First Human Embryos Edited in US

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers led by Oregon Health and Science University’s Shoukhrat Mitalipov in Portland: using the gene-editing technique CRISPR, the group managed to change the DNA in a large number of one-cell embryos. The objective is to eradicate or correct genes that cause inherited disease, but many worry that this may lead to “designer” babies with genetic enhancements.

...Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases. Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days -- and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—the experiments are a milestone on what may prove to be an inevitable journey toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.
 
How could it not lead to designer babys?

There is big money in it for doctors and hospitals...

There is desire for having guaranteed healthy babies by almost any parent.

As to moral implications - as someone who believes abortion is morally wrong I don't think I understand this well enough to form an opinion. Is an embryo destroyed to modify another embryo? If so, then in my worldview this procedure is wrong. If not, then it's just morally gray, but not necessarily wrong. We use our doctors and medicinal knowledge to cure disease. Does it matter at what stage that cure is administered? --- So long as the process doesn't destroy a life, to better a life I think it is morally acceptable.

Now as to a Gattaca type society. I'd prefer it not go that direction.
 
This will not end well.
latest
 
Archaea said:
As to moral implications - as someone who believes abortion is morally wrong I don't think I understand this well enough to form an opinion. Is an embryo destroyed to modify another embryo? If so, then in my worldview this procedure is wrong. If not, then it's just morally gray, but not necessarily wrong. We use our doctors and medicinal knowledge to cure disease. Does it matter at what stage that cure is administered? --- So long as the process doesn't destroy a life, to better a life I think it is morally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Sorry for hijack, but I'm curious, if the organelles of an original single cell embryo are transplanted into a new embryo would you consider the original to be destroyed? At what point would you consider the original to be destroyed?
 
If you watched year million, they talked about this stuff. People just afraid of something new
 
serpretetsky said:
Sorry for hijack, but I'm curious, if the organelles of an original single cell embryo are transplanted into a new embryo would you consider the original to be destroyed? At what point would you consider the original to be destroyed?
Click to expand...
I don't know the science of it well enough to answer your question. But to me, a human life begins at the point of conception. (Because at that point, if left to natural devices, a human baby will be born). And since it will be a human baby - whether it's a single cell or not it's a human life.
 
So, we have the opportunity to rid the body of many genetic diseases, but we choose not to?

I'd like to see some more experiments with this. Where are the Nazi's when you need them. Damn moral based laws.
 
I don't have a clue how this works. However, I know if I could eradicate a disease (say type 1 diabetes) from my child, I'm all in. One of my kids was a little higher risk and my wife & I were nervous about what could happen. It turns out, my daughter was fine and didn't have any issues she was at risk. I count myself lucky.
It was a trying time discussing implications. It was never actually suggested, but we both felt it was inferred, that if the child was going to have Down's Syndrome - we should consider "options". I'm not going to get into any ethical debates with anyone. Your opinions are your own (as mine are to me). Let's just say we didn't like the inferred suggestions...
 
Archaea said:
I don't know the science of it well enough to answer your question. But to me, a human life begins at the point of conception. (Because at that point, if left to natural devices, a human baby will be born). And since it will be a human baby - whether it's a single cell or not it's a human life.
Click to expand...
This is going to derail very quickly, but i can't agree. Humans are not singled celled organisms. You cannot recover someone from a single cell either. My saliva is not alive because it contains some cells, nor is it human.
 
Ur_Mom said:
So, we have the opportunity to rid the body of many genetic diseases, but we choose not to?

I'd like to see some more experiments with this. Where are the Nazi's when you need them. Damn moral based laws.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. If we have the chance to eliminate genetic diseases and defects, it would be immoral to not do so.
If we're talking about things that won't directly affect a person (eye color, hair color, height, life expectancy) it wouldn't be immoral to choose something or give the best possible chances to the offspring.

It's immoral to create a clone army. It's not immoral to give the best possible chances to your offspring by any means necessary.
 
I see no problems with this or creating designer babies OR clones. I look forward to being able to be cloned and to drop my consciousness into an "improved" clone that lasts longer.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Exactly this. If we have the chance to eliminate genetic diseases and defects, it would be immoral to not do so.
If we're talking about things that won't directly affect a person (eye color, hair color, height, life expectancy) it wouldn't be immoral to choose something or give the best possible chances to the offspring.

It's immoral to create a clone army. It's not immoral to give the best possible chances to your offspring by any means necessary.
Click to expand...
When you begin to define what is a genetic disease or defect, this is where the problem begins. Some guy in Germany tried that.
 
Gattaca: coming soon to a reality near you. Well, except for the going to Saturn part. That won't be happening in my lifetime.
 
blkt said:
When you begin to define what is a genetic disease or defect, this is where the problem begins. Some guy in Germany tried that.
Click to expand...

Hans Pewterschmitdz?

Things that can cause a life threatening or debilitating disease. Sickle cell anemia, spinebifida (sp), etc.. Not eye color, hair color, strength, endurance, etc..

We have all these health foods to help prevent cancer. What if you could get rid it via genetic engineering?
 
It's these kinds of scientific advances that are the most interesting. There's always the question of government regulation (which probably should happen to deter future snakeoil gene-editing clinics) but there's also social implications: there will be people that object to this practice on moral/religious grounds, but then there will be the people that take full advantage of the technology and, as a result, have healthier (possibly more intelligent/physically stronger/longer lived) offspring. I'm interested to see where this goes but am somewhat comforted by the fact that it's a problem our generation won't have to deal with on a meaningful scale.
 
kju1 said:
I see no problems with this or creating designer babies OR clones. I look forward to being able to be cloned and to drop my consciousness into an "improved" clone that lasts longer.
Click to expand...

If you haven't already, give the 'Old Man's War' book series a try - it deals with this very idea.
 
blkt said:
When you begin to define what is a genetic disease or defect, this is where the problem begins. Some guy in Germany tried that.
Click to expand...

Except strangely enough those concepts were being applauded in academia circles in Europe and the US at the time. Initially, those German, ...cullings... were envied by the elite society in Europe and America. Apprently the Reich adopted those ideas, and implemented them -- but surely didn't author them.

There is a really interesting documentary on this on Netflix.

Mentally retarded, mentally sick, physical disorders. Etc. those who were deemed a drain on society.

But yes. Scary concepts, and fine lines abound.
 
Archaea said:
I don't know the science of it well enough to answer your question. But to me, a human life begins at the point of conception. (Because at that point, if left to natural devices, a human baby will be born). And since it will be a human baby - whether it's a single cell or not it's a human life.
Click to expand...
But do you approach it from a mechanical perspective? Is it enough that if left to natural devices a baby is born that it is human? If in the future they molecularly engineer a embryo without any parents is it human? If so when did it's humaness start? When the engineers finalized the design?

Does the embryo obtain a spirit or soul from it's parents during conception that it can't gain from purely mechanical means? Why isn't it already considered a human when the mother and father are about to have sex, is it because we don't know which sperm will make it?
 
serpretetsky said:
But do you approach it from a mechanical perspective? Is it enough that if left to natural devices a baby is born that it is human? If in the future they molecularly engineer a embryo without any parents is it human? If so when did it's humaness start? When the engineers finalized the design?
Click to expand...

I think this would make a great topic for a television show.
 
Doesn't this kinda of practice go against the theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest? If someone is born with the genetic defect has offspring later that has the code to fix itself do we really need to try and fix it ourselves? Who's to say that these designed children won't run into other issues later because he made mistakes when messing with the genetic code. Am mean look at programming a computer, there are tons of flaws in that and we made it.....what to say it doesn't happen with genes?
 
serpretetsky said:
But do you approach it from a mechanical perspective? Is it enough that if left to natural devices a baby is born that it is human? If in the future they molecularly engineer a embryo without any parents is it human? If so when did it's humaness start? When the engineers finalized the design?

Does the embryo obtain a spirit or soul from it's parents during conception that it can't gain from purely mechanical means? Why isn't it already considered a human when the mother and father are about to have sex, is it because we don't know which sperm will make it?
Click to expand...
There's a difference between a clone and an embryo that has gestated for 9 months in a human.
As far as i understand there's no such thing (currently) as a incubator for humans where an embryo can survive all 9 months without a parent.
We're just talking about modifications to the randomness which is genetics when it comes to creating a human and modifying it to the new life's benefit. Whether that's to remove disease/disabilities or to select enhancements, what's the problem?
 
Medical improvements have already allowed millions to live where previously they would have died.
This allows the "defects" in these people to stay around and move on to the next generation where it previously would not have.
Manipulations of genes to remove defects will become necessary in order to support future medical improvements. Without gene manipulation, over time the number of people with "defects" and the problems that go with them will ultimately overcome and outpace all medical advancements.
Big Pharma will not be amused until they start buying the first startups that successfully manipulate genes and can ultimately replace their old methods of revenue (symptom treatment drugs).
 
SomeoneElse said:
Doesn't this kinda of practice go against the theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest? If someone is born with the genetic defect has offspring later that has the code to fix itself do we really need to try and fix it ourselves? Who's to say that these designed children won't run into other issues later because he made mistakes when messing with the genetic code. Am mean look at programming a computer, there are tons of flaws in that and we made it.....what to say it doesn't happen with genes?
Click to expand...

Maybe? Maybe not because if a species can improve themselves I don't see it much different than man making machines to kill off or deforestation causing other species to go extinct.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
What's wrong with designer babies? It's just using technology to enhance breeding selection.
Click to expand...

Ur_Mom said:
So, we have the opportunity to rid the body of many genetic diseases, but we choose not to?
Click to expand...
The problem with altering our genetic code, is that they want to believe that they know everything (and about, oh, 99% of the times a scientist believed that, it turned out that he'd been wrong). Indeed, there is still (AFAIK) the belief that our dna is filled with junk code that codes for nothing at all. Simply because they don't know what it might code for, doesn't mean it doesn't code for anything. How about which gene codes for the increase in growth of nose/ear hair at a particular age, and why it happens to (or doesn't happen at all) some at which age? Or why some people (myself included, at age 60) suddenly develop allergies at later ages? Something changed in our immune system, but they don't know why or when it happens; maybe it's in all that 'nonsense' dna? Way too much is along the lines or, 'one gene codes for one thing, and one thing only'. But it's already suggested that some genes remain dormant for years, only effecting another gene at some unknown point. So, sure, you can manipulate one gene to change someone's susceptibility to a particular disease, or eye color, and then find out that at age 35, their dick falls off, because you've changed a gene that you didn't know all the functions of. In the meantime, you've created an entire population of soon to be middle aged dickless wonders. There are fish that actually change physically from male to female. They don't know what causes it. Which genes are we going to fool around with that might cause that, or some other physiological alteration? Grow horns on top of our heads? Possible. As they start manipulating genes in humans, I predict that there's going to be a whole lot of 'Whoops!' going on in the future. AFA genetically mutated food, that's sort of a different case, as what you eat gets broken down to basic molecules before it gets used by the body. That's why, for example, we know that meats contain all the essential amino acids, but plants do not. That's how much our bodies break down food, all the way to the smaller molecules.
 
Last edited:
nightfly said:
The problem with altering our genetic code, is that they want to believe that they know everything (and about, oh, 99% of the times a scientist believed that, it turned out that he'd been wrong). Indeed, there is still (AFAIK) the belief that our dna is filled with junk code that codes for nothing at all. Simply because they don't know what it might code for, doesn't mean it doesn't code for anything. How about which gene codes for the increase in growth of nose/ear hair at a particular age, and why it happens to (or doesn't happen at all) some at which age? Or why some people (myself included, at age 60) suddenly develop allergies at later ages? Something changed in our immune system, but they don't know why or when it happens; maybe it's in all that 'nonsense' dna? Way too much is along the lines or, 'one gene codes for one thing, and one thing only'. But it's already suggested that some genes remain dormant for years, only effecting another gene at some unknown point. So, sure, you can manipulate one gene to change someone's susceptibility to a particular disease, or eye color, and then find out that at age 35, their dick falls off, because you've changed a gene that you didn't know all the functions of. In the meantime, you've created an entire population of soon to be middle aged dickless wonders. There are fish that actually change physically from male to female. They don't know what causes it. Which genes are we going to fool around with that might cause that, or some other physiological alteration? Grow horns on top of our heads? Possible. As they start manipulating genes in humans, I predict that there's going to be a whole lot of 'Whoops!' going on in the future.
Click to expand...

We do in fact know why and what is going on. I won't bother to comment on the rest of the stuff you pulled out of your ass but as with anything unknown, just because its unknown that doesn't mean we should bother to stop shedding light on it.

http://sciencenordic.com/we-lose-control-our-dna-age-55

And they've been working on reversing the loss of control.

http://time.com/4711023/how-to-keep-your-dna-from-aging/
 
nightfly said:
The problem with altering our genetic code, is that they want to believe that they know everything (and about, oh, 99% of the times a scientist believed that, it turned out that he'd been wrong). Indeed, there is still (AFAIK) the belief that our dna is filled with junk code that codes for nothing at all. Simply because they don't know what it might code for, doesn't mean it doesn't code for anything. How about which gene codes for the increase in growth of nose/ear hair at a particular age, and why it happens to (or doesn't happen at all) some at which age? Or why some people (myself included, at age 60) suddenly develop allergies at later ages? Something changed in our immune system, but they don't know why or when it happens; maybe it's in all that 'nonsense' dna? Way too much is along the lines or, 'one gene codes for one thing, and one thing only'. But it's already suggested that some genes remain dormant for years, only effecting another gene at some unknown point. So, sure, you can manipulate one gene to change someone's susceptibility to a particular disease, or eye color, and then find out that at age 35, their dick falls off, because you've changed a gene that you didn't know all the functions of. In the meantime, you've created an entire population of soon to be middle aged dickless wonders. There are fish that actually change physically from male to female. They don't know what causes it. Which genes are we going to fool around with that might cause that, or some other physiological alteration? Grow horns on top of our heads? Possible. As they start manipulating genes in humans, I predict that there's going to be a whole lot of 'Whoops!' going on in the future.
Click to expand...
sigh.... you don't just go nuts with the genetic code. There are parts of it they understand very well. They have done lots of comparisons of the genome and found parts of it that can produce deficient proteins for example compared to a healthy human.
All they would do is look for these abnormalities in specific segments and replace it with non-deficient segments (from healthy human specimens).

For example, they can tell by looking at genes of a person if a person has Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). Here's the run down:
"Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is an inherited condition that causes low levels of, or no, alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) in the blood. AATD occurs in approximately 1 in 2,500 individuals. This condition is found in all ethnic groups; however, it occurs most often in whites of European ancestry.

Alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) is a protein that is made in the liver. The liver releases this protein into the bloodstream. AAT protects the lungs so they can work normally. Without enough AAT, the lungs can be damaged, and this damage may make breathing difficult.

Everyone has two copies of the gene for AAT and receives one copy of the gene from each parent. Most people have two normal copies of the alpha-1 antitrypsin gene. Individuals with AATD have one normal copy and one damaged copy, or they have two damaged copies. Most individuals who have one normal gene can produce enough alpha-1 antitripsin to live healthy lives, especially if they do not smoke.

People who have two damaged copies of the gene are not able to produce enough alpha- 1 antitrypsin, which leads them to have more severe symptoms. "
At 1 out of every 2500 people it's fairly uncommon but not rare. If they can detect this very early on in and do gene therapy to replace this specific segment with a healthy segment taken from someone else, where's the outcry? Where's the danger?

Same thing. People have blue eyes, the code where this takes place is very well known:
"A particular region on chromosome 15 plays a major role in eye color. Within this region, there are two genes located very close together: OCA2 and HERC2. The protein produced from the OCA2 gene, known as the P protein, is involved in the maturation of melanosomes, which are cellular structures that produce and store melanin. The P protein therefore plays a crucial role in the amount and quality of melanin that is present in the iris. Several common variations (polymorphisms) in the OCA2 gene reduce the amount of functional P protein that is produced. Less P protein means that less melanin is present in the iris, leading to blue eyes instead of brown in people with a polymorphism in this gene."
If i wanted to give my child blue eyes instead of brown by replacing the genes with known code from someone with blue eyes, where's the harm?
 
Hypergreatthing said:
sigh.... you don't just go nuts with the genetic code. There are parts of it they understand very well. They have done lots of comparisons of the genome and found parts of it that can produce deficient proteins for example compared to a healthy human.
&
If i wanted to give my child blue eyes instead of brown by replacing the genes with known code from someone with blue eyes, where's the harm?
Click to expand...
Both based on the belief that those genes ONLY code for what we currently know they code for. There are going to be surprises down the line when we suddenly find out something codes for something that we weren't aware that it codes for.
 
nightfly said:
Both based on the belief that those genes ONLY code for what we currently know they code for. There are going to be surprises down the line when we suddenly find out something codes for something that we weren't aware that it codes for.
Click to expand...
It's not belief, it's well known. Most of the genetic code can be translated to instructions on how to build proteins (for the parts we understand). This code is working (observable fact) in current humans. We're not creating something from nothing (like you're suggesting) or that these genes somehow play a bigger role, like they have build in CRC checks.
You could literally do the same thing for the blue eyes thing by procreating with someone with blue eyes. If you have brown eyes and are a recessive carrier for blue eyes, you'll have a 25% chance to have a blue eyed baby. Now with technology we can eliminate the randomness and determine which genetic expressions we want.
 
thesmokingman said:
We do in fact know why and what is going on. I won't bother to comment on the rest of the stuff you pulled out of your ass but as with anything unknown, just because its unknown that doesn't mean we should bother to stop shedding light on it.

http://sciencenordic.com/we-lose-control-our-dna-age-55

And they've been working on reversing the loss of control.

http://time.com/4711023/how-to-keep-your-dna-from-aging/
Click to expand...
And I will put to you, at what exact age does it happen to absolutely everyone? 55 and a second? 55 and a minute? 55 and an hour? Or....does it vary from person to person by a day, a week, a month, a year, or a decade? And which gene combinations are responsible for that variability?
 
nightfly said:
Both based on the belief that those genes ONLY code for what we currently know they code for. There are going to be surprises down the line when we suddenly find out something codes for something that we weren't aware that it codes for.
Click to expand...

So, field research. :)
 
Hypergreatthing said:
It's not belief, it's well known. Most of the genetic code can be translated to instructions on how to build proteins (for the parts we understand). This code is working (observable fact) in current humans. We're not creating something from nothing (like you're suggesting) or that these genes somehow play a bigger role, like they have build in CRC checks.
You could literally do the same thing for the blue eyes thing by procreating with someone with blue eyes. If you have brown eyes and are a recessive carrier for blue eyes, you'll have a 25% chance to have a blue eyed baby. Now with technology we can eliminate the randomness and determine which genetic expressions we want.
Click to expand...
OK. Do we know which gene codes for the preference of the color orange?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top