SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Editors Note: The source article for this story appears to have been extensively edited replacing 'gene line' with 'germ line'. Nevertheless, and bearing that in mind, it is an interesting article.]
Heritable human genetic modifications pose serious risks, and the therapeutic benefits are tenuous, warn Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov and colleagues.
It is thought that studies involving the use of genome-editing tools to modify the DNA of human embryos will be published shortly. There are grave concerns regarding the ethical and safety implications of this research. There is also fear of the negative impact it could have on important work involving the use of genome-editing techniques in somatic (non-reproductive) cells.
In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications. We are concerned that a public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development, namely making genetic changes that cannot be inherited.
http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111
Would you agree with this assessment? Should this technology be regulated? Once the technique is known, how can we control/monitor what scientists do with this technology?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @09:47PM
how do you know that there isn't more to it than just those effects?
If you revert the mutation that causes disease to a sequence that is normal, as in already "real world tested" by everyone without the genetic disease, then there shouldn't be much to worry about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @11:20PM
Your opinion is based on the premise that there are no secondary interactions with those identified genes. That pulling just those out has no side effects. That other maladaptive genes aren't being held in check by the presence of that first set. The one thing you can count on here is that it ain't simple.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:10AM
My opinion is based upon the knowledge that various diseases have a well characterized genetic basis.
Examples included diseases that result from errors in DNA replication of repetitive sequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinucleotide_repeat_disorder#Polyglutamine_.28PolyQ.29_Diseases) and diseases that result from a mutation that causes a protein to be disfunctional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APECED_syndrome and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysosomal_storage_disease). [wikipedia.org]
There are also diseases that do not have a well characterized mechanism but the genetic association with particular mutations are still strong enough to be worth while to revert the sequence to that of an unaffected family member (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis#Genetics).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:11PM
> My opinion is based upon the knowledge that various diseases have a well characterized genetic basis.
Which completely misses the point that those genetic differences may well be interacting with other parts of the genome in non-obvious ways to alter or otherwise prevent harmful expressions.
This isn't about knowing what you know, its about knowing what you don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:27PM
We know that some of those mutations are sufficient to cause disease in inbred animal models and that those mutations are strongly associated with disease in outbred humans. In the case of the lysosomal storage diseases, injecting the non-mutated protein can alleviate the disease.