Scientists Say Gene-Edited Babies Claim Is 'Wake-Up Call' For World

ARMCX1

Former Staff
Jun 2013
15,162
9,937
SoCal
#11
The technology is somewhere around 20-30 years old.

You could be working with a "CRISPR baby" and would never know it.

If they can edit out things like cancer, blindness, etc, and it doesn't lead to something messed up 5-10 generations down the line... I'd be all for it.

If they start making random chimeras; that is just bad.

Also, probably good to be cautious about returning extinct species back.
True as to the age of CRISPR technology. 1987.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
52,088
37,791
Ohio
#12
I don't know.

I agree that we can pretty much control it in the US, but worldwide is another matter.

Think N Korea would have any ethical qualms about raising a bunch of big, strong warrior types?

As good as it is to prevent HIV/AIDS, there will be plenty who want to do other things, not such good things, with this technology.

As always...
Lol, N Korea can't feed the people they've got. If they were bred to be bigger and stronger they'd probably starve before they reached adulthood.
 
Jul 2014
32,140
8,280
midwest
#14
Lol, N Korea can't feed the people they've got. If they were bred to be bigger and stronger they'd probably starve before they reached adulthood.
Not being able to feed their people is just one of the things that N Korea has in common with the Socialist Utopia of Venezuela.
 
Oct 2014
26,709
4,321
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#15
Just to clarify, I doubt any sort of gene therapy to "correct" would work in an adult. It might be feasible in embryos if the genetics were understood. There'd be the issue of penetrance - how often a version of a gene expresses itself physically (phenotype) so it wouldn't be possible to say whether this embryo would produce a gay or straight individual. Lots of stumbling blocks to getting regulatory approval.
Based on what I've heard from interviews with people working with it, that it didn't sound like age was as much of a restriction.... Though, that's my third hand perspective.

As for a gay gene, that noted the other part that was made clear, that it's not even simply a matter of the presence of genes, but whether they are on or off...

Not really disagreeing because I don't have enough direct knowledge.
 

ARMCX1

Former Staff
Jun 2013
15,162
9,937
SoCal
#16
Based on what I've heard from interviews with people working with it, that it didn't sound like age was as much of a restriction.... Though, that's my third hand perspective.

As for a gay gene, that noted the other part that was made clear, that it's not even simply a matter of the presence of genes, but whether they are on or off...

Not really disagreeing because I don't have enough direct knowledge.
I mean convert a gay adult to a heterosexual adult by gene therapy. My bias would be sexual orientation is determined during embryonic, fetal and conceivably post natal development; and that it is more complex than the gender genotypes XX and XY.
 
Likes: bmanmcfly

ARMCX1

Former Staff
Jun 2013
15,162
9,937
SoCal
#17
Harvard and M.I.T. Scientists Win Gene-Editing Patent Fight

Is that going to matter going forward, or only in the US?
All countries will have to have some kind of regulatory standard that permit genomic editing as therapy. There's definite divisions among ethicists, researchers, clinicians, corporations as to what that entails. Nearly all think the Chinese edited babies go too far given the current state of actual human embryonic genomic editing and the unprecedented nature of their work.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
52,088
37,791
Ohio
#19
Sorry I misunderstood your question. Other contributors beyond the two involved in the US patent fight may have legitimate claims.
Question was kind of vague. I really don't understand this stuff much, but a long time ago I saw where some guy was running around applying for all sorts of weird patents that didn't exist just to push the courts into setting boundaries. Man/wolf hybrid - weird stuff like that.

Then I got to wondering if the technique used to create the designer babies is or could be patented and how it's used controlled that way.
 

ARMCX1

Former Staff
Jun 2013
15,162
9,937
SoCal
#20
All I know is the Broad Institute, a Harvard MIT consortium won the US patent over UC Berkeley. What little I know about patents I learned from Shark Tank. I think there are international organizations that harmonize patent applications. There are plenty of clinical knock off drugs that violate patents. The fact that the basics of CRISPR were in place by 1988 raises questions about the exclusivity of the patent. I can guarantee that CRISPR's main advancement of high frequency precise DNA repair by homologous recombination was nowhere in sight until around 2010.
 
Likes: Blueneck

Similar Discussions