Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday February 29 2016, @10:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the dreams-of-modern-medicine dept.

An upcoming human trial will attempt to use optogenetics to treat conditions such as retinitis pigmentosa:

In the next month, scientists from RetroSense Therapeutics will inject a virus deep into the retina of legally blind human volunteers. The virus will carry what is perhaps the most monumental payload in modern neuroscience history: DNA that codes for channelrhodopsin-2, a light-responsive protein isolated from algae that — under blue light — activates cells in the retina, thereby transmitting visual information to the brain.

Forget electronic implants. If all goes well, these volunteers will be able to see again using their own eyes — but in no way a human being has ever experienced sight before. Whoa.

But the stakes are even higher: if this works, it means that optogenetics — a revolutionary neuroscience technique using channelrhodopsin-2 and other light-activated proteins — is feasible in humans as therapy. Considering optogenetics has been used in mice to implant false memories, treat cocaine addiction, attenuate OCD symptoms, trigger sexual advances and aggression and reverse motor deficits in Parkinson's disease — just to name a few feats— the technique could completely transform the face of neurology. "This is going to be a gold mine of information about doing optogenetics studies in humans," said Dr. Antonello Bonci, the scientific director of the intramural research program at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, to MIT Technology Review.

[...] If it works, what will the patients see? No one can say for sure. After all, this will be the first time humans experience the visual world through the light sensor of algae. But studies with blind lab mice may give us a hint. In one previous study, after optogenetics treatment, previously blind mice could swim out of a chamber in which the escape route was brightly lit. On average, they escaped as fast as mice with normal vision.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @01:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @01:44AM (#311871)

    I don't understand your point. Are you saying mouse models are unreliable anyway, so why bother doing legitimate experiments with them? Then just don't do the mouse experiments at all, it amounts to torturing animals for no reason.

  • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Tuesday March 01 2016, @01:55AM

    by patella.whack (3848) on Tuesday March 01 2016, @01:55AM (#311876)

    Well, mouse experiments are indeed relevant and have been proven to provide results that are predictive in us humans, but what I mean to say is that they're not an exclusive domain of things that may be indicative of effective treatments for us. Re: your comment about hurting animals for no reason-- you must come to your own conclusion about whether a particular animal exhibits sentience enough which should not be subject to 'torture.' Then factor in 'for no reason,' (or the value judgement that betterment of humans is a good-enough reason...) It's a mostly philosophical question at this point, IMHO, since science doesn't know yet what makes a 'being' a 'being' and we don't really know how to place a value on it. I'd submit that primate research creates a much more muddled moral landscape that mouse research

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:02AM (#311879)

      I agree with the rest, but regarding "no reason": I don't think that is subjective in this case. If no matter what happens the results are consistent with your theory (that the mice can see better after treatment), then there is no point to doing the experiment. I'd hope this is a widely accepted position amongst those trained in the sciences. Widely accepted to the point it can be called "objective".

      • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:16AM

        by patella.whack (3848) on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:16AM (#311881)

        Well, 'no reason' is indeed subjective! If you approve of mouse experiments then you ascribe to a version of the utilitarian argument. Which is to say, that it's worth it to perform harm on the 'less' for the benefit of the 'more' (us.) So you see, you must put a subjective value judgment forward as to whether or not the mouse is less, and us is more.
        (As an aside, I'll just say that my comments are much broader than the narrow venue of applicability of accepted scientific results and the mechanisms of how you obtain them. So my perception of your milieu is that you may be somewhat young and versed in the mostly narrow operational scientific method, as taught today. That's a very valuable thing, and IMHO it is a process that contributes immensely to society. So there's really no reason for you to pursue or wonder about my comments unless you're interested in a more general perspective on the purposes behind things.) 'Good on ya' as the Aussies say, and good luck.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @04:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01 2016, @04:09PM (#312200)

          I still don't understand... what is the point of doing an experiment that can only yield results consistent with your theory?

      • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:27AM

        by patella.whack (3848) on Tuesday March 01 2016, @02:27AM (#311885)

        BTW, why don't you just pick a name and sign in? You know, before too long people around here are going to start ignoring ACs, and I'd like to see you not get ignored.