The potential for this over the next 100 years is amazing.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231044-700-gene-editing-starts-to-save-lives-as-human-trials-get-underway/





Here is a quick video about CRISPR for those that haven't heard of it.

I wonder what the hippies will have to say about GMHs.

Lots of potential for interesting treatments and epic failures.

Thats Awesome...but at the same time terrifying

Imagine what they will be able to do in hundreds of years with it.

Any minor genetic annoyance could be treated.

One off custom gene therapies are going to be ludicrously expensive for awhile, going to be some interesting coverage controversies and rate increases from this.

Save lots of lives? Are we running out of humans?

On the other hand, if it was one of my kids who was saved, I would be all for it.

So when we find the gay gene can we edit that out or is that a no no?

Funny how that works.

If we can figure out how to easily treat cancer (especially in young children) everyone should be for it, no kid deserves to go through that.

Not to mention all the other viruses and genetic diseases that make the lives of people miserable.

I didn't realize people were dying horrible deaths from gay.

Gattaca is the inevitable end of gene therapy. Goodbye everything that make you, you.

I totally get what you are you saying. But I/you/we would still be the same just without the things that hold us back.  Remove tendency to addiction, remove anxiety, remove bipolar, etc etc etc. Same person but at full potential. (or possibly some hellis scenario nobody foresees)

Just another step in our evolution.

In order to expand into the universe, perhaps it will require some heavily modified genetics to survive and thrive.

Like the video already stated, there are already many tests available for pregnant women to detect genetic defects (like down syndrome) and terminate the pregnancy. We are already doing selective modification.

The law of unintended consequences.  Welcome to the cause our extinction.

Edit : Rephrased

Or the driving force behind our expansion.

What about when we modify humans that thrive in low gravity conditions and can survive for thousands of years in suspended animation. That is a good way to start seeding the galaxy.

Yep. Controversial opinion time, not only should genetic engineering be allowed by the government it should be encouraged/subsidized. Imagine two countries one of them is full of Einsteins that could compete as Olympic decathletes and they remain health and active well into their 90s or even later, the other country is full of the people of walmart. Which do you think is going to be more productive and successful?

And who would decorate our homes and design our clothes?

" Gene editing with CRISPR to begin human trials, potential to save many lives."

That's what they thought in "I Am Legend" too.

In 2015, multiple studies attempted to systematically disable each individual human gene, in an attempt to identify which genes were essential to human biology. Between 1,600 and 1,800 genes passed this test—of the 20,000 or so known human genes. Such genes are more strongly activated, and unlikely to carry disabling mutations. They are more likely to have indispensable counterparts in other species. They build proteins that unite to form larger collaborative complexes. The studies also catalogued the essential genes in four cancer-cell lines and identified genes that are expendable in healthy cells, but crucial in specific tumor types and drugs that could target these rogue genes.

The specific functions of some 18 percent of the essential genes are unidentified. In one 2015 targeting experiment, disabling individual genes in groups of cells attempted to identify those involved in resistance to a melanoma drug. Each such gene manipulation is itself a separate "drug", potentially opening the entire genome to CRISPR-based regulation.

At least four labs in the US, labs in China and the UK, and a US biotechnology company called Ovascience announced plans or ongoing research to apply CRISPR to human embryos. Scientists, including a CRISPR co-inventor, urged a worldwide moratorium on applying CRISPR to the human germline, especially for clinical use. They said "scientists should avoid even attempting, in lax jurisdictions, germline genome modification for clinical application in humans" until the full implications "are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations". These scientists support basic research on CRISPR and do not see CRISPR as developed enough for any clinical use in making heritable changes to people.

In April 2015, Chinese scientists reported results of an attempt to alter the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR to correct a mutation that causes beta thalassemia, a lethal heritable disorder. The study had previously been rejected by both Nature and Science in part because of ethical concerns; the journals had no comment. The experiments resulted in changing only some genes, and had off-target effects on other genes. The researchers stated that CRISPR is not ready for clinical application in reproductive medicine.

In April 2016 Chinese scientists were reported to have made a second unsuccessful attempt to alter the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR - this time to alter the CCR5 gene to make the embryo HIV resistant.

In December 2015, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing took place in Washington under the guidance of David Baltimore. Members of national scientific academies of America, Britain and China discussed the ethics of germline modification. They agreed to support basic and clinical research under appropriate legal and ethical guidelines. A specific distinction was made between clinical use in somatic cells, where the effects of edits are limited to a single individual, versus germline cells, where genome changes could be inherited by future generations. Heritable modifications could have unintended and far-reaching consequences for human evolution, genetically (e.g. gene/environment interactions) and culturally (e.g. Social Darwinism). Altering of gametocytes and embryos to generate inheritable changes in humans was thus claimed irresponsible. In addition, they agreed to initiate an international forum to address such concerns and harmonize regulations countries.


The WIKI article on the subject is very detailed

This is also a really good read, translated from French'

A French biologist invents the absolute weapon to correct, improve or repeat life -

She has not yet received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry but is now awarded the Princess of Asturias Prize. Emmanuelle Charpentier, outstanding microbiologist has developed in 2012, a technique with the sweet name of CRISPR / Case. This one has not finished revolutionizing the engineering of the living. This molecular surgery opens up vertiginous possibilities. With their cortege of ethical and regulatory emergencies.

It has swapped dancing for exploration bacterial defenses. Emmanuelle Charpentier embodies the strength of character and curiosity. This French biologist born in 1968 in Juvisy (Essonne) has just received the Prix Princesse de Asturias, the most prestigious prize awarded in Spain. For the past six years, she has held conferences and awards: in April 2015 she was awarded the Louis-Jeantet Prize in Medicine in Geneva; it also remembers the ceremony Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, California, in November 2014, where she received with her colleague Jennifer Doudna, Berkeley , a price of nearly 3 million.

A prodigious tool for molecular cuisine

Why so many reconnaissances? The work of Emmanuelle Charpentier has resulted in a real revolution in the design world of living organisms. If, since 1975, the genomes have been manipulated by grafting to them pieces of information to make them make new productions (insecticides, herbicides, medicines ...) nobody had yet to target and add genes just in the right places. The invention of Emmanuelle Charpentier and his American colleague Jennifer Doudna (University of Berkeley) consists in using an ultra-precise "search head" capable of locating and destroying an insertion zone in the genome. Their find is an illustration of the serendipity since never the scope of the tool was imagined by the two researchers at the start. Chances where the desire to understand ...

It all started with the interest of Emmanuelle Charpentier for the immune system of ... bacteria. Yes, microbes have memory! They learn to repel the viruses that infect them by multiplying innumerable copies of small pieces of viral DNA. These rehearsals are like stutterings, spotted in 1987 by the Charentaise team of Philippe Horvath working for the company Danisco (bought by Dupont). This trace, thus fixed, proves to protect the strains of bacteria from future attacks of the virus.

Yet it was necessary to understand the mechanism of this resistance. The two researchers Charpentier and Doudna published in 2012 their decisive works (1). They show that the bacterium has a true sentinel system which, as soon as the DNA of the already recognized virus enters the bacterium in order to take control, it detects it thanks to its system called CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Insterspaced Palindromic Repeats) and The cut by its "investigating head enzyme" called "Cas9". The potential of the technique as a genetic engineering tool is highlighted in the months that followed with the publication of Luciano Maraffini of Rockfeller University in New York (2)

Accurate, efficient, simple and ultra fast

From then on, it is the explosion of the CRISPR / Cas technique that is precise, efficient, simple and ultra fast. With it, everything becomes interchangeable: Feng Zhand of the MIT Broad Institute in Cambridge, describes CRISPR / cases as the "search-replace" function of a computer. The tool is also universal: it is used to improve seeds of wheat or potatoes, to add traits to farmed species, to correct genes on human embryos.

The power of the method is the "wonders" as emphasized by Le Monde journalist, Stéphane Foucard in Article Edit nature . Chinese researchers have succeeded in making the wheat resistant to powdery mildew by inactivating the six copies of the fungus receptor gene. Lisong Li of Shanghai University corrected a hereditary mutation responsible for cataract in mice. And in April, the team led by Huang Junjiu University Sun Yat-sen (Canton) - Chinese still - published in the journal Proteins and Cells , work to change human embryos. Stated goal: to correct a gene responsible for a blood disorder: the beta-thalassemia . Undeclared goal: get ahead in the race for a new Eldorado , the heritable genetic changes in humans.
Now that the Chinese can genetically modify humans, if we pressed "pause" to think a little? proposed the journalist Jean-Yves Nau in May. A month later, Emmanuelle Charpentier who now heads the infectious biology department at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, speaking from the rostrum of the Academy of Sciences stating that "this technique works so well and met such It would be important to evaluate the ethical aspects of its use ".

A summit of leading American, Chinese and British scientific societies on human gene publishing is scheduled for December in Washington.
Ethical issues are coupled with a fierce legal competition regarding the ownership of patents on this technology. The stakes are enormous in both health and agriculture. But it will be necessary to distinguish between human and non-human applications, agricultural or microbiological, food or non-food, useful or futile, to avoid amalgams and sterile polemics.
GMO or non-GMO?

The CRISPR / Cas process has become a must in the agri-food sector. It revolutionizes the mutagenesis that has been practiced by seed growers for more than 60 years. Instead of generating mutations by ionizing rays or chemical agents in the blind and then selecting plants with the desired traits (which takes several years), the tool allows to mutate a specific gene in a few weeks.

With this approach and related techniques (Zinc Finger, TALENs, selection marker ..) have been developed and approved in the US market of genetically modified potatoes in this way and called ArticApple (approved by the FDA in March 2015) . The flesh of it is not brown because a gene (responsible for the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO) has been rendered silent.) Arctic apples have had a great media impact when the Canadian Food Inspection Agency published on its website (2 May 2012) the application for authorization in Canada submitted by Okanagan10 soliciting comments from the public ..

A potato InnateTM Potatoes produced by JR Simplot Company is also consumable in US markets since April 2015. It contains little asparagine, an amino acid that generates carcinogenic acrylamide during cooking.

In the pipeline, there are apple resistance to scab, the barley reduced phytate (phosphorus components of plants that are not digestible by livestock) to make it more available to be assimilated phosphorus, poplars in Rapid growth for use as biofuels .... Not to mention changes in microorganisms such as yeast or microalgae to produce molecules of interest (morphine or antibiotics produced by Eligo Biosciences), ethanol or other biofuels, or to make them swallow CO2 (Carboyeast de Denis Pompon at TWB). Two start ups in France, Abolis and Bgene, produce custom microbial strains for large groups.

When CRISPR / Cas becomes a regulatory puzzle
Faced with these developments, a nagging question: are these modified organisms GMOs? Will they have to follow the assessments and legislation affecting them?
Clearly, should these interventions that impart new functions be cautious due to possible unexpected effects?
As a reminder at European level, the 1990 Directive defined a GMO as "an organism whose genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by recombination or natural recombination". The organisms resulting from conventional mutagenesis were excluded considering that these methods did not introduce any inter-species transfer in particular. This is why seeds propose to assimilate CRISPR / Cases (and neighboring techniques) to conventional mutagenesis (which do not introduce any foreign gene to the variety) and to assimilate these organisms as non-GMOs.

But opinions differ on the subject . The committees dealing with this issue are increasing in Washington, Brussels, ministries, and research institutes. And the High Council for biotechnology in France, will have to mobilize on these controversies. With the most complex questions: If one avoids all-out mutagenesis as in the past, is one in a better controlled production? Do these interventions have no effect on ecosystems or health? What means are there to follow up these productions?

This mobilization takes place against a background of massive investments in the sector under the banner of "synthetic biology". Life-saving engineering becomes the strategic challenge in the United States where a billion dollars could be raised this year if public and private funding is combined. There are 200 companies in the sector. "For two years, the high-tech billionaires like Peter Thiel co-founded PayPal or Eric Schmidt from Google are turning to biotechnology, says Corine Lesne in its report The boom in synthetic biology . She points out that DARPA, the Pentagon Agency for Advanced Defense Research, alone contributes 60% of public funds. This effort involves only a minuscule part of health and environmental studies (1% of funding). The public is also left out of these projects since only 23% of Americans (and 17% of Europeans) have any idea about synthetic biology (according to the Woodrow Wilson Institute in Washington). "We are in this strange situation where there is more money and inadequate regulation," says David Rejeski, director of the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Institute.
Europe mobilized and tetanized

In Europe, programs have been set up to introduce synthetic biology and the bioeconomy. Synenergene example is illustrated in France by the Alive Festival project that questions the industrialization of living and American control reducing the diversity of approaches) in Vienna by the Biofiction festival , or in Fribourg from theater ... The creative process between scientists and artists StudioLabProject also display synthetic biology.

We may regret that meetings on the subject remain confidential in France, notably in Biocitech on November 27 organized by AlEnvi. The initiative of the NGO ETC Group and the What Next Institute is needed to hold a discussion in Geneva on 9 December on the governance of these biotechnologies (3)

In genetics community voices are heard calling for the organization of a new " Asilomar Conference ." This meeting (of 130 in-camera geneticists) was organized in 1975 and called for a moratorium on "genetic manipulation" to avoid uncontrolled GMOs in the environment. Member of the National Consultative Ethics Committee, Patrick Gaudray does not believe in the relevance of a moratorium: "I had the beginnings of" genetic engineering ", the 1975 moratorium and the Asilomar conference, he explains he. And I have observed that nothing has been avoided, that the public debate on GMOs has never taken place, and that, with a little bad spirit, we can see the breathing time that was necessary for technologists (Americans, in particular) to put themselves in order of march and become hegemonic. I do not believe in the purity of the announcements of reflection and moratorium published in the two major scientific journals (Nature and Science) that rejected the article of the team led by Junjiu Hua. "
Against this backdrop, France, the world's largest seed exporter, has every interest in making projects legible, accessible and open to criticism, as Canadians understand them with their "ArticApple". The platform GENIUS that evokes the question of the usefulness (Useful plants and sustainable agriculture) may be coordinated by INRA is the outline of a dialogue. Funded to the tune of 21.3 million euros for 7 years, it aims to "experiment with the social construction of projects", dear to Christian Huygue, deputy scientific director of INRA.

Original article in French

Yep.

But seeing how disease affects people and even things like allergies, I am a big fan of research and development in this field. I hope that it saves lives and is developed to the point that we can use it for banalities too.

I want my son to be able to eat an egg and not worry about anaphylaxis. I want hair on my head and off of the rest of my body. I want the Alzheimer's that's in my family to be gone. I want the flat feet gone, I want a better metabolism and 20/10 eyesight.

It has the potential to be amazing, I just hope the neo-druids and the anti-science people don't screw it up.

There has been several times in history where people scoffed at new advancements and discoveries and claimed they were absurd; but were soon proven wrong. Perhaps this is one of those times...or perhaps not. 

I can see this causing hysteria with big pharma. What do they do now since all their medicines aren't needed? Also, everyone will want to have the opportunity to use it but I'm sure it's not going to be free. So be prepared for people that can't afford it to push back, then the liberals will say if everybody can't afford it then nobody should have it.

I wonder if people that underwent this treatment could reproduce? What happens when after a few generations there is no check on population, do they introduce population control, maybe the Purge?

LOL the market just got a 10x larger. They wont be selling drugs but gene cures.

The future untermensch?

No fucks given what they have to say about anything.

It always surprises me how ineffective stories like this child Layla, become.  No follow-up, you're just left with assuming it was successful with no pictures or testimony by ANYONE.  Was there more?

It's going to suck for us unless we can get our genes retroactively modified. I like to think with everybody having Einstein level intelligence and long lives, that the human race will jump ahead by a massive leap.

The one I've brainstormed in my book is that of turning off the aging genes.

Imagine 'fooling' your genes to think that you're continually in your late 20s/early 30s.

So, they say that the future of humanity will be uniformly brown as we intermix, but really parents will choose the skin color, intelligence, height, etc.... maintaining the races and increasing the numbers of cliquish differences between us.

Here's an interesting one:
If 50% of a childs genes come from each parent, and you modify hose genes, who are the parents.. Is the kid really "theirs" if they don't have their genes?

Silly question.

They are the physical property of the State and intellectual property of Prometheus Genomics.

You're just suppose to believe nighstalker.

That is pretty much everything in Science.

If this isn't "playing God" I don't know what is.

Anyone else thinking of the Pax program from "Serenity"?

Good thing we have a pro gun president, I have a urgent desire for something beltfed.

I do a lot of volunteer week with AIDS service organizations.  I remember in April they tested the CRISPR/CAS9 against HIV.  They edited a portion of the RNA to make it non viable or something to that effect.

It worked. Until it mutated before and after the cut and became virulent again.

I'm sure with more refining it will work for less volatile diseases like cancer etc.  It's funny though, something that wants to live, will usually find a way.

Golden age of science.

See to me that's what's scary.  Damn shit came back.  How zombies are made.

You mean like dying from the treatment? Somthing tells me the folks who are going to use those treatments have a foot in the grave already.

 +1 
I have lived 2x longer than I have supposed to and a m relatively healthy at this point but that is not realistic to expect that to stay the same so in a few years I'd be more than willing to give this a shot .

I agree.

I understand the reason behind the ethics of not wanting to "experiment" on humans.  But in some circumstances, fucking go for it.  What the fuck do you have to lose.

I watched my wife's cousin die from glioblastoma, the only approved treatment was something developed for breast cancer, and guess what, it didn't work.  There were a number of experimental treatments in trial, but the process to get into them was argerous, and limited due to government regulation.  To me if your life is on the line, you should be able to choose to undergo the risk.  

Fuck the government and Fuck the FDA.

I imagine that it is a two-way street; it could also be switched on.

Especially for GIB.....I mean come on FDA.