CRISPR Babies

[Sistrin]

We still need more details on precisely what the UK scientists actually intend to do. With all respect, its not fair for us to assume your characterization of their intent is accurate. I bet there is something you are not telling us.

Or again, you could look it up for yourselves. From Reason dot com:

Gene-Editing Human Embryos Is Ethical

Nevertheless, the Chinese experiment is exactly the kind of research that needs to be done as part of the scientific and clinical process of figuring out how and when to use CRISPR to treat disease or repair defective genes. The research has provided insights into what can go wrong and highlights the fact that this technology is not yet ready for the clinic.

In contrast with Darnovsky’s pseudoethical bloviation, the Oxford bioethicists Chris Gyngell and Julian Savulescu cogently argue that there is a "moral imperative to research editing embryos" They point out that the Chinese research is "important precisely because it increases our understanding about some of the risks involved in targeting humans with current gene editing techniques." The two further assert that the earlier calls for a moratorium on such research are based on concerns that "are vague, emotive, and devoid of any real rational force. Many technologies have unpredictable effects and could potentially be used non-therapeutically. This doesn't justify censorship [by journals] of potentially life-saving research." That is entirely correct.

If using refined and effective CRISPR gene-editing techniques to cure disease or correct defective genes is moral, then it is immoral to slow progress toward achieving that goal.

Source: https://reason.com/archives/2015/05/01/gene-editing-human-embryos-is-ethical

The embedded link leads here:

The moral imperative to research editing embryos: The need to modify Nature and Science

Of course there are significant risks associated with this type of research. Most significantly CRISPR could make off-target modifications in embryonic DNA and hence cause widespread damage to the genome. This could cause significant defects and disabilities in any individuals born as the result of the research. Because of these risks, it would be highly unethical to bring embryos to term who had been experimented on with current gene editing methods. The risk posed would simply not be justified by any potential benefits.

However this study by Huang and co-authors was not conducted in any embryos that were ever going to be born, or indeed even had the potential to be born. They trialled the CRISPR system in tri-pronuclear embryos – embryos that have a whole extra set of chromosomes. These embryos are not viable, and are normally spontaneously aborted early in pregnancy. These embryos were not created for this purpose, but were rather excess embryos created through IVF, and would otherwise have been destroyed. Trialling the CRISPR system in these embryos had no chance of resulting in a live birth. It is unclear how the study could harm or wrong anyone directly. Furthermore, this research is important precisely because it increases our understanding about some of the risks involved in targeting humans with current gene editing techniques. One of the stated aims of the research was to determine the frequency of off-target effects when CRISPR is used in human embryos. This type of research is important for increasing our understanding of the types of challenges involved in developing clinically useful methods of gene editing.

Source: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.u...mbryos-the-need-to-modify-nature-and-science/

More at Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-embryo-editing-sparks-epic-ethical-debate/

The requesting a Link might have something to do with the Sticky at the top of this section

Ah, it is the moral high-ground approach. Still, in the same time it took to post about the sticky, one could have looked up the article.

 

[brinny]

I have never understood this need to berate someone for not providing a link to an article the person doing the complaining could look up for themselves with an investment of about thirty seconds.

The Ethics of Editing Human Embryos

Imagine if genetic diseases could be removed from the very biological code of our species — a future in which the likes of hemophilia, cystic fibrosis or dozens of other afflictions are simply edited out of human embryos.

In April online in the journal Protein and Cell, a team of Chinese scientistsreported the first documented experiment to do just that.

The researchers attempted to quash an inherited, potentially fatal blood disorder by injecting 86 non-viable human embryos with the gene-editing system CRISPR/ Cas9. In recent years, CRISPR has emerged as a game-changing tool in biology, allowing researchers to tweak an organism’s DNA with unprecedented ease. Based on a defense mechanism in the immune system of bacteria that hunts and destroys invading viruses, CRISPR can locate and replace specific genes.

In the human embryo experiment, the researchers used it to delete a faulty gene and replace it with one that produces normal blood cells. But the editing worked for only four of the embryos and created numerous unintentional mutations.

Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2016/janfeb/10-the-ethics-of-editing-human-embryos

The internal link leads to the abstract:

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes

Genome editing tools such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-associated system (Cas) have been widely used to modify genes in model systems including animal zygotes and human cells, and hold tremendous promise for both basic research and clinical applications. To date, a serious knowledge gap remains in our understanding of DNA repair mechanisms in human early embryos, and in the efficiency and potential off-target effects of using technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 in human pre-implantation embryos. In this report, we used tripronuclear (3PN) zygotes to further investigate CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human cells. We found that CRISPR/Cas9 could effectively cleave the endogenous β-globin gene (HBB). However, the efficiency of homologous recombination directed repair (HDR) of HBB was low and the edited embryos were mosaic. Off-target cleavage was also apparent in these 3PN zygotes as revealed by the T7E1 assay and whole-exome sequencing. Furthermore, the endogenous delta-globin gene (HBD), which is homologous to HBB, competed with exogenous donor oligos to act as the repair template, leading to untoward mutations. Our data also indicated that repair of the HBBlocus in these embryos occurred preferentially through the non-crossover HDR pathway. Taken together, our work highlights the pressing need to further improve the fidelity and specificity of the CRISPR/Cas9 platform, a prerequisite for any clinical applications of CRSIPR/Cas9-mediated editing.

Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5

Nature has an article about it here:

http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-sound-alarm-over-dna-editing-of-human-embryos-1.17110

Seriously DT, this isn't hard.

I have never understood this need to berate someone for not providing a link to an article the person doing the complaining could look up for themselves with an investment of about thirty seconds.

i know, right?

LOL!

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It sounds delicious, like it's a baby made of milk chocolate with rice crispies in it!!! I would love to eat a CRISPR!!

 

[expos4ever]

I am still not sure what the concern is here. For my part, I think it is clear that we have the responsibility to pursue the goal of reducing suffering and illness. It is equally clear that we need to be careful to minimize the risk that unintended negative consequences do not result. I would be surprised if anyone would disagree with such a position.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

. My question is, if they manage to create 4 super babies, while creating 82 mutants, what will they do with the mutants?

Destroy them, Or throw them out.

 

[Mayzoo]

One of Discover Magazine's top ten stories of 2015:

Chinese scientists, the only scientists allowed to experiment on human embryos, attempted to squash an inherited, potentially fatal blood disorder by injecting 86 "non-viable" human embryos with the gene editing system called CRISPR. The magazine doesn't say what CRISPR stands for, but it basically seeks out defective genes and replaces them with good ones. Theoretically a baby born that way could not only live to be a 100 years old (or more), but it could have blond hair and blue eyes if the parents so desired. Anyhow, the Chinese scientists have revealed that the gene-editing worked for only 4 of the embroyos and created 82 "unintentional mutations."

CRISPR has been outlawed in the US, but not in other nations. London scientists have applied to the UK's government authority on fertility research for permission to use CRISPR on viable human embroyos. My question is, if they manage to create 4 super babies, while creating 82 mutants, what will they do with the mutants?

They managed to "create" 82 non-viable embryos with mutations, and 4 non-viable embryos without mutations. Regardless of mutations, the embryos were not viable prior to the test, and they remained non-viable after the test.

 

[expos4ever]

They managed to "create" 82 non-viable embryos with mutations, and 4 non-viable embryos without mutations. Regardless of mutations, the embryos were not viable prior to the test, and they remained non-viable after the test.

Agreed, but the poster of the OP is interested in the work the UK scientists are planning to undertake on viable embryos.

 

[Loudmouth]

CRISPR has been outlawed in the US, but not in other nations. London scientists have applied to the UK's government authority on fertility research for permission to use CRISPR on viable human embroyos. My question is, if they manage to create 4 super babies, while creating 82 mutants, what will they do with the mutants?

They will probably do the same thing they do to unused embryos from in vitro fertilization. Destroy them. The embryos we are talking about look like this:

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that a baby.

 

[Mayzoo]

Agreed, but the poster of the OP is interested in the work the UK scientists are planning to undertake on viable embryos.

NM

 

[expos4ever]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that a baby.

To me, this whole issue of the "humanity" of the fetus is complex.

On the one hand, it seems self-evident that at very early stages of the pregnancy (such as the stage represented in the image you posted), the fetus cannot think, feel pain, or manifest any kind of self-awareness whatsoever. So it is easy to think it is not yet "human".

On the other hand, if I understand my genetics correctly, at the moment of fertilization the single fertilized egg embodies all the genetic instructions to make a person. In short, from an "information" perspective, the complete blueprint is there. And that certainly seems like a strong argument for seeing even a fertilized egg as a person. Why? Because, I would suggest, that as human culture is evolving, we are converging on the notion that information as contrasted with, for example, physical "instantiation", is really the essence of what we call "reality".

 

[Loudmouth]

On the other hand, if I understand my genetics correctly, at the moment of fertilization the single fertilized egg embodies all the genetic instructions to make a person.

The cells hanging onto hair shafts on your hair brush also have all the genetic instructions to make a person. Are they babies?

 

[interpreter]

They will probably do the same thing they do to unused embryos from in vitro fertilization. Destroy them. The embryos we are talking about look like this:

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that a baby.

Do I need to teach you where babies come from? Of course its a baby. It's life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do I need to teach you where babies come from? Of course its a baby.

What about this?

Is that a baby?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Agreed, but the poster of the OP is interested in the work the UK scientists are planning to undertake on viable embryos.

I'm guessing healthy viable embryos will be implanted into a woman's uterus, the bad embryos will be destroyed.

 

[interpreter]

I'm guessing healthy viable embryos will be implanted into a woman's uterus, the bad embryos will be destroyed.

Is it right to destroy life?

 

[pgp_protector]

Is it right to destroy life?

Ok, just don't implant them, and let them die a natural death.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The mutants will of course form a band of superheroes and fight crime.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Is it right to destroy life?

Yep. This was made in a lab, and mutated. Nothing more then mold to me.

 

[expos4ever]

The cells hanging onto hair shafts on your hair brush also have all the genetic instructions to make a person. Are they babies?

I see your point and will assume that it is indeed correct to say that, from an information perspective, the cells in the hair brush are indeed equivalent to a fertilized egg. It would be nice, though, to be assured by a qualified expert that this is indeed the case.

However, there is indeed another dimension of the "information" argument that I should have addressed. A fertilized egg is a "blueprint" that is embedded in a physical setting where nutrients are delivered to it and it will indeed very likely develop into a person as long as the mother stays alive and eats and drinks. Obviously not the case for the cells in the hair brush.

So I will think about this for a while - perhaps there is a way to tweak my argument to legitimately differentiate the cell in the hair brush from the cell in the womb. I suggest it is not a priori obvious either way whether a thusly modified argument can be made to work.

 

[expos4ever]

Do I need to teach you where babies come from? Of course its a baby. It's life.

You are obviously begging the question - you need to make an actual argument as to why such a cluster of cells constitutes a human being - you cannot simply declare this to be true.