DailyDirt: Nature Vs. CRISPR
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
The reality of designer babies seems to be more and more likely — especially now that gene editing tools like CRISPR are becoming more refined and widespread in labs around the world. Legitimate concerns over a modern form of eugenics are being raised, and the ethical debates are getting less theoretical as the science pushes the boundaries of what can be done. People might be able to activate or delete genes without fully understanding the results, and the advances that can eliminate genetic disorders could also eliminate certain minorities or traits that are not necessarily disabilities.
- British researchers will be performing gene-editing experiments on human embryos, but they’re not going to be making full-term babies — yet. Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is the first regulator to approve this kind of genetic tinkering (although plenty of countries don’t require permission at all), and British lawmakers have previously voted in favor of allowing babies to be made from the DNA of three parents to prevent genetic disorders. (So perhaps a modified clone of Benedict Cumberbatch will actually become Khan Noonien Singh someday.) [url]
- Genetic discrimination is going to be a thing soon. A kid was removed from school because he has genetic markers for cystic fibrosis (and not the actual condition). A lawsuit is now working its way through the system to determine if the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) or the Americans With Disabilities Act will apply to future such cases of discrimination. [url]
- Someone might have the genes for a particular trait, but it may never be expressed. Researchers have discovered a way to activate some genes that are inaccessible and non-functioning — but so far only in mice. Are you pondering what I’m pondering? [url]
After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.
Filed Under: ada, biology, biotech, crispr, designer babies, dna, eugenics, gattaca, gene activation, gene editing, genetics, germline, gina
Comments on “DailyDirt: Nature Vs. CRISPR”
Only one word
GATTACA
NARF!!!
Right Brain, but where are we going to get galoshes our size this time of night?
Every day brings me closer to being able to order my clone army from Vista Print.
DNA is not always what it appears to be
This is insane (referring to the kid getting kicked out of school). It’s a classic case of people who have no clue what the information they’re looking at means making decisions based on paranoia.
We still don’t fully understand what makes some genes active and others not in DNA. It’s awesome what we’ve learned so far, but having markers of any kind doesn’t really tell us anything right now. All we know is that we’ve seen these DNA strand patterns in others who exhibited certain traits and maybe there’s some correlation. The fact that the kid doesn’t actually have the disease is the only fact that matters.
Any update on how the battle over the patent for this technology is going?
http://www.nature.com/news/bitter-fight-over-crispr-patent-heats-up-1.17961
Inaccessible Genes
I’m not sure from the article: does this mean that genes can be activated in any cell cluster, or are we only talking stem cells here?
In other words, does this technique allow them to enable gills or pheromone receptors in fetal development, or would it allow me to generate a new liver (or both?)