Don't Fear the CRISPR - Comments

  • Context: Insights 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ygggdrasil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Crispr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications and ethical considerations of CRISPR gene editing technology, particularly in relation to its potential benefits and risks. Participants explore the societal impact, scientific advancements, and the moral responsibilities associated with such powerful tools.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express excitement about the potential of CRISPR to revolutionize medicine and address diseases like cancer, suggesting we may be entering a "golden age" of genetic engineering.
  • Others raise concerns about the ethical implications of gene editing, arguing that while CRISPR is a powerful tool, it can be misused, leading to potentially harmful consequences.
  • One participant questions the readiness of CRISPR technology, citing issues with off-target effects observed in recent studies, and mentions alternative techniques like TALENs and ZFNs that may have different efficacy and safety profiles.
  • Another participant emphasizes the dual-use nature of scientific tools, suggesting that the responsibility lies with those who wield them, and draws parallels to historical examples of scientific advancements being used for harmful purposes.
  • There is a discussion about the need for ethical considerations in scientific progress, with some arguing that without proper oversight, the risks associated with CRISPR could outweigh its benefits.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of enthusiasm and caution regarding CRISPR technology. While there is agreement on its potential, significant disagreement exists regarding the extent of its risks and the ethical frameworks necessary to govern its use.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific studies and technical details about CRISPR and its alternatives, highlighting the ongoing uncertainties regarding off-target effects and the maturity of the technology.

  • #31
Like with any new technology, I think I feel a reasonable amount of apprehensiveness, most of which likely comes from the fact that I have absolutely no background in cell biology or genetics and can't speak to the limitations of this technology one way or another, but I also know that many other technological revolutions have come and gone and the world is a better place for it despite some people at the time being absolutely terrified of them.

I'm hopeful, to say the least.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #33
Greg, just a technical comment. When the graphics in this article is under the mouse it gets dim and a blue point with two arrows appears. Klicking on that arrow, the graphics gets larger. But as the background of the graphics is tansparent, it becomes barely visible.
 
  • #34
Greg Bernhardt said:
What Happens If Someone Uses This DIY Gene Hacking Kit to Make Mutant Bacteria?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wh...-diy-gene-hacking-kit-to-make-mutant-bacteria

You don't really need CRISPR to make precision edits to bacteria, and the technology to do this has been around since the late 80s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombineering). The Indiegogo page for the kit in question describes the types of experiments that might be performed in freshman biology courses. These are not dangerous experiments. Yes, in theory, someone could use CRISPR to engineer something potentially illegal (for example, yeast that allow you to brew illegal drugs), but doing so would take much more expertise than the general public would have.

Personally, I would be more worried about people being able to stockpile assault weapons and materials for pipe bombs at home.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb and Greg Bernhardt
  • #35
More news on from those trying to engineer Cas9 proteins with increased fidelity:
Kleinstiver et al. 2016 High-fidelity CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature. Published online 06 Jan 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature16526[/URL]

[quote]CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases are widely used for genome editing but can induce unwanted off-target mutations. Existing strategies for reducing genome-wide off-target effects of the widely used [I]Streptococcus pyogenes[/I] Cas9 (SpCas9) are imperfect, possessing only partial or unproven efficacies and other limitations that constrain their use. Here we describe SpCas9-HF1, a high-fidelity variant harbouring alterations designed to reduce non-specific DNA contacts. SpCas9-HF1 retains on-target activities comparable to wild-type SpCas9 with >85% of single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) tested in human cells. Notably, with sgRNAs targeted to standard non-repetitive sequences, SpCas9-HF1 rendered all or nearly all off-target events undetectable by genome-wide break capture and targeted sequencing methods. Even for atypical, repetitive target sites, the vast majority of off-target mutations induced by wild-type SpCas9 were not detected with SpCas9-HF1. With its exceptional precision, SpCas9-HF1 provides an alternative to wild-type SpCas9 for research and therapeutic applications. More broadly, our results suggest a general strategy for optimizing genome-wide specificities of other CRISPR-RNA-guided nucleases.[/quote]

News articles:
Enzyme tweak boosts precision of CRISPR genome edits [URL]http://www.nature.com/news/enzyme-tweak-boosts-precision-of-[URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/dont-fear-crispr-new-gene-editing-technologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/']crispr[/URL]-genome-edits-1.19114[/URL]
Improved Version Of CRISPR Gene Editing Tool Eliminates Errors [URL]http://www.popsci.com/new-form-[URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/dont-fear-crispr-new-gene-editing-technologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/']crispr[/URL]-is-more-precise[/URL]

The work seems complementary to the work published by the Zhang lab (mentioned in https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/dont-fear-the-https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/dont-fear-crispr-new-gene-editing-technologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/-comments.811056/page-2#post-5305836), so the different modifications can probably be combined to engineer an even more precise enzyme.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt
  • #36
UK scientists are allowed to test CRISPR-Cas9 with human embryos.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35459054
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fdda5bf9f0314b748c7438c9659da83a/britain-approves-controversial-gene-editing-technique
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ygggdrasil

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K