Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 28 2015, @03:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong? dept.

The advent of enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9 has ushered in a new age of genetic manipulation—it could help us cure diseases or resuscitate extinct species. One of CRISPR’s big advantages is that it’s much easier to use than its predecessors. So easy, in fact, that amateur biohackers are using it in their experiments, according to a report from Nature News.

It’s natural to be nervous about this. CRISPR is a powerful tool that scientists don’t fully understand, and it can have unintended consequences even when used cautiously. Ever since April, when a team of Chinese researchers published their findings after using CRISPR to change the genes of human embryos, the discussion has reached a fever pitch. Experts have been discussing the issue of consent (embryos can’t consent to having their genes manipulated, and the effects could be passed down for generations), the consequences of introducing an unintended change, and the effects on the ecosystem should a genetically manipulated animal break free from the lab.

http://www.popsci.com/biohackers-are-now-using-crispr


Wikipedia: CRISPR and Cas9.

Article at Nature

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived.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, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:19AM (#228830)
    Obama is immune to CRISPr
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:35AM (#228836)

    No new data showing it may be an effective way to select for preexisting mutants. Not this time... I can wait.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:38AM (#228837)

    I am waiting for the genetically modified monkeys that will be freed by animal rights activists. These same monkeys will then infect the general population, causing a true global catastrophy, ushering in the next ice age.

    That would be wonderful, with no one in control. Better than it is today.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:55AM (#228839)
      Shhh... wonkey_monkey's ears are listening.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Adamsjas on Friday August 28 2015, @03:47AM

    by Adamsjas (4507) on Friday August 28 2015, @03:47AM (#228838)

    Even when tools like CRISPR are used to change the genes of consenting (adult) humans, the changed genes can get into the gene pool. How do we protect against some willing participant volunteering for something that has generational consequences.?

    Are labeling demands for GMO foods going to be demanded for GMO humans?

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by JNCF on Friday August 28 2015, @04:19AM

      by JNCF (4317) on Friday August 28 2015, @04:19AM (#228844) Journal

      Maybe we could use the government's threat of force to make them wear armbands that say "GMO." That will surely end well.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday August 28 2015, @09:22AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 28 2015, @09:22AM (#228906) Journal

      How do we protect against some willing participant volunteering for something that has generational consequences.?

      Why do you need protection?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday August 28 2015, @03:03PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday August 28 2015, @03:03PM (#229001)

        He must think that touching the "tainted GMO people" will somehow infect him.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 28 2015, @01:22PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday August 28 2015, @01:22PM (#228965) Journal

      That assumes that the current available gene pool is static and unchanging, which it most certainly is not. DNA from viruses, mutations from environmental contaminants (for the widest possible definition of "contaminant"), and changes induced by epigenetics are occurring all the time. With CRISPR and its successors we humans might for once have a conscious say in the direction in which that's going to proceed. Now, there's still a great deal we don't know about gene expression, but as CRISPR opens the door to mistakes so does it also open the door to greater understanding, because it shortens the feedback loop between test and analysis.

      As to societal responses to the challenges of CRISPR, I wouldn't worry about it for now. 30+ years into the Information Revolution and only now are the implications beginning to sink in for public policy, and they still haven't got a clue how to respond. When you think about how apt they are likely to be when CRISPR and 3D printing and carbon nanotubes/graphene and renewable energy kick in, it makes you chuckle.

      Me, I'd be first in line to volunteer to be a GMO human. Then, I'd also be first in line to be a cyborg.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Friday August 28 2015, @02:07PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Friday August 28 2015, @02:07PM (#228978)

      If only I could have had my family's dust, pollen and smoke allergies and predisposition towards heart disease removed from my own genes before I passed them down to my daughter. That would have been one of the best gifts I could have ever given her. If my wife could have had her migraine, medicine and food allergy genes removed.. that would have been 100 times better!

      I really hope the generation comes soon that is conceived without those genes and several other maladies that we have passed to our children for countless generations. To all the people who think it is a terrible thing to cure these things and pass the cure on... I think you are truly terrible people. Maybe when we have the technology to remove our own maladies we can use the same technology to give them to you since you think they are such great things to have. Just please don't have any kids afterward because it isn't their fault that their parents are naturlist ludites!

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:47PM (#229037)

        What if fixing one problem creates another?

        • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Friday August 28 2015, @05:42PM

          by morgauxo (2082) on Friday August 28 2015, @05:42PM (#229085)

          If it does create a new problem then you have a new problem to chose between either passing on or not. It's just like how people with genetic problems have the choice today of either having kids and taking the risk of passing down the problem or not having kids. At least technology could give people a third option, a chance of fixing the problem once and for all.

          But what if it doesn't create a new problem? Or what if the new problem is better than the original one?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by morgauxo on Friday August 28 2015, @02:30PM

    by morgauxo (2082) on Friday August 28 2015, @02:30PM (#228983)

    That article sucks!

    The title says it's about Biohackers using Crispr. I am excited any time I see the prospect of big university/corporation research tools being brought down to a level that normal people can use them. It's like Prometheus and fire! I was hoping to read about how they are using it and what they are using it for. I didn't expect an instruction manual or anything but at least a general idea. Is it available to a brilliant or rich few vs is it something some kid can cook up in his parents house for a science fair project? What exactly are they doing, a new method for the old make living things glow or maybe make yeast produce something different or something entirely new?

    Instead it starts right out with "It's natural to be scared". No it's not! That's not natural, it's the product of ignorance and really shitty societal conditioning to fear science!

    From there it goes on to talk about engineering humans. Because home biohackers are definitely up for collecting eggs to fertilize? i'm sure the ladies are just lining up to volunteer for that basement workshop procedure! And... OMG.. viri.. terrorists!

    The words of the article claim that we don't have to fear these things but read between the lines. Even by denying them in words they are suggesting the so-called posiblities. It's just a buch of scare mongering FUD in disguise!

    Shame on you Popular Science!

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday August 29 2015, @01:16AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday August 29 2015, @01:16AM (#229276) Journal

      I agree with you. I would much rather humans have the ability to consciously direct their genetic destiny. Yes, there are risks. There are ethical considerations. There are also ethical considerations to having the ability to do something, and yet not doing it because. That is, if you have the ability to cure cystic fibrosis, but you don't because you don't want to "play God," then you condemn that person and her family to lifelong suffering and heartbreak.

      There are many more slippery slopes surrounding the topic than can be covered in a quick post here, or anywhere. But I'd hope that we could at least achieve consensus on using CRISPR and its successors to eliminate inherited disorders.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday August 28 2015, @03:04PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Friday August 28 2015, @03:04PM (#229003)

    there are a lot of people in the world and despite the inventors intentions, there will always be some people who use it in a way that was never intended. the key here is not to forbid certain technology, it's to embrace it and learn as much as possible so that you can mitigate the bad effects of the careless. what we need to do is learn how DNA really works and then create technology to prevent it's corruption. we might even have to change what humans are in order to do it! having DNA that does a better job of preventing mutation/alteration would solve our problems with cancer. having an immune system that's actually intelligent would solve our problems with disease. so yes, while coal and gas are destroying us, it's forcing us to create better energy generation and storage systems. do you really want to go back to horses and candles or would you prefer electric cars, solar power and maybe thorium/fusion reactors?

    if we become masters of biology then we have no need to fear what someone may do with this technology.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday August 29 2015, @01:22AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday August 29 2015, @01:22AM (#229279) Journal

      In my heart of hearts I feel sure we do not have governments of sufficient wisdom to adjudicate on the potential that this and many other contemporary technologies are unlocking. The thought of CRISPR in the hands of the NSA or AT&T makes me shudder. That cannot be allowed. They are too corrupt, callous, and evil to be allowed to continue with the technologies that we already do have. They must all be swept away and replaced with something much better before we can proceed as a species with these new tools. Anything less is catastrophe.

      Yes, it's magical thinking to say that. But it's also imperative.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday August 29 2015, @02:21AM

        by Gravis (4596) on Saturday August 29 2015, @02:21AM (#229298)

        you should read up on your history because organizations with antics like the NSA and AT&T don't last.