Genetic Engineering and Crispr

Maradona10

Woodward’s biggest fan
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,697

The world is about to change again. Looks like we are seeing huge advancements in this field. The test on Lung cancer patients and other human trials will begin/have begun. Will we finally beat the death sentence of cancer?

There is a new tool in the biotechnology tool belt that may revolutionize the way medicine treats a host of diseases. It is called CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR uses a bacterial enzyme to precisely edit DNA, and scientists all over the world are using it to transform cells in hopes that one day these genetically-altered cells may cure disease.


Scientists in China are hoping CRISPR will successfully treat lung cancer, and they are launching a first-of-its-kind clinical trial in 10 patients who have exhausted other treatment options. Researchers have edited the patient’s own immune cells to attack lung cancer. Bloomberg has the details:

Western Sichuan University West China Hospital, has recruited the first patient for a ten-people clinical trial, which will activate immune cells using Crispr and infuse them back into patients to fight lung cancer. Due to potential risks in using the pioneering treatment for humans, the team has decided to treat the first group of three patients one at a time, Lu said in a phone interview.

Formally called Crispr-Cas9, the genetic editing tool acts like a pair of precise molecular scissors that can cut out unwanted sections of DNA and insert desired ones. The team is using it to remove a gene that encodes a protein named PD-1, which normally keeps the immune cells in check but is also used by cancer cells to hide from the immune system.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!







The engineering is intended to switch on the immune response to attack cancer.

Of course, safety is a huge concern. Anytime you edit the DNA of a cell, there is a chance there will be “off-target” mutations. Researchers are also concerned that the modified immune cells will attack other tissues in the body, not just the cancer cells. The trial is taking it slow. They plan to treat one patient at a time for the first three patients to assess the safety of the procedure.

This is the kind of genetic engineering that we should be supporting: genetic modification in targeted cells that is for therapy only. This is what is called somatic gene therapy, which means the modification is medicinal in nature and is for just that patient and will not be passed onto any offspring.

In stark moral contrast are the experiments done earlier this year also by Chinese scientists that used CRISPR to modify the DNA of days-old embryos. The researchers were trying to re-engineer the gene that causes a blood disorder, so the intent was therapeutic. The problem lies in the stage of human development where the engineering was performed. Any genetic modifications done at the embryonic stage are considered germ-line modifications, meaning those genetic changes will be incorporated into reproductive cells and will be passed down from generation to generation.

There is also great risk involved in editing a human organism so early in development. Any “off-target” mutations maybe incorporated into the person’s whole body, not just in a few transplanted cells. There is also the reality that many embryos perish during the procedure. In the Chinese experiments, 15 embryos out of 86 total did not survive.

Of those that survived, 54 were tested to see if the genetic engineering worked. Only four embryos showed evidence of the intended modification.

Overall, there was evidence of what The New York Times called “collateral damage,” meaning unintended mutations in other parts of the genome caused by the attempted genetic engineering. The Times reported, “The Chinese researchers point out that in their experiment gene editing almost certainly caused more extensive damage than they documented.”

Prominent researchers have called for a voluntary moratorium on using CRISPR technology in human embryos, even for therapeutic purposes, because of the inherent risk to multiple generations. They rightly argue that gene editing in humans should only be attempted in therapeutic cases where any modifications cannot be passed on.

It is critical that we understand the difference between the genetic engineering of adult patients and that of embryos. CRISPR holds great promise to cure disease, but it is imperative we use it in such a way that the genetic integrity of future generations is safeguarded.

What does the caf think? Is it moral/ethical? If we are able to eradicate all the disease and even stop ageing will this be worth it? Imagine creating super humans travelling in space and living on different planets? What will the religious people think? So many questions!
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
I think there was a similar thread on this if I remember correctly.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that while such advancements in science are absolutely mind blowing, and their potential could be limitless.

We're overpopulated, large amounts of people still struggle for basic needs such as clean water and food. We're relying on far too many fossil fuels etc.
I'd like to see those issues tackled first before we start making human beings that can live to 100-odd years with no diseases.

We're supposed to struggle and fight that's part of life, diseases are awful but death is just as important as life is. So maybe we could make better use of those who do pass on, donate our organs, there's a number of alternatives to being buried in a casket that involve fertilising the soil and allowing new plant life/trees to grow, that kind of recycling and using what we already have to last longer should be more of a priority, in my personal opinion.
 

Blatzo

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
1,713
I think there was a similar thread on this if I remember correctly.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that while such advancements in science are absolutely mind blowing, and their potential could be limitless.

We're overpopulated, large amounts of people still struggle for basic needs such as clean water and food. We're relying on far too many fossil fuels etc.
I'd like to see those issues tackled first before we start making human beings that can live to 100-odd years with no diseases.

We're supposed to struggle and fight that's part of life, diseases are awful but death is just as important as life is. So maybe we could make better use of those who do pass on, donate our organs, there's a number of alternatives to being buried in a casket that involve fertilising the soil and allowing new plant life/trees to grow, that kind of recycling and using what we already have to last longer should be more of a priority, in my personal opinion.
We're not under-resourced in this respect, though - it's just badly distributed
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
We're not under-resourced in this respect, though - it's just badly distributed
Very badly distributed that's the problem, and this hasn't changed in decades.
I just don't think it would be right that some, will have the power and ability (and money of course) to engineer super humans, while others are still without the basic functions in order to simply survive.
 

Will Absolute

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
7,982
Location
Southern Ireland
We're not under-resourced in this respect, though - it's just badly distributed
It's not a question of distribution. America and Europe keep land out of cultivation in order to prevent even greater food surpluses. Expecting the world economy to be turned into an international welfare system in which the West has the responsibility to feed vast swathes of the global population, whose governments have mismanaged their resources, is unrealistic.
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
28,405
Can use CRIPSR to grow crops in really arid or otherwise normally hostile environments.
 

TheNewEra

Knows Kroos' mentality
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
8,259
Was having a discussion with people about this a few days ago, it's a long way off though, talking decades.

There's some human trials being done but some things are still unknown.

It's revolutionary and I'm no biologist or gene-therapist etc but I do believe we need to know more about the human genome and our individual DNA before we go ahead and make edits. Plus this is a very early revision and will only get better.

It's going to be fascinated with so much technology, in 30 years we're going to look like cavemen.
 
Last edited:

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,715
Can use CRIPSR to grow crops in really arid or otherwise normally hostile environments.
The limiting problem that with that (AFAIK) is not the technology to deliver the correct gene/modification (CRISPR helps in this), it is finding that gene itself (CRISPR probably means this research can be done faster, but that's an indirect benefit). Again, stressing, AFAIK.
 

TheNewEra

Knows Kroos' mentality
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
8,259
The limiting problem that with that (AFAIK) is not the technology to deliver the correct gene/modification (CRISPR helps in this), it is finding that gene itself (CRISPR probably means this research can be done faster, but that's an indirect benefit). Again, stressing, AFAIK.
Agreed, I think it's partly a computational problem. Something that say the genome project over at Human Longevity Inc in terms of unravelling millions of Genomes to see what gene does what is very important here, it makes sure you aren't going "well two people have cancer and here's a similar sequence" when that could be their sense of smell for all we know (bad example).

If you have 2 Billion Genomes done your error margin drops, but the genome project currently running is only doing 5 million samples in 5 years because it's a huge strain due to availability of technology and Moores Law.

Human Longevity Inc have Craig Venter who first helped unravel the first Genome and has contributed a lot during his lifespan to the field, also you have the man who constructed Google Translate working on it now helping translate data like you would between two languages, instead translating Genomes into understandable diseases and conditions.

I think the biggest issue with Medicines is you have all these different companies and teams with billions of pounds but they don't often work together.

There's so many variables I don't understand not coming from a medical background but I think there's a lot of different areas yet to contribute to CRISPR tech on lowering error margins because it's human lives we're playing with, and we don't want mutations, or to create completely new diseases.

Plus because of the way CRISPR-CAS9 works AFAIK there is still room for error in terms of the "cut" of genes, you could cut one tiny fraction early (on an atomic level) and you could cause cancer as far as I believe.

It's not like flipping light switches on/off the video shows how revolutionary it could be, and the technology has been around since the 1980s just the latest RNA CAS9 version cut prices hugely and sped things up 99%ish so its a revolution but theres a lot of work to be done before its common practice.

(I'm not a gene therapist or in a medical field but that's my laymans reading understanding).

I think @Pogue Mahone may know more though
 

Will Absolute

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
7,982
Location
Southern Ireland
Was having a discussion with people about this a few days ago, it's a long way off though, talking decades.

There's some human trials being done but some things are still unknown.

It's revolutionary and I'm no biologist or gene-therapist etc but I do believe we need to know more about the human genome and our individual DNA before we go ahead and make edits. Plus this is a very early revision and will only get better.

It's going to be fascinated with so much technology, in 30 years we're going to look like cavemen.
A gene is simply the template for the manufacture of a protein though - an enzyme or whatever. Before altering it, you'd need to be sure about everything that protein might do in a human cell in the course of an individual's life. That certain knowledge is hard to acquire.

Many genes have multiple effects. Some of those effects might not be apparent - until you change them.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,715
Plus because of the way CRISPR-CAS9 works AFAIK there is still room for error in terms of the "cut" of genes, you could cut one tiny fraction early (on an atomic level) and you could cause cancer as far as I believe.
Making the wrong cut is a risk with every cloning technique, I think CRISPR is insanely accurate since it uses a RNA recognition template (direct 1:1 link with the DNA it is targeting) rather than proteins like zinc-finger nucleases. I don't think it's possible to get more accurate even in theory than the recognition system CRISPR uses, though I guess you could engineer a more specific protein for the actual cutting (once the RNA decides the target). (And for all I know that may have already been done)
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
With a 13 week old daughter with cystic Fibrosis F508, CRISPR reallly excites me.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
It was certainly a sobering experience when her bloods came back, but she’s doing well. The way we see it there are plenty of other conditions she could have been born with far worse than CF, and I’m quietly confident they’ll have a cure for it within her lifetime. That might be misplaced hope, I don’t know.
 
Last edited:

Maradona10

Woodward’s biggest fan
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,697
It was certainly a sobering experience when her bloods came back, but she’s doing well. The way we see it there are plenty of other conditions she could have been born with far worse than CF, and I’m quietly confident they’ll have a cure for it within her lifetime. That might be misplaced hope, I don’t know.
I hope so too my friend. Take care of her. I hope they do as quickly as possible.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,066
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
It was certainly a sobering experience when her bloods came back, but she’s doing well. The way we see it there are plenty of other conditions she could have been born with far worse than CF, and I’m quietly confident they’ll have a cure for it within her lifetime. That might be misplaced hope, I don’t know.
CF would definitely be one of the conditions most amenable to this sort of gene therapy and there’s great progress being made in this area so that hope isn’t misplaced at all. Especially in someone so young. Even if it takes another decade to find a cure she would still get great benefit from it.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
CF would definitely be one of the conditions most amenable to this sort of gene therapy and there’s great progress being made in this area so that hope isn’t misplaced at all. Especially in someone so young. Even if it takes another decade to find a cure she would still get great benefit from it.
Thank you for the reassurance.

As you say CF certainly seems to be one of the ‘simpler’, for lack of a better word, mutations to cure. Replace the faulty CFTR gene and all the associated conditions in the pancreas, liver, lungs etc with it. Already there has been some success replacing faulty CFTR genes in a model of intestinal stem cell organoids from CF patients. The genotype my daughter has, Delta F508, is by far the most common, making up 75% of CF cases, and it stands to reasons that it will be the one most rigorously targeted.

My only hope is Esme will still be around to benefit from it. The severity of her condition is yet unknown, and won’t really come to fruition for another couple of years. Although treatments have rapidly improved over the last 25 years, if we are being realistic there is still every chance she could die young. At the moment her lungs are clear and she’s a healthy, happy baby. Long may it continue!
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,066
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Thank you for the reassurance.

As you say CF certainly seems to be one of the ‘simpler’, for lack of a better word, mutations to cure. Replace the faulty CFTR gene and all the associated conditions in the pancreas, liver, lungs etc with it. Already there has been some success replacing faulty CFTR genes in a model of intestinal stem cell organoids from CF patients. The genotype my daughter has, Delta F508, is by far the most common, making up 75% of CF cases, and it stands to reasons that it will be the one most rigorously targeted.

My only hope is Esme will still be around to benefit from it. The severity of her condition is yet unknown, and won’t really come to fruition for another couple of years. Although treatments have rapidly improved over the last 25 years, if we are being realistic there is still every chance she could die young. At the moment her lungs are clear and she’s a healthy, happy baby. Long may it continue!
Best of luck to you and to Esme. You’re dead right to be positive. So many advances made in the management of CF in recent years and if she’s inherited the fighting spirit of her old man when he’s arguing about football then she’s bound to live to a ripe old age! ;)
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
Best of luck to you and to Esme. You’re dead right to be positive. So many advances made in the management of CF in recent years and if she’s inherited the fighting spirit of her old man when he’s arguing about football then she’s bound to live to a ripe old age! ;)
:lol: Cheers mate, appreciate it.
 
Last edited:

Charles Miller

Full Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Messages
3,046

The world is about to change again. Looks like we are seeing huge advancements in this field. The test on Lung cancer patients and other human trials will begin/have begun. Will we finally beat the death sentence of cancer?


What does the caf think? Is it moral/ethical? If we are able to eradicate all the disease and even stop ageing will this be worth it? Imagine creating super humans travelling in space and living on different planets? What will the religious people think? So many questions!
Watched a TED conference and some documentaries on this subject.
Really mind blowing and of course it has the potential to be used in eugenic policies under dictatorship.

In general i dont think its unethical to use technology to improve humanity.
Its what Science is doing since ever.

But i confess that i'm more excited by the possibility of symbiosis man-machine in the future.
To transfer our "consciousness" to a artificial avatar will free us to travel long distances in the space, for example.
 

Dumbstar

We got another woman hater here.
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
21,274
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
Watched a TED conference and some documentaries on this subject.
Really mind blowing and of course it has the potential to be used in eugenic policies under dictatorship.

In general i dont think its unethical to use technology to improve humanity.
Its what Science is doing since ever.
Exactly. There is nothing unethical or irreligious (barring obvious extremist nuts) about progression in health care and life longevity. I'll probably be dead before this becomes widely available but I'm still excited for future generations. And for ivaldo's daughter and many like her.

Imagine what people felt after the first few years of penicillin use.
 

Charles Miller

Full Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Messages
3,046
Exactly. There is nothing unethical or irreligious (barring obvious extremist nuts) about progression in health care and life longevity. I'll probably be dead before this becomes widely available but I'm still excited for future generations. And for ivaldo's daughter and many like her.

Imagine what people felt after the first few years of penicillin use.
I do understand the sensitivities of religious people but even them should admit the reality that they are living right now under the effects of similar progresses made in the past.
You only need to see the impact of medicines, vacines, etc in the average life expectation of humanity through the history.
 

senorgregster

Last Newbie Standing
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
10,343
Location
Anywhere but Liverpool
I do understand the sensitivities of religious people but even them should admit the reality that they are living right now under the effects of similar progresses made in the past.
You only need to see the impact of medicines, vacines, etc in the average life expectation of humanity through the history.
Probably a bad example. Government conspiracy to keep us sick didn't you know.
 

senorgregster

Last Newbie Standing
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
10,343
Location
Anywhere but Liverpool
Agree on CF being amenable. I'd throw in another as hemophilia. Would be amazing to see what could be done there, especially with some of the simple point mutations. Would put a few of my old colleagues out of work and they'd be thrilled!

It's being heavily touted in cancers but I'm less than convinced. Cancers are a special kind of complex.

Anyhow, best of luck @ivaldo . I'd assume they will go after Esme's mutation first since it is the most common.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
Agree on CF being amenable. I'd throw in another as hemophilia. Would be amazing to see what could be done there, especially with some of the simple point mutations. Would put a few of my old colleagues out of work and they'd be thrilled!

It's being heavily touted in cancers but I'm less than convinced. Cancers are a special kind of complex.

Anyhow, best of luck @ivaldo . I'd assume they will go after Esme's mutation first since it is the most common.
Thank you, appreciate it!
 

senorgregster

Last Newbie Standing
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
10,343
Location
Anywhere but Liverpool

buchansleftleg

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
3,728
Location
Dublin, formerly Manchester
There was a great piece on Radio 4 yesterday about Bio-engineering and 3d printing of Kidneys by creating a silicone based structure and letting the stem cells then colonise and complete the final linkages. worth catching up on.

Would be ironic that while everyone is worried about robots taking over it could be bio-engineering that creates the first "artificial" life.