Crispr and rewriting the code of life

[sukumvit boy]

Tremendous potential and controversy surrounding this new gene editing technology. Great article here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...e-code-of-life

[sukumvit boy]

First successful human embryo gene editing , repair and permanent correction of a gene mutation , demonstrates a technique which could be used for thousands of inherited genetic diseases .
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/sc...n-embryos.html

[Stavros]

I agree that these are important advances in genetics, but I do not share the 'fear' that it will lead to 'designer babies'. The history of science suggests that one generation will solve a problem while a new one is emerging for succeeding generations. This must be based on the assumption that humans are still evolving, and thus even if we finally defeat malaria and all other known diseases, the continuing changes that are being made to our bodies and the environment means that new challenges will emerge, although I don't know what those are, but for example, someone in 1967 saying that in 50 years time obesity would be one of the major health challenges across the world would not have been taken seriously without the data to back it up. And anyway, science advances because most of the time it is beyond politics, though it does need money. Genetics aside, I think one of the major challenges concerns motorised vehicles and how we get around. I cannot see any justification for trucks/cars in towns or cities, with a very few exceptions like service vehicles.

[broncofan]

One thought is that the "fear" of eugenics is more remote and involves a misuse of the technology where the benefits, if used appropriately are significant. It doesn't seem to me to be a case where the appropriate use is so difficult to separate from the inappropriate use, although maybe if I knew more about genetics it would be.

Alter genes to avoid cancer, lupus, huntingtons, or whatever is possible to do, but do not alter them to enhance intelligence, facial symmetry, height, physical strength. I'm sure there are conditions that challenge our understanding of what is pathological and what is on a normal spectrum of variation, but most probably don't reside on that borderline.

[broncofan]

I'm sure the experts have anticipated this but I'm curious if a bigger risk than misuse is unintended consequences when you try to surgically alter the genome? Maybe that is why they say the use should be for the most severe conditions because the risk of a bad result is probably lower if you do this for something that would otherwise kill you.

But I wonder if a technology like this could introduce genetic conditions if you alter one gene, but are not certain what effect the interaction of many genes have (although in most cases the change would be to an allele that is common in other people). Or are not sure if a gene only confers a disease and does not alone or in combination with other genes confer some sort of advantage. Just a thought.

[sukumvit boy]

Interesting thoughts and comments Stavros and broncofan.
With regard to the issue of how a genetic mutation that causes a disease may also confer an advantage , sickle-cell anemia (SCA) is a good example .
SCA causes the oxygen carrying red blood cell to assume a sickle shape that is less efficient in carrying out it`s oxygen carrying function . However , the resulting deformed red blood cells are also unable to support the malaria parasite which must spend part of it`s complex life cycle in the red blood cell to survive and reproduce , thus resulting in a resistance to malaria .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease