The human embryo editing study first reported by MIT Technology Review last week has been published in Nature. Scientists led by the Oregon Health & Science University's Shoukhrat Mitalipov edited human embryos to remove the MYBPC3 mutation associated with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy:
The experiment corrected the defect in nearly two-thirds of several dozen embryos, without causing potentially dangerous mutations elsewhere in the DNA.
None of the embryos were used to try to create a baby. But if future experiments confirm the techniques are safe and effective, the scientists say the same approach could be used to prevent a long list of inheritable diseases. "Potentially, we're talking about thousands of genes and thousands of patients," says Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. She was a member of the scientific team from the U.S., China and South Korea.
[...] Amato and others stress that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people. And they note that much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way. But scientists hoping to continue the work in the U.S. face many regulatory obstacles. The National Institutes of Health will not fund any research involving human embryos (the new work was funded by Oregon Health & Science University). And the Food and Drug Administration is prohibited by Congress from considering any experiments that involve genetically modified human embryos.
Nevertheless, the researchers say they're hopeful about continuing the work, perhaps in Britain. The United Kingdom has permitted genetic experiments involving human embryos forbidden in the United States. "If other countries would be interested, we would be happy to work with their regulatory bodies," says Shoukhrat Mitalipov, director of the Oregon Health & Science University's Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy.
Also at NYT, MIT, BBC, Science Magazine, and Scientific American.
Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos (open, DOI: 10.1038/nature23305) (DX)
Previously: First Known Attempt at Genetically Modifying Human Embryos in the U.S. is an Apparent Success
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday August 04 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
As a 9-year old asked me - "what happens when the (genetically enhanced) want to compete in the Olympics?"
Or compete for scholarships?
And what happens when their kids or grand-kids who are 'partially enhanced' want to compete?
This will be a big issue, and we will need to make rules to address it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:51AM
I have written [soylentnews.org] on this [soylentnews.org] topic before [soylentnews.org].
Athletics is already very lopsided and in some cases it is just a search for the best genes or the person who can get away with the best doping. Think of the individual sports where the winners and losers are separated by seconds or milliseconds.
There is no scheme that would allow you to deny gene therapy, microchip implants, anti-aging, etc. to athletes without it creating an "unprotected class" of athletes that you allow to suffer more harm than normal folks. Denying these technologies to people will be the equivalent of using them as gladiators, since you'll be allowing them to sustain brain and whole body cellular damage. I mention microchips because those could have a dual use of greatly enhancing personal intelligence while allowing the user to optimize their movements unnaturally. Imagine a computer implant doing physics calculations and using data from your eyes in order to let you automatically move on any surface with the least amount of effort, or use parkour moves, etc.
You could try to create a separate Olympics for these people. A Regular Olympics, the existing Paralympics for the disabled, and an Enhanced Olympics. Already you have the problem I mentioned of denying medical advances to the Regular Olympics athletes. We have seen controversial crossovers from one pile to another like Oscar Pistorius. He didn't win an olympic medal, but he did compete in the 2011 World Championships in Athletics against non-disabled people and won a medal then. You will have people with stealth advancements including "gene doping" competing in the Regular Olympics even if an Enhanced Olympics exists. We already have a blurring of the lines on gender divisions in these competitions with athletes accusing other athletes of being intersex with an unfair advantage. That will only get worse as technology allows even more control over hormone levels and muscle growth (to the point of hypertrophy).
Within an Enhanced Olympics, or regular Olympics, or any sort of sporting events, you will face the issue of genetic inequality, as you mentioned. The rich will be able to create designer offspring who are not only optimized for athletic prowess, but grow up to be sexy enough to put on the box of Wheaties with no hesitation whatsoever from General Mills.
I don't find this human germline editing unethical at all. But I do find it unethical to deny medicine or medical advances to athletes, harming their overall health and subjecting them to aging diseases in order to maintain the purity of competitive spirit or whatever bullshit the IOC and other orgs want to call it. This conflict could end sporting as we know it. And you know what? That might be a good thing. Once you break down all the doping, drug, and enhancement rules, and pull out a lot of the advertising money because people are jaded about superhuman freaks going to toe to toe with people who trained hard to compete, we could be left with something that better explores the competitive spirit and celebrates human achievement. Sure, it is easier to climb Mt. Everest than ever before, but people still do it and engage in supermarathons and other feats. Instead we currently have sob stories with slick editing from CBS/NBC/FOX, a very unequal playing field (can you afford personal trainers, the most optimized equipment, and supercomputer simulations of your body?), and a lot of people pretending that there is no doping (it just gets more sophisticated every time they are caught). Don't forget the NFL, which is pretty much proven to cause brain damage [soylentnews.org] the way the game is currently played since they hit each other more violently than they did decades ago and no amount of concussions is safe for the human brain. If regenerative medicine can cure that damage before it can destroy minds and lead people to suicide, it needs to be done, regardless of whether or not it leads to players competing in their 60s without retiring. Or if you can't accept that you need to go ahead and ban the sport.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]