First Human Embryos Edited in U.S.

  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Human
  • Featured
In summary, researchers in the United States have successfully used the CRISPR gene-editing technique to improve the DNA of human embryos, specifically targeting a gene associated with increased risk of heart failure. This approach has shown potential for correcting heritable mutations and could be used to complement preimplantation genetic diagnosis. However, concerns about the potential for genetic enhancement and the safety and ethics of this approach still need to be addressed before clinical applications can be considered.
  • #1
19,407
9,949
Researchers have demonstrated they can efficiently improve the DNA of human embryos.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/

The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon, MIT Technology Review has learned.

The effort, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, involved changing the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos with the gene-editing technique CRISPR, according to people familiar with the scientific results.

Until now, American scientists have watched with a combination of awe, envy, and some alarm as scientists elsewhere were first to explore the controversial practice. To date, three previous reports of editing human embryos were all published by scientists in China.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto, atyy and BillTre
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Notably, the article suggests that Mitalipov (an expert in working with human embryos who previously performed some of the pioneering experiments on generating human stem cells by cloning) has significantly improved upon previously published efforts at germline gene editing:
The earlier Chinese publications, although limited in scope, found CRISPR caused editing errors and that the desired DNA changes were taken up not by all the cells of an embryo, only some. That effect, called mosaicism, lent weight to arguments that germline editing would be an unsafe way to create a person.

But Mitalipov and his colleagues are said to have convincingly shown that it is possible to avoid both mosaicism and “off-target” effects, as the CRISPR errors are known.

Of course, it is hard to compare the studies as the research has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #3
The paper describing these experiments has just been published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature23305.html

Abstract:
Genome editing has potential for the targeted correction of germline mutations. Here we describe the correction of the heterozygous MYBPC3 mutation in human preimplantation embryos with precise CRISPR–Cas9-based targeting accuracy and high homology-directed repair efficiency by activating an endogenous, germline-specific DNA repair response. Induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) at the mutant paternal allele were predominantly repaired using the homologous wild-type maternal gene instead of a synthetic DNA template. By modulating the cell cycle stage at which the DSB was induced, we were able to avoid mosaicism in cleaving embryos and achieve a high yield of homozygous embryos carrying the wild-type MYBPC3 gene without evidence of off-target mutations. The efficiency, accuracy and safety of the approach presented suggest that it has potential to be used for the correction of heritable mutations in human embryos by complementing preimplantation genetic diagnosis. However, much remains to be considered before clinical applications, including the reproducibility of the technique with other heterozygous mutations.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
  • #4
Call me old fashioned, but I'm ANTI-genetic engineering in general, especially in humans. Umm, if there's some kind of genetic engineering that will make a crop resistant to disease or bug or freezing temperatures, say, I may bend a bit, but in general, genetics and natural selection go hand in hand, like peas and carrots. Meaning that it was designed (haha) to not be designed, it works the way it works as a self-organized process. If you want to start mucking around with the works, you are likely to create an abomination, especially with human genetic engineering. As an artificial intelligence and robotics researcher, I say leave the intelligence engineering to electronics, and leave genetics out of it...

 
  • Like
Likes Laurie K
  • #5
We have been "mucking around" with evolution for the last 10,000 years. Selective breeding is a much slower process, but it still transformed the animals and plants we use massively over time.

This is how a wild banana looks like:

319px-Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg

Source

This is a watermelon from the 17th century:

Pasteques%2C_extrait_d%27un_tableau_de_Giovanni_Stanchi.jpg

Source

With the wild type of everything, we would still be groups of farmers, because there would be no food surplus to go beyond that.
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, Greg Bernhardt, BillTre and 1 other person
  • #6
mfb said:
With the wild type of everything, we would still be groups of farmers, because there would be no food surplus to go beyond that.

To start, I did say in my post #4 that I was perhaps friendly in some capacity even to genetically modified crops, conservatively. What you are talking about in you post isn't genetic engineering, it's "artificial selection" . Even so, artificial selection is actually a misnomer, because artificial selection is actually natural selection in disguise, it's just being naturally selected by human cognition and consciousness to craft an environment beneficial to the master species. But it's still natural selection.

Genetic engineering is a whole different ballgame. In fact, I don't really like the idea of genetic engineering on any animal species, much less humans. If you're going to experiment with it, keep it out of Kingdom Animalia.
 
  • Like
Likes S.G. Janssens
  • #7
It's valid to question the extent to which the research reported yesterday in Nature actually represents genetic engineering. The cells that the researchers modified contained one normal copy of the MYBPC3 gene (from the mother) and one mutated copy (from the father). Because MYBPC3 encodes a protein that helps to maintain heart muscle, mutation of MYBPC3 is associated with an increased risk of heart failure and sudden death.

When the researchers introduce CRISPR-Cas9 into the embryos containing the mutation, they stimulated cells to repair the faulty, paternal copy of the MYBPC3 gene using the normal copy from the maternal chromosome using the cell's natural DNA repair mechanisms. No DNA that is not normally present in human cells was introduced (in fact, the research suggests that it may be more difficult than expected to use CRISPR to introduce foreign DNA into human embryos). There are few safety concerns from the gene "edits" they introduced because the normal MYBPC3 sequence introduced into the paternal chromosome is present in >99% of humans.

This is not "genetic engineering" in the GATTACA and designer baby sense. This is genetic engineering to cure disease. Is hip replacement surgery unnatural? Is prescribing glasses to fix one's vision unnatural? Yes, CRISPR could be used to potentially "enhance" humans (though we are https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/dont-fear-https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/dont-fear-crispr-new-gene-editing-technologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/-new-gene-editing-technologies-wont-lead-designer-babies/ from knowing how to do that for most traits we are interested in), but all technologies have good uses and potentially bad uses (though not everyone agrees that genetic enhancement is a step too far).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, NTL2009, OCR and 3 others
  • #8
Ygggdrasil said:
Is prescribing glasses to fix one's vision unnatural?
Interestingly, Ian Malcolm is wearing glasses in the video above!
In a a society without glasses, he could well be dead or economically marginalized.
 
  • Like
Likes NTL2009 and OCR
  • #9
Before I had kids, I didn't want a boy and a girl (which is what I got) but a clone and a recombinant.

Sadly the technology was not (and still isn't) available and I'm stuck with the old fashioned reproductive products.
 
  • #10
Look at the (partial) abstract again... and pay attention to the key words...
Genome editing has potential for the targeted correction of germline mutations. Here we describe the correction of the heterozygous MYBPC3 mutation in human preimplantation embryos with precise CRISPR–Cas9-based targeting accuracy and high homology-directed repair efficiency by activating an endogenous, germline-specific DNA repair response...

In the sense of common usage... IMO .
This is not "genetic engineering"... it's repairing something that "should NOT have been" broken, and I'm all for it !

Carry on... that's ALL, from me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, NTL2009 and Ygggdrasil
  • #11
Sure, this isn't GATTACA... but it certainly opens that door.
 
  • Like
Likes Isaac0427
  • #12
BillTre said:
Before I had kids, I didn't want a boy and a girl (which is what I got) but a clone and a recombinant.

Sadly the technology was not (and still isn't) available and I'm stuck with the old fashioned reproductive products.
I would like to point out that that is a really savage remark for a father to say before I argue my point @BillTre, I hope your kids never get to view that post.:wideeyed::))

1.Anyway, nature already corrects such errors naturally since a person born with such characteristics usually does not live long enough to reproduce thus the trait will eventually be lost - naturally.
2.I think the issue here is that unfortunately we have not completely figured out what - for example- the full purpose of most genes are and so to tamper with these genes would result in unpredictable effects, whether in the immediate/long term phenotype or genotype. Although there are some obvious benefits of the idea, the fact remains that we are messing around with what we have not fully understood and although we would like to be able to achieve such a feat the consequences of failure are completely unpredictable and probably not worth it HEAR me out - FOR NOW- since we have not completely grasped the functions, uses etc - what I am effectively saying is we should be cautious and take our time in understanding what we are diving into since a serious mutation/side effects caused by these corrections could result in catastrophic results causing the whole thing to be more harmful than helpful.
3.Glasses are physical objects that we put in front of our damaged/weakened eyes , yes to correct BUT the difference is that if the glasses stop working you can take them off and throw them away but if your DNA becomes unstable due to tampering...:)) :sorry::wideeyed::oops::frown:
4.Humans make errors:
come on be realistic don't become a sad statistic.:woot:
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #13
@thejosh
Your point in #1 is not correct - traits that are recessive and potentially deleterious like nearsightedness, Sickle Cell disease are not "lost" from a population and do not automatically disappear. There are a variety of reasons but you might want to get and read a book on Population Genetics. Try this youtube video might help. Please do not post things that are misleading or incorrect.

 
Last edited:
  • #14
jim mcnamara said:
@thejosh
Your point in #1 is not correct - traits like recessive potentially deleterious like nearsightedness, Sickle Cell d are not "lost" from a population ...
... which in my opinion only proves, that we already uncoupled us (in parts) from the usual evolutionary processes. And sickle cell disease can even be an evolutionary advantage, as it can prevent people from the worst versions of malaria (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22372205?dopt=Abstract). The nearsightedness, as I see it, is a side effect of our too big heads, but I'm not sure - it simply fits into optical physics and the fact that it usually starts during growth. Of course and fortunately we do not deselect all genetic disadvantages, but we still obey evolutionary processes. (Sorry, only found a Time Magazine article on a quick search to support this position.)

So @thejosh's position #1 is only partly wrong and #2,#3 and #4 are - in my opinion - valid arguments. So the question is not so much about correct medical studies, but rather whether we want to do it and which risks are connected by it. I see post #12 as an attempt to describe those risks.
 
  • Like
Likes thejosh
  • #15
thejosh said:
I would like to point out that that is a really savage remark for a father to say before I argue my point @BillTre, I hope your kids never get to view that post.:wideeyed::))

They have heard it several times and have no problem with it.
They are not so fragile as you seem to think.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #16
thejosh said:
2.I think the issue here is that unfortunately we have not completely figured out what - for example- the full purpose of most genes are and so to tamper with these genes would result in unpredictable effects, whether in the immediate/long term phenotype or genotype. Although there are some obvious benefits of the idea, the fact remains that we are messing around with what we have not fully understood and although we would like to be able to achieve such a feat the consequences of failure are completely unpredictable and probably not worth it HEAR me out - FOR NOW- since we have not completely grasped the functions, uses etc - what I am effectively saying is we should be cautious and take our time in understanding what we are diving into since a serious mutation/side effects caused by these corrections could result in catastrophic results causing the whole thing to be more harmful than helpful.
This is absolutely correct, and many scientists would agree with this point. This mainly is a concern, however, regarding trait enhancement (i.e. introducing rare alleles into the population). In the case of repairing mutations that cause genetic disease, such as the Nature paper correcting the MYBPC2 mutation, the researchers are replacing a rare allele with a very common allele, so the risks of unintended side effects are minimal. For this reason, when the National Academies released guidelines for potential gene editing therapies, they stressed limiting edits to introducing alleles already prevalent in the population (i.e. replacing disease alleles with normal ones).

3.Glasses are physical objects that we put in front of our damaged/weakened eyes , yes to correct BUT the difference is that if the glasses stop working you can take them off and throw them away but if your DNA becomes unstable due to tampering...:)) :sorry::wideeyed::oops::frown:
This is a good point, and it's worse. When you edit an embryo's DNA, not only do you change that unborn individual's DNA (bringing up issues with consent), but you are also affecting that individual's children, and their children's children, etc. This is one reasons why there needs to be very broad discussions of the topic so societies can make informed decisions about these technologies and their implications.

OCR said:
This is not "genetic engineering"... it's repairing something that "should NOT have been" broken, and I'm all for it !

Although I agree with the argument, for the sake of discussion, I'll play devil's advocate. What constitutes broken? There are some clear examples of mutations that lead to disease (e.g. the MYBPC2 mutation repaired in the Nature paper), but other cases might be more borderline. If we can understand the genetics of autism, should genes that predispose toward autism be considered broken or should society strive for greater acceptance of neurodiversity? This point is especially important for editing of embryos as embryos cannot give consent as to whether they want particular traits edited from their genomes. Similarly, if we start to understand the genetics of intelligence, would having predisposition toward below average intelligence be considered a genetic flaw requiring correction? These are all very tough issues that society (not just scientists) should consider as these technologies move toward the clinic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy and mfb
  • #17
fresh_42 said:
The nearsightedness, as I see it, is a side effect of our too big heads, but I'm not sure - it simply fits into optical physics and the fact that it usually starts during growth.

Nearsightedness may be a side effect of too much time spent indoors see: http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy
  • #18
@Ygggdrasil - nearsightedness (myopia) has been far more prevalent among Navajos than in the general US population. They lived almost completely outside up until about 30 years ago. I have seen it attributed to Founder Effect because of the mass movement off the Reservation with subsequent fatalities. Very like the low genetic diversity in modern cheetahs due to some (AFAIK) unspecified die off. It may well be possible that there is some kind of environmental response related to eye use that you cited. Ex: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a12/
The Long Walk of the Navajo, also called the Long Walk to Bosque Redondo, refers to the 1864 deportation of the Navajo people by the government of the United States of America.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/332.html
 
  • #19
Ygggdrasil said:
This point is especially important for editing of embryos as embryos cannot give consent as to whether they want particular traits edited from their genomes.
Hi @Ygggdrasil

I am not sure I understand your logic here. The impression I am getting is that you are using the following syllogism.
Premise 1. All humans have the right of consent regarding whether or not to accept some proposed medical intervention.
Premise 2. A human embryo is a human.
Conclusion. Therefore a human embryo has the right of consent regarding whether or not to accept some proposed medical intervention.​
If this is your intended logic, then I take issue with both of the premises.
Regarding (1): Young children do not have the right of consent. Their parents have this right, although sometimes a court judge may overrule this right.
Regarding (2): This is a theological assumption that is not generally agreed to by a large part of the population.

Regards,
Buzz

Edit jmc 8/5/2017 18:01 MDT - add a an @ to Ygggdrasil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #20
BillTre said:
They have heard it several times and have no problem with it.
They are not so fragile as you seem to think.
It kind of shocked me the first time I've read what you say, but after thinking of it, I think a clone will be much easier to educate than a child with other genes. One would know more exactly what to do with that kid to make it better based on personal experience than with a child whose DNA is completely unique.
 
  • #21
jim mcnamara said:
@Ygggdrasil - nearsightedness (myopia) has been far more prevalent among Navajos than in the general US population. They lived almost completely outside up until about 30 years ago. I have seen it attributed to Founder Effect because of the mass movement off the Reservation with subsequent fatalities. Very like the low genetic diversity in modern cheetahs due to some (AFAIK) unspecified die off. It may well be possible that there is some kind of environmental response related to eye use that you cited. Ex: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a12/

Sure, as the Nature news piece I linked to mentioned, there is evidence for both genetic and environmental factors playing a factor in myopia (as in the case of most traits). For example, the piece cites twin studies from the 1960s showing that myopia has a genetic component. However, there is also strong evidence for an environmental component. For example:
East Asia has been gripped by an unprecedented rise in myopia, also known as short-sightedness. Sixty years ago, 10–20% of the Chinese population was short-sighted. Today, up to 90% of teenagers and young adults are. In Seoul, a whopping 96.5% of 19-year-old men are short-sighted.

Other parts of the world have also seen a dramatic increase in the condition, which now affects around half of young adults in the United States and Europe — double the prevalence of half a century ago.
One of the clearest signs came from a 1969 study of Inuit people on the northern tip of Alaska whose lifestyle was changing2. Of adults who had grown up in isolated communities, only 2 of 131 had myopic eyes. But more than half of their children and grandchildren had the condition. Genetic changes happen too slowly to explain this rapid change — or the soaring rates in myopia that have since been documented all over the world

These observational studies are backed up by more recent randomized clinical trials experiments where increasing the time spent outdoors lessened the incidence of myopia in children compared to a control group (see the Nature piece for a more detailed description of the experiments). So, in some populations (such as the Navajo), genetics will the be primary cause of myopia, but for many other populations, environmental effects seem to be a major factor.

Buzz Bloom said:
Hi @YgggdrasilI am not sure I understand your logic here. The impression I am getting is that you are using the following syllogism.
Premise 1. All humans have the right of consent regarding whether or not to accept some proposed medical intervention.
Premise 2. A human embryo is a human.
Conclusion. Therefore a human embryo has the right of consent regarding whether or not to accept some proposed medical intervention.​
If this is your intended logic, then I take issue with both of the premises.
Regarding (1): Young children do not have the right of consent. Their parents have this right, although sometimes a court judge may overrule this right.
Regarding (2): This is a theological assumption that is not generally agreed to by a large part of the population.

Both are very good points. As I mentioned previously, I bring these arguments up mostly as a devil's advocate to illustrate some of the important ethical questions that others have brought up with regard to germline gene editing. I have no problem with research on embryos (for example, in the future, cloning an individual's cells to generate genetically identical embryonic stem cells for clinical uses). However, when generating embryos that will become a person, I think scientists and physicians have a responsibility to exercise caution in performing any procedures that carry risks of harming the embryo. While embryos do not have personhood under law, embryos destined for implantation probably should have some sets of rights to consider. Clinical research operates on the principle of informed consent, though we recognize that this is not always possible (e.g. in the case of research on children). Thus, when the subject cannot give informed consent, special precautions should be taken to manage the risks involved (e.g. having an Institutional Review Board scrutinize the proposed procedures with the interests of the unborn children in mind).
 
  • #22
DiracPool said:
Genetic engineering is a whole different ballgame. In fact, I don't really like the idea of genetic engineering on any animal species, much less humans. If you're going to experiment with it, keep it out of Kingdom Animalia.

Dirac, I understand your fears, but I also have faith in science and that the people who study it will protect society.

My little brother is 25 years old and has stage C right and left-sided heart failure with moderately severe COPD, which were caused by his individual genetic syndrome. When will he die? Will it really be within the next 10 years? I love who he is, but I don't want him to die, but what if the mutation in his NSD1 gene, normally responsible for producing a single protein that turns on and off a few genes that mainly affect growth and development, could have been altered/replaced/improved? How could that have changed who he is, when he already makes a little from his other copy, just not enough of it on this one? He really wants a permit to drive, but his intellectual disability and seizures bar him. Will he ever really be apart of college football, find love, or have a child- the things he talks about, before he dies? Could he have had that otherwise? I don't want to change who he is, but I do want him to have what he wants: simple opportunities that are given to most humans, so much that he has been denied. And I want him to live. I see nothing but goodness in genetic engineering for future people.

All I needed to do was help him make more histones. When will he die?
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus, jim mcnamara and BillTre
  • #23
OCR said:
Look at the (partial) abstract again... and pay attention to the key words...In the sense of common usage... IMO .
This is not "genetic engineering"... it's repairing something that "should NOT have been" broken, and I'm all for it !

Carry on... that's ALL, from me.
Respectfully, I disagree. What stops someone from saying that average intelligence, height, attractiveness, etc. are "broken" traits, and that a baby should not be born with them? What is to stop this from being a method to fix all "imperfect" traits that people have.

Perfect humans due to genetic modifications... that reminds me of something...
Lord Crc said:
Sure, this isn't GATTACA... but it certainly opens that door.
Exactly! Once you can "fix" babies with heart problems, you can fix babies with intellectual problems, or height problems. IMO, that is just wrong.
 
  • #24
Fervent Freyja said:
Dirac, I understand your fears, but I also have faith in science and that the people who study it will protect society.
While I appreciate your trust in scientists, IMO that trust is misplaced. I don't mean this in a bad way, of course, as someone who wants to be a scientist, but here's a reminder of some of the things scientists have given us:
-Nuclear weapons
-Biological weapons
-Chemical weapons

What's next? An army of genetically modified humans?

Governments are never afraid to have scientists go one step too far and use technology that should never have been used to acquire power. If some government wants the smartest and strongest people in the world, can you say for certainty that they won't use science to achieve that goal?
 
  • #25
Isaac0427 said:
Exactly! Once you can "fix" babies with heart problems, you can fix babies with intellectual problems, or height problems. IMO, that is just wrong.
Avoiding life-threatening conditions is wrong? That is an easy, clear distinction: Is the rare genetic condition likely to kill the person? If yes, I support removing it from embryos, with the potential to remove it from the gene pool completely over time.

We fix things all the time. Most of the medical sector is about fixing things. Do you want to get rid of modern medicine? If not, where exactly do you see the difference? If yes, I think further discussion is pointless.
Isaac0427 said:
but here's a reminder of some of the things scientists have given us:
-Nuclear weapons
-Biological weapons
-Chemical weapons
Science lead to the discovery/invention of some things that can be used to kill others. How exactly is this related to this topic?
Isaac0427 said:
What's next? An army of genetically modified humans?
Do you also fear an army of humans with glasses?
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #26
Isaac0427 said:
Respectfully, I disagree. What stops someone from saying that average intelligence, height, attractiveness, etc. are "broken" traits, and that a baby should not be born with them? What is to stop this from being a method to fix all "imperfect" traits that people have.

Current guidelines around gene editing deal with this problem by limiting gene edits to only those introducing alleles already prevalent in the population. This restriction is also good from a safety perspective since there is much less risk when introducing common alleles to an embryo than when working with very rare alleles (such as ones that could potentially protect against Alzheimer's or heart disease).

Isaac0427 said:
Exactly! Once you can "fix" babies with heart problems, you can fix babies with intellectual problems, or height problems. IMO, that is just wrong.
The genetics of the heart problem associated with the MYBPC2 mutation are very well known. At the moment, the genetics of traits like intelligence and height are not well understood enough for us to be able to reliably enhance these traits through gene editing.

Isaac0427 said:
While I appreciate your trust in scientists, IMO that trust is misplaced. I don't mean this in a bad way, of course, as someone who wants to be a scientist, but here's a reminder of some of the things scientists have given us:
-Nuclear weapons
-Biological weapons
-Chemical weapons

Yet the same technologies have also given us nuclear energy, vaccines, and fertilizers. Regarding the last point, here's a nice piece from Radiolab about Fritz Haber, whose Nobel-prize winning work on the Haber-Bosch process for synthesizing ammonia allowed the world to feed itself, but who also helped the Nazis develop chemical weapons:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/

Technologies can do either good or evil. I think it's better to regulate the people using the technologies than to ban the technologies altogether.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #27
This technology is not being developed in a vacuum.

Many more experiments (probably thousands) are being done on lots of other animals and on lots of genes that you have probably never heard about.
This is creating an increasing amount of knowledge about possible direct and indirect effects of changing particular genes in different situations. Although not all of this is directly related to human genome manipulation, any realistic changes that might be made in the near future would not be done in such a blind manner as it is often portrayed.

Furthermore, the situations where this might first be tried, would be more extreme life threatening cases, where inaction also carries negative consequences.

Personal examples can be useful.
I can think of several (currently ill-defined) things in my own genome that might be worth changing:
  1. Whatever underlies my needing to use glasses after 50 years old (not such a big deal since glasses work well).
  2. My autoimmune disease that has killed off my thyroid gland (I now take artificial thyroxin). This may be a genetically inherited condition (or predisposition) since my Mom, one of my sisters, and another relative had this. Along with that my sister got thyroid cancer which may or may not be linked. This is a condition that I would like to be able to eliminate form the line of my progeny going down through future generations.
  3. My allergies (very annoying and very likely genetically inherited).
  4. Color blindness (from my wife's side of the family), which prevented my some (who inherited it) from being a Navy or Air Force flier.
For these examples, my order of priorities (based on my own perceived life impact) would be: 2, 3, 4, 1.
Taking any action on this ordering, in the real world, would then be influenced by lots of other issues (some technical) including:
  • how much knowledge is there on the underlying causative genetics,
  • what is know about the genes influence on other biological aspects in the body,
  • how well can the changes be made (and potentially unmade),
  • there are probably others that a more careful consideration would reveal (@Ygggdrasil probably could fill in more!).
In the long run (in a Science Fictiony way), as more knowledge and technical capability is developed, both greater and more subtle effects could be more confidently engineered into people, but that would probably take longer that films like Blade Runner would have you believe.
 
  • #28
thejosh said:
I think the issue here is that unfortunately we have not completely figured out what - for example- the full purpose of most genes are and so to tamper with these genes would result in unpredictable effects, whether in the immediate/long term phenotype or genotype. Although there are some obvious benefits of the idea, the fact remains that we are messing around with what we have not fully understood and although we would like to be able to achieve such a feat the consequences of failure are completely unpredictable and probably not worth it HEAR me out - FOR NOW- since we have not completely grasped the functions, uses etc - what I am effectively saying is we should be cautious and take our time in understanding what we are diving into since a serious mutation/side effects caused by these corrections could result in catastrophic results causing the whole thing to be more harmful than helpful.

Relating to this point, I posted a link to a recent analysis from researchers at Stanford supporting your concern: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/omnigenetic-model-for-complex-traits.922051/

Essentially, they hypothesize that all genes expressed inside a cell are interconnected in their function such that changing one gene may have many unintended consequences on a variety of different traits. Definitely cause for concern when considering altering the human genome.

While we may be have the technology very soon to safely edit genes in human embryos, it may be a while before we know what genes to edit in order to safely change some of the traits @BillTre cares about.
 
  • #29
mfb said:
Avoiding life-threatening conditions is wrong? That is an easy, clear distinction: Is the rare genetic condition likely to kill the person? If yes, I support removing it from embryos, with the potential to remove it from the gene pool completely over time.

We fix things all the time. Most of the medical sector is about fixing things. Do you want to get rid of modern medicine? If not, where exactly do you see the difference? If yes, I think further discussion is pointless.
I do support avoiding life-threatening conditions. But at what cost? This is allowing the development of a technology that could potentially produce a world like that in GATTACA. You may say that it is not going to happen-- but 200 years ago the same thing could be said about multiple countries having an arsenal that is capable of single-handedly blowing up the world ten times.
mfb said:
Do you also fear an army of humans with glasses?
The development of glasses technology does not have nearly the serious consequences that genetic engineering could have.
mfb said:
Science lead to the discovery/invention of some things that can be used to kill others. How exactly is this related to this topic?
Read what I wrote after that-- it explains why it is related. Just like how America and Russia took science too far in developing a nuclear arsenal that can blow up the world ten times, what stops some government from deciding to make a new generation of hyperintellegent humans with increased muscle strength in order to win a war/assume more power? That's what we could be opening the door up to here.

Although, there is then this
Ygggdrasil said:
Current guidelines around gene editing deal with this problem by limiting gene edits to only those introducing alleles already prevalent in the population. This restriction is also good from a safety perspective since there is much less risk when introducing common alleles to an embryo than when working with very rare alleles (such as ones that could potentially protect against Alzheimer's or heart disease).
which is wonderful in theory. We have a ban on the use of chemical weapons too. That doesn't stop a rogue government from using them. Knowing the world as it is, if one country did what I mentioned above, then other countries would follow suit in order to compete. How long after that does GATTACA start happening?
Ygggdrasil said:
Yet the same technologies have also given us nuclear energy, vaccines, and fertilizers. Regarding the last point, here's a nice piece from Radiolab about Fritz Haber, whose Nobel-prize winning work on the Haber-Bosch process for synthesizing ammonia allowed the world to feed itself, but who also helped the Nazis develop chemical weapons:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/

Technologies can do either good or evil. I think it's better to regulate the people using the technologies than to ban the technologies altogether.
I understand this, too. However, in my opinion, we must weigh out the pros and cons. While there are a lot of life-saving things this technology can provide, we must ask ourselves if the possible consequences (i.e. something like GATTACA or an international race on who can breed the best hyperintellegent super-strong human army to fight in wars) are worth it.

Call me crazy for thinking of those as possibilities, but crazier things have happened.
 
  • #30
Isaac0427 said:
what stops some government from deciding to make a new generation of hyperintellegent humans with increased muscle strength in order to win a war/assume more power?
Nuclear weapons. See sometimes two wrongs do make a right :)
 
  • #31
Isaac0427 said:
While I appreciate your trust in scientists, IMO that trust is misplaced. I don't mean this in a bad way, of course, as someone who wants to be a scientist, but here's a reminder of some of the things scientists have given us:
-Nuclear weapons
-Biological weapons
-Chemical weapons

What's next? An army of genetically modified humans?

Governments are never afraid to have scientists go one step too far and use technology that should never have been used to acquire power. If some government wants the smartest and strongest people in the world, can you say for certainty that they won't use science to achieve that goal?

But we have nuclear plants that produce lots of energy and don't produce greenhouse gases, and also the knowledge that made nuclear weapons some day will perhaps produce fusion nuclear plants, which would mean limitless clean and cheap energy for everyone. Knowledge and science are just tools, you can use a hammer to build a house, and you can also use it to bang on someones head. We shouldn't stop the progress in science just because there is danger of getting it to the wrong hands, we must just do it with caution and responsibility, because this progress might bring solution for so many problems. Otherwise, how many research areas should we cut just because there is danger?

If science is done for the pursuit of progress and under a strong ethical basis, we must go ahead. But we must also be certain on doing it under those lines, otherwise it will be used as a tool of those in power to preserve the statu quo and expand their areas of domination. Ethics must be important for a scientist if he doesn't want his research to be used against humanity. And also politics, because politics is the game of power and powerful people, and at the last, many times we are just working for those people while we don't even realize of it. And I really wouldn't want to wake up one day to see that something I did is being used to kill people somewhere around the world. And you don't even have to work on genetics, nor nuclear research to serve to those ends! there are so many ways to contribute to it that I can't even imagine.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Telemachus said:
But we have nuclear plants that produce lots of energy and don't produce greenhouse gases, and also the knowledge that made nuclear weapons some day will perhaps produce fusion nuclear plants, which would mean limitless clean and cheap energy for everyone. Knowledge and science are just tools, you can use a hammer to build a house, and you can also use it to bang on someones head. We shouldn't stop the progress in science just because there is danger of getting it to the wrong hands, we must just do it with caution and responsibility, because this progress might bring solution for so many problems. Otherwise, how many research areas should we cut just because there is danger?
A fair point, though I still think every situation must be judged. As I said in post 29, the pros and cons must be judged. And that judgement process is tricky; for me, it is very fuzzy around nuclear weapons/nuclear power, chemical weapons/fertilizer and biological weapons/vaccines-- with those I don't know how the pros and cons weigh out (although hindsight is 20/20). However, with genetic engineering I see more of a clear line: yes, it can save many lives, but, while every life is precious and we should do what we can for all of them, I fear that the possible imminent threats to our entire society and world that genetic engineering poses are just too much.

Again, I completely see where you all are coming from, but I think negative implications need to be considered far more thoroughly before further research on this continues.
 
  • #33
This thread is getting interesting. It really is one of the quintessential-form ethics debates.

Ygggdrasil said:
Essentially, they hypothesize that all genes expressed inside a cell are interconnected in their function such that changing one gene may have many unintended consequences on a variety of different traits. Definitely cause for concern when considering altering the human genome.

I think Ygggdrasil hit on the main point here...

My undergraduate degree is in biology. I was fascinated with it. I had a molecular biology teacher in 1990 who said that he started out as a physicist but he switched to biology because he thought the biophysics of energy and metabolic cycles of the cell were much more interesting and complex than the solid state physics he was doing at the time.

And that's the point. They are complex. Very complex. There's no magic bullet, like mfb alluded to..

mfb said:
yes, I support removing it from embryos, with the potential to remove it from the gene pool completely over time.

It doesn't work like that. "Most" everything in cellular and systems biology is connected in a very complicated way. Embryos form the body plan initially with homeobox genes and then the cells further differentiate down the line. But this is a complex orchestration that is highly reliant on certain genes being differentiated at certain times and expressing transcription factors that orchestrate the differentiation of other cells, etc. etc. This is the science of "Evo-devo" and relates the epigentic development of the organism, which also involves the environmental conditions the organism is developing in. For the layperson, Sean "B." Carroll (not the popular physicist) has a great book on the subject called "Endless forms most beautiful."

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393327795/?tag=pfamazon01-20

So, there's two things going on here. The first is how we deal with say, nearsightedness, and other genetic anamolies that require some sort of "correctedness," such as Steven Hawking (ALS) with a wheelchair, for these individuals to survive and reproduce in the gene pool. The other is how do we find the gene(s) that cause these maladies and how do we eradicate them in vitro before we plant the zygote in the womb? The answer is that, in the first case, we are "artificially selecting" a genetic blood line by operating on a phenotype whereas in the second case were doing it by operating on a genotype.

If you are lumping those two together as the same thing in your ethics assessment of the theme of this thread, please think a little more about that..
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Isaac0427 said:
While I appreciate your trust in scientists, IMO that trust is misplaced.

You are dealing with a common bias called focalism, among others, regarding this topic. You may simply need to spend a few more years learning before you truly understand the real purpose and benefits that science has given us.
 
  • #35
Isaac0427 said:
This is allowing the development of a technology that could potentially produce a world like that in GATTACA.
As Ygggdrasil mentioned already, it is not. It is one step such a technology would need, but that also applies to computers, for example.
Did stopping a research branch because you don't like what it could find out ever work?
Isaac0427 said:
for me, it is very fuzzy around nuclear weapons/nuclear power, chemical weapons/fertilizer and biological weapons/vaccines-- with those I don't know how the pros and cons weigh out (although hindsight is 20/20)
While we don't have an alternate history for direct comparison, nuclear weapons probably reduced the number of casualties of the second world war, and without them the Cold War might have become WW 3. No countries with nuclear weapons fought a war against each other, and we live in the most peaceful time of human history.
And then we have nuclear power, of course. Without nuclear power we would burn more coal, leading to millions of additional deaths and a faster climate change.

Fertilizer feeds billions. We went from "nearly everyone is extremely poor and famines are widespread" to a world where extreme poverty and famines are very rare, and fertilizer had a big contribution to it.

How many have been killed by biological weapons?
Smallpox alone killed millions every year.
DiracPool said:
It doesn't work like that. "Most" everything in cellular and systems biology is connected in a very complicated way. Embryos form the body plan initially with homeobox genes and then the cells further differentiate down the line. But this is a complex orchestration that is highly reliant on certain genes being differentiated at certain times and expressing transcription factors that orchestrate the differentiation of other cells, etc. etc.
I don't see how this is related to my point of the effect of well-studied, single point mutations leading to potentially lethal diseases where the vast majority of the population has a gene without this mutation. Of course you cannot do that with every possible genetic disease, but with some you can.
 
  • Like
Likes Fervent Freyja and Telemachus
<h2>1. What is the significance of the first human embryos being edited in the U.S.?</h2><p>The editing of human embryos is a groundbreaking development in the field of genetic engineering. It opens up the possibility of correcting genetic mutations and preventing inherited diseases in future generations. It also raises ethical concerns and prompts discussions about the potential consequences of manipulating human DNA.</p><h2>2. How were the human embryos edited in the U.S.?</h2><p>The editing was done using a gene editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9, which allows scientists to make precise changes to DNA sequences. In this case, the researchers targeted a gene associated with a genetic heart condition and successfully corrected the mutation in a small number of embryos.</p><h2>3. What are the potential benefits of editing human embryos?</h2><p>The main potential benefit is the ability to prevent inherited diseases and disorders in future generations. This could have a significant impact on the health and well-being of individuals and families. It could also lead to advancements in other areas of medicine, such as cancer treatment and regenerative medicine.</p><h2>4. What are the ethical concerns surrounding the editing of human embryos?</h2><p>One of the main concerns is the potential for unintended consequences and unforeseen side effects. There is also the question of whether it is ethical to manipulate human DNA and potentially create "designer babies" with enhanced traits. Additionally, there are concerns about access and equity, as this technology may only be available to those who can afford it.</p><h2>5. What are the next steps for research on editing human embryos?</h2><p>The next steps will involve further research and testing to ensure the safety and efficacy of this technology. There will also need to be ongoing discussions and regulations regarding the ethical implications and potential uses of human embryo editing. Additionally, more studies will be needed to understand the long-term effects and potential risks of editing human DNA.</p>

1. What is the significance of the first human embryos being edited in the U.S.?

The editing of human embryos is a groundbreaking development in the field of genetic engineering. It opens up the possibility of correcting genetic mutations and preventing inherited diseases in future generations. It also raises ethical concerns and prompts discussions about the potential consequences of manipulating human DNA.

2. How were the human embryos edited in the U.S.?

The editing was done using a gene editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9, which allows scientists to make precise changes to DNA sequences. In this case, the researchers targeted a gene associated with a genetic heart condition and successfully corrected the mutation in a small number of embryos.

3. What are the potential benefits of editing human embryos?

The main potential benefit is the ability to prevent inherited diseases and disorders in future generations. This could have a significant impact on the health and well-being of individuals and families. It could also lead to advancements in other areas of medicine, such as cancer treatment and regenerative medicine.

4. What are the ethical concerns surrounding the editing of human embryos?

One of the main concerns is the potential for unintended consequences and unforeseen side effects. There is also the question of whether it is ethical to manipulate human DNA and potentially create "designer babies" with enhanced traits. Additionally, there are concerns about access and equity, as this technology may only be available to those who can afford it.

5. What are the next steps for research on editing human embryos?

The next steps will involve further research and testing to ensure the safety and efficacy of this technology. There will also need to be ongoing discussions and regulations regarding the ethical implications and potential uses of human embryo editing. Additionally, more studies will be needed to understand the long-term effects and potential risks of editing human DNA.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top