First Human Embryos Edited in U.S.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the recent advancements in gene editing of human embryos using CRISPR technology, specifically focusing on a study led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov. Participants explore the implications, ethical considerations, and technical aspects of germline gene editing, as well as the distinction between genetic engineering and natural selection.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that the research demonstrates the ability to avoid mosaicism and off-target effects in gene editing, suggesting improvements over previous studies.
  • Others express skepticism about the implications of genetic engineering in humans, arguing that natural selection should not be interfered with.
  • One participant points out that selective breeding has been a form of genetic manipulation for thousands of years, contrasting it with modern genetic engineering techniques.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the CRISPR technique used in the study repairs a specific mutation rather than introducing foreign DNA, framing it as a form of medical intervention rather than traditional genetic engineering.
  • Some participants question the definition of genetic engineering, suggesting that the current research may not fit the common understanding of the term.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for genetic enhancement and the ethical implications of such technologies, with varying opinions on whether these applications are acceptable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the acceptability and implications of genetic engineering in humans. There is no consensus, as some advocate for the potential benefits of gene editing for disease correction, while others oppose any form of genetic manipulation in humans.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the limitations of the current research, including the need for peer-reviewed validation and the reproducibility of the technique with other mutations. The conversation also reflects differing interpretations of what constitutes genetic engineering versus natural selection.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the ethical, technical, and conceptual debates surrounding genetic engineering, particularly in the context of human health and disease, may find this discussion relevant.

  • #61
thejosh said:
In a nutshell(i have to rush to classes) what i am implying is that genes often cross over during cell division, we call this mutation and it often happens in an organism to produce variation naturally, if we venture into introducing new genes (which is what we will eventually do) new mutations might occur which could potentially disrupt the path of nature, if and when this happens we could cause our own downfall rather than fix the issue, that is one of the main issues with impeding genetic engineering.I will post more later.

Biologists that I know do not believe in a "path of Nature". Can you explain what you mean by this?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #62
No. thejosh made several errors. There is no 'path of nature'. And single mutations alone will not wipe out a species - they are not a time bomb.
What I think he means is: If a mutation that is fatal homozygously (means just one allele of the the pair is required to have the effect) is common in a population, all people with it will die. But. How did it get into enough people long enough to be "common" in the first place.
Without killing them first?

What kills species is usually major environmental change, which usually occurs over periods longer than one lifetime. Sometimes a catastrophic event can cause a so-called population bottleneck (Founder Effect) . A few hundred individuals survive a major population die out. Modern cheetahs are an example of this.
See:
As a species, cheetahs have famously low levels of genetic variation. This can probably be attributed to a population bottleneck they experienced around 10,000 years ago, barely avoiding extinction at the end of the last ice age. However, the situation has worsened in modern times.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070701_cheetah
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre, Buzz Bloom, lavinia and 1 other person

Similar threads

Is CRISPR Gene Editing in Human Embryos Reliable?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Plans for Human Germline Modification being Discussed
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Medical First genetically edited human babies reportedly born
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Measuring off target mutations during CRISPR gene editing
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Medical National Academies Recommendations on Human Gene Editing
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
New CRISPR-based tool for find-and-replace editing of DNA
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Breakthrough Prize: Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
CRISPR against cancer in human trial
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Gene-edited immune cells could help wipe out deadly tumors
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Influenza A H5, an avian flu, first time in a human
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K