Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)
  • Genetically modifying a human embryo.
  • chip
    Free Member

    What could possibly go wrong?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    What could go wrong ?

    People could see a headline, not read the article properly and post on stw about it?

    40mpg
    Full Member

    To all those sufferers of genetic diseases, which may be passed to their children too, the research could allow a lot to go right in future.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    surfer
    Free Member

    What could possibly go wrong?

    You tell me?

    Long overdue IMO

    chip
    Free Member

    People could see a headline, not read the article properly and post on stw about it?

    Or maybe not.

    I am quite uncomfortable about it, and see it as a possible opening of the door to later trying to create perfect specimens of the human form. The sort of research a certain nazi doctor dreamed of.

    BillOddie
    Full Member

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Lots of stuff!

    Have you not seen Orphan Black?

    iolo
    Free Member

    Article?

    chip
    Free Member
    mrsfry
    Free Member

    If it can stop things like this and so much more than yes but this is a long way off at the moment 🙁

    BBC

    Scientists in UK get approval for ‘gene editing’

    Unless you read the Daily Mail or The Sun and find out that Frankenstein babies will dominate the world, with the help or ISIS and illegal immigrants

    bikebouy
    Free Member

    Not a supporter of any Genetic Modification.

    You can blast me for that, I understand the issues of current medical conditions and the desire to cure all ills. But I’m not comfortable with us “playing God”

    There, I said it, someone had to.

    Do I feel comfortable with my statement? No, not really. Put me in the position of a Parent, or potential Parent to find my potential Child could be cured of some hereditary condition, and this is the option handed out? What would I do?

    I have NO idea.. 😕

    willard
    Full Member

    What could go wrong? Possibly something.

    However, you could eradicate Type 1 Diabetes and a lot of other illnesses that are transmitted through DNA. If you could screen effectively and accurately, you could treat childhood cancer pretty effectively and provide resistance to parasites and viruses.

    Yes, you open the door to less scrupulous people trying to create super-humans, but the body has limits and tinkering with genetics is not easy. It will probably happen in any case, just like everything else that has been developed for research. I think, on balance, it will benefit us more than not.

    scaredypants
    Full Member

    playing god ?

    we do that all the time already – treating infections or other life-threatening illness with drugs or surgery or vaccination

    chip
    Free Member

    I genuinely believe there will come a time when they will be able to cure all, I also believe there will be a time through research like this they will be able to keep a humans body young and healthy indefinitely for a price.

    It will be a sorry state of affairs, you will be able to tell the poor from the rich as the poor will be the ones who look over 35 and aging as the rich stay forever young.

    rickon
    Free Member

    But I’m not comfortable with us “playing God”

    Seems like ‘God’ is doing a pretty good job of being malicious and horrificly nasty. Bone Cancer in children, genetic disabilities, and 50% of the population suffering some form of cancer in their lives? What a total bastard.

    High time to hand over the controls to someone who has an eye on what a good outcome looks like.

    jon1973
    Free Member

    If it can stop things like this and so much more than yes but this is a long way off at the moment

    tonyg2003
    Full Member

    What could possibly go wrong? Technically speaking – off target side effects. Still a very strong possibility.

    Also this is a research license and it’s extremely unlikely that this will ever be licensed for treatment. That doesn’t stop the stories though.

    scaredypants
    Full Member

    yeh, bloody tories

    kimbers
    Full Member

    It will be a sorry state of affairs, you will be able to tell the poor from the rich as the poor

    As opposed to the current state of affairs ?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-25-year-gap-between-the-life-expectancy-of-rich-and-poor-londoners-is-a-further-indictment-of-our-9061888.html

    If you genuinely cared about inequality ill informed luddism isn’t the way to fix it

    wobbliscott
    Free Member

    What could go wrong? that is sort of the point of running the experiments isn’t it?

    surfer
    Free Member

    Rickon +1

    kimbers
    Full Member

    . But I’m not comfortable with us “playing God”
    There, I said it, someone had to.

    No you really didn’t have to, as its such a ridiculous thing to say

    somafunk
    Full Member

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Quite a lot i imagine but I’m very firmly on the What could go right with genetic modification – it obviously needs caution and regulation which i trust has been put into place but we should have been exploring gene editing/modification years ago

    km79
    Free Member

    I genuinely believe there will come a time when they will be able to cure all, I also believe there will be a time through research like this they will be able to keep a humans body young and healthy indefinitely for a price.

    I read an article about this before. Question was asked if the 1st person to live forever has already been born? Advances in technology and medicine so far plus whatever is still to come means that it could well be true.

    bikebouy
    Free Member

    It’s tricky I’ll agree.

    But we’ve kept out of playing God for sometime now, whilst there is a lot of evidence supporting GM it remains a moral dilemma. Cut to the core of Human deficiencies and decease, to break them down into a treatment by altering genes means tampering with he genetic makeup inbuilt in humans. Whilst I support identification of said deficient genes it takes a huge step forward to manipulate them, for good or bad.

    I have to add in here that my Dad died of bowl cancer, so I’ve lived through crippling decease.

    To open up the argument, why not, just where do we stop with it? At what point to we start? who do we choose to be the recipients of gene treatment? does that extend to socio economic boundaries? wealth levels? political make up or bias? or just plain old any illness that fits the criteria? but what if it doesn’t? or just doesn’t? (we already know about postcode treatments on the NHS) to what extent does the treatment of the genes stop? once the recipient is cured? but what if they have one of many ailments? do we choose just one, or all? and what then happens to the unborn child? do we leave the decision to the parent? or what if the parent has the same ailment and it’s made clear it’s either but not both (for what ever reason)? and then family pressures/peer pressure and undue influence?

    Tricky, morally and ethically.

    But I understand the argument of “why not, if we can we should”

    But I don’t feel comfortable morally.

    😕

    surfer
    Free Member

    No you really didn’t have to, as its such a ridiculous thing to say

    But there is a certain inevitability about it so its good to get it out there early.

    CHB
    Full Member

    I have friends with inherited chromosomal defects, if a cure could be found for him then that would be a truly good thing.
    As a species we need to block/ban genetic eugenics or we will have a super race of have and have nots. I also am very aware of the risks of unintended change to DNA sequence. If you imagine how hard it is for computer programmers to debug a programme, now imagine that 1000x more complex and with bugs that might not show for years, or perhaps only when combined with other bits of DNA code (ie offspring of GM kids). So I fully support the research, but application and use needs tight regulation.
    Generally I am more concerned about smaller organisms than bigger ones. A GM elephant (or human) is pretty easy to find and control. A GM mosquito or GM bacteria could be the 21st century equivalent of Cane Toads in Australia if we are not careful.

    poah
    Free Member

    for the people that think its a bad idea do you actually understand the technology and what they are trying to achive or do you just see GMO and jump on the bandwagon? I have to laugh at the idea that we can design and grow super humans or a nazi race of blondes.

    @CHB GM mosquitos have already been used in the environment to dramatically reduce numbers in small areas and are used in the lab. There have been GM bacteria used and created in the lab for 30+ years.

    CHB
    Full Member

    poah, I am actually very pro GM research and careful application.
    The GM mosquitos I assume you refer to are the sterile male mosquitos that have been created? If they can be assured to be sterile with no risk of further mutations then this is probably OK.
    Likewise GM crops are OK in selected monoculture areas, especially if they give salinity resistance or reduce pesticide use.
    I love the science, but the application needs care.

    As for the spread of what the Daily Bigot will call “a GM human invasion” can you answer this… once gene edited offspring breed then how do you control what becomes part of the human gene pool?

    poah
    Free Member

    assuming they are dominant genes then you can’t just like you can’t stop gingers from breading but given it is disease/syndroms they are going to be modifying its not really an issue if people without type 1 diabites or cystic fibrosis breed is it?

    The problem with this type of science is like you said the stupid/careless headlines that install fear rather than explaining the science properly. Sadly science communication among morons is very difficult.

    Without the hugely negative publications from certain groups and papers we would be much further on. Crops can be irradiated to produce desirable mutations without you knowing or allowing them to breed in the fields yet you can’t modify them genetically. The whole system is flawed.

    CHB
    Full Member

    I would welcome an informed STW discussion on this (oh dear that’s it knackered now!).
    I am not a geneticist, topped out at A-level before focussing on more chemical aspects of science.
    I understand how certain genes code for certain aspects of character, but do we understand all the subtle gene to gene interactions? If you take a gene that is clearly defective and replace it with an existing gene pool “correct” gene then I can see that is low risk, but if you start amending more subtle gene expressions eg, someone prone to depression then the risks of unintended gene expression is a concern.
    The “escape” or “intermixing” of modified genes with natural ones is also something that if allowed is very difficult to undo.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    This is Lucy. She’s 6, and has SMA, a genetic disease that stops your muscles working. She can’t move at all, and she can’t even be sat up because she can’t cough. Because of that she’ll probably die soon of respiratory complications. Her mum is a friend of my wife’s.

    I don’t really care if you are comfortable with it or not. I am sure as hell not comfortable with SMA. It needs to be done.

    fr0sty125
    Free Member

    I will admit I haven’t read any of the news stories but aren’t they talking about mitochondrial DNA here not chromosome DNA?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    For a start the license has only been granted so far to work on embryos up to 7 days old, so that’s only a few hundred cells.

    This is exactly the sort of work that will help contribute to our understanding of the network of molecular interactions that influence how genes are expressed
    In this case to look at placental development and misscasriage

    Its not just mitochondrial dna, btw

    stuey
    Free Member

    Do three hundred cells have a soul?
    More importantly can we use the research to duplicate a “Shakey’s Pizza”?

    For the record I’m in support of stem cell/ embryo research. Kimbers and molegrips are ‘spot on’.

    CHB
    Full Member

    kimbers, and for that reason I fully support the decision today.
    Molgrips, not familiar with SMA, but my mate has CMT another dreadful disease caused by a clearly identifiable mutation. For these you would have to be very cruel to block treatment and certainly I think the sooner we can screen for and eradicate erroneous expressions of recessive genes the better. However the interaction of genes are very very subtle and have evolved over millions of years, so messing about too much and allowing the modified genes to intermingle with the gene pool is a risk. I don’t see this as much risk for humans as we breed slowly. Likewise for food crops and lab controlled organisms I am fairly relaxed if interbreeding is not a risk. But a GM bacteria in the wild could be unpredictable in the extreme.
    Saying you are anti or pro GM is a misnomer. It’s like saying you are pro or anti chemistry. It’s a science. We need to and will understand it, it’s what we do. However as I am sure Mr Haber would have testified, it’s not the science that’s the risk, it’s the application.

    Do the research, but control the corporations driven by profit in how it is then used.

    poah
    Free Member

    Its exactly the area of research that I’m interested in, epigenetics. So much activity after fertalisation and into development of a featus, with huge swaths of chromatin remodeling going on. A lot has obviously been already studied in rats, mice & drosophila etc but it doesn’t always translate into human development.

    CHB
    Full Member

    poah, I salute you in your endeavours to expand the pool of knowledge we have. I know that forums can often appear very binary in peoples views. I hope I have explained that I am massively PRO the science of this, but understand the need to regulate it’s application.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Meanwhile in China
    http://www.nature.com/news/gene-edited-micropigs-to-be-sold-as-pets-at-chinese-institute-1.18448
    http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378

    I’m not saying that we should be doing this just because others are or rush into it without properly considering the risks, but the technology has been established for a while, now the potential is huge there’s much to be gained.
    Fortunately we have some of the best scientists and tightest regulations in the world

    Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    Not a supporter of any Genetic Modification.

    You can blast me for that, I understand the issues of current medical conditions and the desire to cure all ills. But I’m not comfortable with us “playing God”

    You do know that the sun mutates peoples genes everyday right?

    I guess that could mutate someone….just right enuffff….to cause the zombie apocalypse..

    then again….I’m 99.9999999…..recurring ad infinitum….. that won’t happen.

    poah
    Free Member

    but understand the need to regulate it’s application.

    anything GM is regulated. When I modified bacteria in the lab to make vast quantities of a protein fragement that I was studying, it all has to be recorded. You have to have paper work and signatures etc to make it legal even though the bacteria pose absolutely no threat to anything. The regulations that govern animal work is even more strict so imagin how stringent it is for embryo work. You have to be justified in your use, if you can get results by another means e.g cell culture, then you don’t get permission to use animals/embryos. You can’t just use animals/embryos on a whim.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)

The topic ‘Genetically modifying a human embryo.’ is closed to new replies.