciences. But no one knows what the rules are—or who will be the first to break them.
Finally. I've been waiting for my Four-assed monkey for years.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Snotnose on Friday July 24 2015, @02:41PM
welcome our new 4 legged snake overlords.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 24 2015, @04:32PM
With genetic engineering I will become a black-snaked overlord, if you know what I mean.
Finally, a real pants-bulge, one that ain't socks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2015, @05:07PM
That desire is solely for your own insecurities, not to use as a woman-pleaser. Very few women are size queens, and men look at other guy's cocks [neatorama.com] far more than women. Its fine to love cock, there's nothing wrong with that, but be honest with yourself.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 24 2015, @05:47PM
Keep telling yourself that. Have sex with a woman, then have sex with a woman using a penis-extender.
Come back and say what you just said with a straight face after she's louder, friskier, and asking for more visits. Sure, of course she will 'love you the same', but behave very differently in certain contexts.
Life can be sad like that, but we're only animals.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Saturday July 25 2015, @07:56AM
Only if it extends his girth rather than his length (assuming both are average), as an avalanche worth of studies have shown & most women will tell you. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @01:09AM
Why Penis Size Doesn't Matter One Bit in Getting Most Women Off [alternet.org]
by Duana Welch, PhD (a female)
So, a bone -could- be involved, but it is unlikely to be the mataphorical one on which you are fixated.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2015, @09:35PM
So, they will overcome our actual two-legged rat overlords?