Science and Technology thread

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

Thinking more short-term, genetic engineering would potentially result in the elimination of homosexuality as well, which would involve an ironic and entertaining debate among anti-LGBT folks: Do you admit that homosexuality has a basis in genetics and then use that fact to eliminate it, or do you continue with your belief that homosexuality is a choice and God would not create a homosexual, with the consequence of not using scientific advances to your ultimate advantage?

Also could eliminate things like pedophilia and proclivities to violence/crime, which I believe would be unequivocally good.

Thinking more long-term, genetic engineering sounds like the beginning of the next great leap in human evolution, with the arguably unfortunate byproduct of leaving the lineages of poor people behind (who can't afford the genetic engineering) and homogenizing the population. We genetically engineer super-intelligent humans, who advance technology to the point of reaching other inhabitable planets, and then some other ?????, and we profit.

Before the intergalactic travel happens, I imagine super-intelligent humans would develop the technology to create anything out of thin air, which would eliminate the need for money and the concept of value altogether. Anyone can create any food/shelter they want within whatever codes of laws are implemented to deal with this, so there's no more economy, no more labor.

 

[ZackM]

Will we come to a day when having babies the old-fashioned way is considered too risky?

And then also the subjective nature of deciding exactly which genes are undesirable.

 

[slswofford3]

 

[deepdarkblue]

As long as they eventually make people who can fly, idc.

 

[DukeNukem05]

Will we come to a day when having babies the old-fashioned way is considered too risky?

 

[aiw]

So, the first successful edit to the genome of a human embryo using the CRISPR/Cas9 system was reported. This kind of advance, while remarkable, has also been rather inevitable since the full potential of CRISPR was realized.

The biggest questions around this are ethical now. Gene therapy for adults is still difficult to conceive -- we have too many cells to fix. But it's not difficult to imagine two parents with cystic fibrosis (whose child would be guaranteed to have CF) choosing to have a child through IVF and asking for a fully functional copy of the CFTR gene to be spliced in. What about genes that are negative but not necessarily fatal, such as BRCA? And when we eventually find the exact genes responsible for every potential malady?

Will we come to a day when having babies the old-fashioned way is considered too risky?

And is there something fundamentally different about altering DNA compared to other treatments?

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...it-dna-in-human-embryos-to-fix-a-disease-gene

Read about this today. Pretty incredible stuff. The way this country is going, rich people will need to go overseas to have this done when it finally comes to fruition.

 

[aiw]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...-looks-like-a-statue/535782/?utm_source=atltw

So cool. So well preserved they can still see skin pigmentation.

 

[ZackM]

Dinosaurs are fucking awesome. Jurassic Park needs to become a thing.

 

[aiw]

Dinosaurs are fucking awesome. Jurassic Park needs to become a thing.

Have you been to the American Museum of Natural History in NY? Most amazing dinosaur collection I've seen. Could spend a couple of days walking through there.

 

[Duke Mu]

So, the first successful edit to the genome of a human embryo using the CRISPR/Cas9 system was reported. This kind of advance, while remarkable, has also been rather inevitable since the full potential of CRISPR was realized.

The biggest questions around this are ethical now. Gene therapy for adults is still difficult to conceive -- we have too many cells to fix. But it's not difficult to imagine two parents with cystic fibrosis (whose child would be guaranteed to have CF) choosing to have a child through IVF and asking for a fully functional copy of the CFTR gene to be spliced in. What about genes that are negative but not necessarily fatal, such as BRCA? And when we eventually find the exact genes responsible for every potential malady?

Will we come to a day when having babies the old-fashioned way is considered too risky?

And is there something fundamentally different about altering DNA compared to other treatments?

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...it-dna-in-human-embryos-to-fix-a-disease-gene

An additional issues is that the current iteration of CRISPR causes off target (side-effect) edits as well, because the guide RNA sequences may also code or target portions of other genes. With 20 nucleotides in a sequence as a current ceiling, even with scouring the libraries available, the risk is still there. A potentially acceptable risk for a living Duchenne muscular dystrophy patient (research is underway now)...but there is a chance of misuse unless as you cited a CS or deadly disease...particularly since the future human had no input into the decision.

Once off-targets are characterized, the risk may be more acceptable as it would be known for each guide RNA. On the positive side, CRISPR spCas9 packages can be made tissue specific using virus (AAV) delivery coupled with promotor driven vector (MCK in skeletal muscle for example)...lessening systemic side effects. Certainly exciting times.

 

[bdotling]

Not to burst the CRISPR bubble but if you read the study vs most headlines the experiment wasn't successful as intended.

Not a single one of the lab-made genes was taken in by the embryo. Instead it took the healthy genes of the other parent. There's a lot more to learn about how this science works before prime time... Stat lays it out pretty accurately.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/02/crispr-designer-babies/

 

[Duke Mu]

Not to burst your CRISPR bubble but if you read the study vs most headlines the experiment wasn't successful as intended.

Not a single one of the lab-made genes was taken in by the embryo. Instead it took the healthy genes of the other parent. There's a lot more to learn about how this science works before prime time... Stat lays it out pretty accurately.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/02/crispr-designer-babies/

CRISPR doesn't introduce genes (it can only splice a 20 nucleic acid sequence or less). It doesn't add phenotypic traits (although with off-target affects it might by accident). It edits or fixes mistakes, so that natural phenotypes can be expressed.

CRISPR as it is intended works or is taken by a host of mammalian species.

 

[bdotling]

Not to burst your CRISPR bubble but if you read the study vs most headlines the experiment wasn't successful as intended.

Not a single one of the lab-made genes was taken in by the embryo. Instead it took the healthy genes of the other parent. There's a lot more to learn about how this science works before prime time... Stat lays it out pretty accurately.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/02/crispr-designer-babies/

CRIPSR doesn't introduce genes.

Never said it did.

 

[bdotling]

Even with your edits, you are missing my point and misconstruing what I wrote

 

[bdotling]

Not to burst your CRISPR bubble but if you read the study vs most headlines the experiment wasn't successful as intended.

Not a single one of the lab-made genes was taken in by the embryo. Instead it took the healthy genes of the other parent. There's a lot more to learn about how this science works before prime time... Stat lays it out pretty accurately.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/02/crispr-designer-babies/

CRISPR doesn't introduce genes (it can only splice a 20 nucleic acid sequence or less). It doesn't add phenotypic traits (although with off-target affects it might by accident). It edits or fixes mistakes, so that natural phenotypes can be expressed.

CRISPR as it is intended works or is taken by a host of mammalian species.

Your continued edits still have nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[Duke Mu]

Not to burst your CRISPR bubble but if you read the study vs most headlines the experiment wasn't successful as intended.

Not a single one of the lab-made genes was taken in by the embryo. Instead it took the healthy genes of the other parent. There's a lot more to learn about how this science works before prime time... Stat lays it out pretty accurately.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/02/crispr-designer-babies/

CRIPSR doesn't introduce genes.

Never said it did.

Explain this sentence.

"Not a single one of the lab-made genes was taken in by the embryo."

 

[Duke Mu]

Not to burst your CRISPR bubble but if you read the study vs most headlines the experiment wasn't successful as intended.

Not a single one of the lab-made genes was taken in by the embryo. Instead it took the healthy genes of the other parent. There's a lot more to learn about how this science works before prime time... Stat lays it out pretty accurately.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/02/crispr-designer-babies/

CRISPR doesn't introduce genes (it can only splice a 20 nucleic acid sequence or less). It doesn't add phenotypic traits (although with off-target affects it might by accident). It edits or fixes mistakes, so that natural phenotypes can be expressed.

CRISPR as it is intended works or is taken by a host of mammalian species.

Your continued edits still have nothing to do with what I wrote.

Any edit(s) pertained to the CRISPR tech details, and completely unrelated to whatever it is you wrote.. We are considering using CRISPR vs. other gene silencing or knockdowns. The off-target (side effect) issues are concerning. However, for key genetic diseases they hold promise as any side effects would likely be mild vs. the disease. Would require muchos proof of concept and preclinical testing before using in humans, clearly.

Your wording from what I can tell represents a conceptual misunderstand of what CRISPR actually does.

 

[Duke Mu]

Here's the fundamental problem with the article you cite:

"A targeting molecule carries the CRISPR complex to the target gene within a cell. A molecular scissors snips out the target gene."

That is not quite right or at least misleading. Genes are very long - hundreds to thousands of base pairs. CRISPR makes precise and small repairs, and goes after a very small portion. CRISPR uses an enzyme called Cas9 that snips out a small piece of offending DNA. A small strand of complimentary RNA, called guide RNA (20 base pairs long), locates the damage and CAS9 clips it out. It does not take out or add an entire gene. DNA repair machinery patches it up. Taking out large chunks of a gene or a snip in the wrong place would result in a nonsense (nonfunctional) protein.

If fact, CRISPR can be used the "knock out" genes by making them nonsense, in addition to repair of the gene.

 

[burksballer20]

Dinosaurs are fucking awesome. Jurassic Park needs to become a thing.

Have you been to the American Museum of Natural History in NY? Most amazing dinosaur collection I've seen. Could spend a couple of days walking through there.

I went there for the first time back in March. It was amazing. You seriously need a few days to take it all in. We stayed there for many hours and couldn't come close to seeing it all.

 

[burksballer20]

Regardless of its status right now, CRISPR has amazing potential in the medical world. Will be exciting to see how it's used and develops in the next 10-20 years