UK Government Urged To Consider Changing Law To Allow Gene Editing of Embryos (theguardian.com) 48
Ministers must consider changing the law to allow scientists to carry out genome editing of human embryos for serious genetic conditions -- as a matter of urgency. That is the key message of a newly published report by a UK citizens' jury made up of individuals affected by genetic conditions. From a report: The report is the first in-depth study of the views of individuals who live with genetic conditions about the editing of human embryos to treat hereditary disorders and will be presented at the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing, which opens at the Crick Institute in London this week. Scientists say that in a few years, they will be ready to use genome editing techniques to alter genes and induce changes in physical traits, such as disease risk, in future generations. In the UK, around 2.4 million people live with a genetic condition. These include cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, muscular dystrophy, various cancers, and some forms of hereditary blindness.
"Genome editing offers the prospect of preventing such conditions affecting future generations but there needs to be a full national debate on the issues," said Prof Anna Middleton of Cambridge University, the project's leader. "These discussions need to start now because genome editing is advancing so quickly. Many affected individuals want to debate the ethical issues and explore what implementation might look like." Genome editing acts like a pair of molecular scissors that can cut a strand of DNA at a specific site, allowing scientists to alter the structure of a gene, a form of manipulation that does not involve the introduction of DNA from other organisms. In the UK, as in most countries worldwide, it is illegal to perform genome editing on embryos that lead to pregnancy.
"Genome editing offers the prospect of preventing such conditions affecting future generations but there needs to be a full national debate on the issues," said Prof Anna Middleton of Cambridge University, the project's leader. "These discussions need to start now because genome editing is advancing so quickly. Many affected individuals want to debate the ethical issues and explore what implementation might look like." Genome editing acts like a pair of molecular scissors that can cut a strand of DNA at a specific site, allowing scientists to alter the structure of a gene, a form of manipulation that does not involve the introduction of DNA from other organisms. In the UK, as in most countries worldwide, it is illegal to perform genome editing on embryos that lead to pregnancy.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah look at what Hollywood, which makes money off hyperbole, paranoia, and sensationalism has to say instead of scientists who know it can save lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what makes you think there would be no limits?
Re: (Score:2)
serious.
consider little sally or little billy.
a parents seriousness.
might be serious if the result is something less than absolute perfection.
game and movie to follow
Re: (Score:2)
If little Sally didn't get born with cystic fibrosis after all I think it will be a welcome step forward.
Re: (Score:3)
Humans can, and do worse things already. Illegal and frivolous gene editing will happen regardless. Making it illegal will only ensure that the technology stays with the bad guys while people with actual genetic diseases will have to suffer. If you banned all pain killers, would it even reduce dangerous drug use? No, even people with moderate pain would be seeking out fentanyl dealers.
Re: (Score:2)
amusing.
that you have never encountered a topic called.
home genetic splicing kits.
game and movies exist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Read about the "tickling the dragon's tail" atomic experiments. Turns out the sci-fi trope of an experiment gone out of control is actually straight from real life.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, that 1995 Hackers movie also seemed horribly implausible when it was released. How many of the that can't happen, because it's not connected to the internet events depicted in the movie ended up later actually happening?
Well, except obviously the fashion. If that ever was a thing, I don't think it made it out of California.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah look at what Hollywood, which makes money off hyperbole, paranoia, and sensationalism has to say instead of scientists who know it can save lives.
You're not wrong, but don't discount a good cautionary tale just because someone made a Hollywood movie about it. On the surface it sounds great to be able to modify genes at the embryotic level to remove debilitating illness, but like anything which has a good side someone is going to look to use it for nefarious ends. "What If" stories are just one method we can use to start thinking about the rules which need to be put in place, and what kind of measure are required to enforce those rules, before the t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
GATTACA HERE WE COME!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me just check if anyone made a movie about this...
Personally, I prefer the one with the Dinosaurs rather than the one depicting a dystopian society with the genetically inferior boy who wants to go to space.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Yes please (Score:3, Insightful)
Genetic disease must be allowed to be corrected. We wont let a kid grow up with a cleft pallet or something like that saying it is Gods will so why is editing DNA so scary to people. Will it work 100% of the time? Hell no, not at first as with anything. When humans first started doing surgery many patients used to die from infection but it also saved many lives.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll let you know when we genetically engineer certain violent cultures out of existence, since no one wants to say what is responsible for 50% of the crime in the US.
A) You can't genetically engineer away a culture. That would be like saying you want to get rid of the German culture.
B) But let's play the game and say you might be able to do that. Can we then genetically engineer away the culture which is repsonsible for over 80% of all child molestations and rapes? Hint: it's not the same group as yours
Re: (Score:2)
A) You can't genetically engineer away a culture. That would be like saying you want to get rid of the German culture.
I'm pretty sure the anon poster was using "culture" as a euphemism for race, in the same way Disney's latest direct-to-streaming movie is being criticized by a certain contingent for being too "woke". Yeah, it's quite obvious exactly what they're referring to.
I doubt the slope will ever get slippery to the point where we'll have people genetically altering their kids for a different skin color. My predictions for a hypothetical "GATTACA future" are:
Not to have inherited genetic diseases? Absolutely.
Not t
Re: (Score:2)
Will be interesting to see whether it is black, or white, people afraid of discrimination (or reverse discrimination) that will do the melanin reduction (and hair) edit. Will it align with the side that has the most legitimate grievance.
Re: (Score:2)
Genetic disease must be allowed to be corrected.
Yes. It's called manning-up and being sure not to reproduce - you're damaged goods.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you've decided not to have kids. Unfortunately not everyone may know they carry a particular trait. For example, some people get dementia a lot later in life than you did. Second, genetic abnormalities can happen spontaneously early in the embryonic stage. If random mutation wasn't a thing we'd all be the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus what they'd be doing is editing genes in single cells before the cells multiply, so mutations will still occur during pregnancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Certain non-inherited genetic abnormalities, especially chromosomal abnormalities can happen early -- spontaneously during meiosis. You'd want to fix those as early as possible during the embryo or fetal stage, since we have the technology to detect them. Btw, what does single cell matter .. the law would be applicable at any stage I assume. And, btw it is a single cell for about a day any way .. if they wanted to restrict to that, the technical term would be zygote .. not embryo.
Re: (Score:1)
Btw, what does single cell matter .. the law would be applicable at any stage I assume. And, btw it is a single cell for about a day any way .. if they wanted to restrict to that, the technical term would be zygote .. not embryo.
We can't do a DNA test on a zygote because the DNA is destroyed when tested, so we wait until it has divided and there are 16 cells, and then do a DNA test on one of them. The problem then is that CRISPR-Cas9 wasn't all that accurate, so trying to gene edit 15 cells results in an embryo that is a chimera, with not all cells being the same. Recent innovations means CRISPR-Cas9-HF1 is 99.9% accurate, but that still means 0.1% of attempted changes will fail to be changed successfully. One in one thousand doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Does fixing a cleft pallet carry over to the next generation?
Are there unforeseen consequences to fixing a cleft pallet that may affect generations to come?
I'm not saying that fixing genetic defects in embryos is good or bad just that maybe we should be extra cautions here.
Re: (Score:2)
Well do you know what does flow to the next generation? Genetic defects.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans would be nowhere if our predecessors exercised caution at every step. When Columbus left Europe I am sure some people asked what would happen if he encountered monsters and they followed him back to Europe. When the Wright brothers took off in the first airplane people could have asked what if aircraft are used for war? We cannot cater to every speculation. Gene editing will happen. If we dont lead the technology somebody else will. And they may not be as nice.
I'm gonna wash that man right out of my hair (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
And the rest of his paternity right out of my embryos
If you follow the Bible, that's exactly what Mary did. Since she had a virgin birth, Jesus would have had two X chromosomes which leads to the inevitable question, what type of lizard person was Mary?
If Jesus was XX... (Score:2)
That's actually an interesting point. If you don't allow it to be dismissed with "God did it!", explaining the traditional virgin-birth Jesus as parthenogenesis requires also addressing the chromosome issue.
Sex in humans is determined by the X (and sometimes Y) chromosome, a woman wouldn't have a Y to donate to the process... so the only conclusion would be that Jesus was transgender and of the female sex. ...or 'virgin' is a mistranslation/misunderstanding of a word for 'young woman' that would have stron
Re: (Score:2)
False, it is not determined by the chromosome, but by the SRY gene that is very very often, but not always, found on the Y-chromosome. It can sometimes be on the X chromosome resulting in XX males. Second that gene can have mutations that make its effect weaker (or stronger). Third that gene is a transcription factor meaning there are many genes that it is the master switch for. However those individual genes themselves can be mutated which can also affect gender traits.
Re: (Score:2)
and her right out of his wallet
and a father right out of the child's life
I say do it (Score:2)
Find the anti-hobo, anti-meth gene and require it for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Find the anti-hobo, anti-meth gene and require it for everyone.
So, don't be born to poor parents. Got it.
- make it free for everyone - (Score:2)
If this was possible today and I was planning a family, I would go for it. And if not allowed in my country, I might consider another. People sometimes go long distances to get a legal abortion, they will do the same for family planning.
People who can't afford these advantages will continue to be a burden to taxpayers. This will just be another factor that prevents them from ever being self-sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, in posting this topic I didn't make clear the COST of an unwanted child.
It's likely you will love your child, however defective it may be. That doesn't mean that anyone else will. You may be facing a lifetime of debt and stress as you deal with unexpected costs of money, time and energy. Your child is unlikely to know the pleasures of normal children.
Every advantage must be considered when planning a family. Parents should have money set aside, should be as healthy as possible, and ideally have train
Re: (Score:2)
So what are you going to do, take unlicensed babies away from their parents and adopt them out to people that want to adopt babies? May as well go one step farther and just have it so that people cannot raise their own blood child but instead have to adopt one from the system. That could very well help fix a lot of our social problems if everyone saw all children as their own.
Can't see that ever happening though.
About time (Score:2)
That stiff upper lip gene must be eliminated.
licensing (Score:1)
The UK is always two steps ahead in insanity. (Score:2)
Scientists are not God (Score:1)