Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Scientists discover there's no such thing as a "small edit" to the genetic code of human embryos   (theweek.com) divider line
    More: Scary, Mark Zuckerberg, Historically black colleges and universities, Federal Reserve System, single edit, party's police reform bill Wednesday, new film, Twilight star, role of a single gene  
•       •       •

6267 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2020 at 2:54 PM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



73 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-17 12:18:43 PM  
Baby steps.
 
2020-06-17 12:26:34 PM  
Human genome editing is still rather new. The tech needs time to mature.
 
2020-06-17 2:01:12 PM  
It caused the head to be elongated and super human intelligence.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-17 2:57:25 PM  
apparently DNA is tamper resistant

Cool.

/It's my turn to ride the monkapotomus
 
2020-06-17 2:58:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Baby steps.


Indeed.

i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-17 2:58:43 PM  
And now we got super mutants?
 
2020-06-17 2:58:56 PM  
So... no superpowers?
 
2020-06-17 3:02:57 PM  

groppet: And now we got super mutants?


Not so much X-Men, more so Brundlefly
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-17 3:03:11 PM  

HailRobonia: Marcus Aurelius: Baby steps.

Indeed.

[i.pinimg.com image 444x546]


It's enough when they're crawling with two hands and two feet yowza
 
2020-06-17 3:04:43 PM  
Do you want mutant mole people? Cause that's how you get mutant mole people.
 
2020-06-17 3:05:24 PM  
There were only a couple flipper babies.
 
2020-06-17 3:05:27 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-17 3:05:55 PM  
Suddenly, Habsburgs.
 
2020-06-17 3:06:25 PM  
The article isn't much help, but it seems the gene they tried to remove is associated with embryonal cancer.  Did they just try and remove it or correct it to the normal expression of the gene?  If they took it out without putting anything back in its place, of course there are going to be consequences.
 
2020-06-17 3:08:06 PM  
The professor in the article is a cowardly wimp.

Oh no! We learned something via experimentation! WE MUST STOP!

Genes aren't holy or special, we should be learning as much as possible about how to control our bodies and all these weird luddite laws against it might as well be laws against the advancement of mankind.
 
2020-06-17 3:08:31 PM  

Nowhereman: Do you want mutant mole people? Cause that's how you get mutant mole people.


"An analysis later revealed 10 of those edited embryos looked normal, but that the other eight revealed 'abnormalities across a particular chromosome,' OneZero writes. Of them, 'four contained inadvertent deletions or additions of DNA directly adjacent to the edited gene,'"

Do you want more Trump voters? Because that's how we'll get more Trump voters.
 
2020-06-17 3:10:01 PM  
<div>
<div>
A normal human face
</div>
 
2020-06-17 3:10:08 PM  

SpectroBoy: apparently DNA is tamper resistant

Cool.

/It's my turn to ride the monkapotomus


Tamper resistent?  Only in that it is a massively interconnected chemical blueprint, some aspects of which are not explicitly defined, but actually depend on being currated inside a fully functional cell.  And I know I'm not explaining this correctly.

Consider our genome compared to that of a fruit fly.  In some ways, we are remarkably simple.  Pretty much a quarter (or higher) of a fruit fly's genetic code is devoted to the particular of reproduction... if the eggs are in this environment, express this gene, if the temperature goes above X express this gene, and so forth.  Ours on the other hand, has all that stripped out.  We incubate in a known environment, so those aspects are 'exo encoded' shall we say.  Ditto goes for our own dailyoperaton... being warm blooded means our internal state is constnt, and our chemical process assume that (which is one of the reasons fevers work, it farks up cell function).
 
2020-06-17 3:12:59 PM  

BigNumber12: Nowhereman: Do you want mutant mole people? Cause that's how you get mutant mole people.

"An analysis later revealed 10 of those edited embryos looked normal, but that the other eight revealed 'abnormalities across a particular chromosome,' OneZero writes. Of them, 'four contained inadvertent deletions or additions of DNA directly adjacent to the edited gene,'"

Do you want more Trump voters? Because that's how we'll get more Trump voters.


2/10

Your fruit, it's low hanging.
 
2020-06-17 3:15:59 PM  

PapermonkeyExpress: BigNumber12: Nowhereman: Do you want mutant mole people? Cause that's how you get mutant mole people.

"An analysis later revealed 10 of those edited embryos looked normal, but that the other eight revealed 'abnormalities across a particular chromosome,' OneZero writes. Of them, 'four contained inadvertent deletions or additions of DNA directly adjacent to the edited gene,'"

Do you want more Trump voters? Because that's how we'll get more Trump voters.

2/10

Your fruit, it's low hanging.


I haven't yet heard a better explanation for how anyone can continue to support Trump after 3-1/2 years of his Presidency. If you have a better one, go for it.
 
2020-06-17 3:17:56 PM  
Thee guys need a Netflix subscription.
 
2020-06-17 3:21:58 PM  
It's like the Shed of Doom. Built over millions of years, instead of weeks, where it's just a tangled up mess. You remove one hammered in screw from a particle board wall and the ceiling that was resting on that screw collapses.
 
2020-06-17 3:22:29 PM  

GrogSmash: SpectroBoy: apparently DNA is tamper resistant

Cool.

/It's my turn to ride the monkapotomus

Tamper resistent?  Only in that it is a massively interconnected chemical blueprint, some aspects of which are not explicitly defined, but actually depend on being currated inside a fully functional cell.  And I know I'm not explaining this correctly.

Consider our genome compared to that of a fruit fly.  In some ways, we are remarkably simple.  Pretty much a quarter (or higher) of a fruit fly's genetic code is devoted to the particular of reproduction... if the eggs are in this environment, express this gene, if the temperature goes above X express this gene, and so forth.  Ours on the other hand, has all that stripped out.  We incubate in a known environment, so those aspects are 'exo encoded' shall we say.  Ditto goes for our own dailyoperaton... being warm blooded means our internal state is constnt, and our chemical process assume that (which is one of the reasons fevers work, it farks up cell function).


One of the Pratchett Science of Discwrold novels had a far more detailed discussion on 'exo intelligence', and how it influences a wide variety of things.
 
2020-06-17 3:22:49 PM  
It's not nice to fool with "Mother Nature"
 
2020-06-17 3:22:49 PM  
You can't mess with the blockchain.
 
2020-06-17 3:23:05 PM  
As best I can tell, the problem is that CRISPR made a mess, right? So the conclusion is that if you're going to do gene editing on embryos, you want something better than CRISPR to do it with.

I don't much like the cited article pointing to medium.com that wants me to create an account to see it. I'm not willing to make the account. The article should have cited primary literature.
 
2020-06-17 3:24:11 PM  
Do these people simply not talk to software engineers? Seriously I have lost more time to fixing one line farkups...
 
2020-06-17 3:25:54 PM  

Eravior: It's like the Shed of Doom. Built over millions of years, instead of weeks, where it's just a tangled up mess. You remove one hammered in screw from a particle board wall and the ceiling that was resting on that screw collapses.


I was thnking more on the lines of a billion line program written in C, chock full of 'goto's and implicit side effects that are essential for its operation.

Any sane developer just goes 'Fark this with a bag of hammers' and finds a new job rather than touch it.
 
2020-06-17 3:26:29 PM  
Obligatory:
CRISPR-Cas9 ("Mr. Sandman" Parody) | A Capella Science
Youtube k99bMtg4zRk
Seriously. Watch it to the end. This guy warned of this about 3⅔ years ago, and did it very entertainingly.
 
2020-06-17 3:27:22 PM  
As per the various CRISPR ads I'm now seeing in this thread, I guess in a way, Fark.com is PROMOTING this technology!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-17 3:32:01 PM  

GrogSmash: Eravior: It's like the Shed of Doom. Built over millions of years, instead of weeks, where it's just a tangled up mess. You remove one hammered in screw from a particle board wall and the ceiling that was resting on that screw collapses.

I was thnking more on the lines of a billion line program written in C, chock full of 'goto's and implicit side effects that are essential for its operation.

Any sane developer just goes 'Fark this with a bag of hammers' and finds a new job rather than touch it.


Actually, no.  A billion line program written in assembly is probably a better analogy...

Lumped in 25000 gigantic files, two different copies of each one, and no documentation.
 
2020-06-17 3:33:45 PM  
Not sure what the problem is, just get a couple of these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of​_​Known_Space_characters#Bandersnatch, heck, you could edit their genes with a sewing machine...
 
2020-06-17 3:33:56 PM  

bsmz: As best I can tell, the problem is that CRISPR made a mess, right? So the conclusion is that if you're going to do gene editing on embryos, you want something better than CRISPR to do it with.

I don't much like the cited article pointing to medium.com that wants me to create an account to see it. I'm not willing to make the account. The article should have cited primary literature.


Yes, that's what it sounds like.  "This gene editing technology has a significant error rate, but this isn't news."  "Well, that must mean there's no such thing as a small edit to human genes!"
 
2020-06-17 3:35:08 PM  
So...is this a GMO thread yet?
 
2020-06-17 3:48:27 PM  

Bandito King: The professor in the article is a cowardly wimp.

Oh no! We learned something via experimentation! WE MUST STOP!

Genes aren't holy or special, we should be learning as much as possible about how to control our bodies and all these weird luddite laws against it might as well be laws against the advancement of mankind.


Greetings, Chairman Shen-Ji Yang!
 
2020-06-17 3:48:34 PM  
"This is a restraining order for all genome editors to stay the living daylights away from embryo editing."

Not on this island....

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-17 3:51:37 PM  
Germ-line editing is akin to a human rights violation.

Don't Fark with DNA, pal.
 
2020-06-17 3:58:30 PM  

Dork Gently: bsmz: As best I can tell, the problem is that CRISPR made a mess, right? So the conclusion is that if you're going to do gene editing on embryos, you want something better than CRISPR to do it with.

I don't much like the cited article pointing to medium.com that wants me to create an account to see it. I'm not willing to make the account. The article should have cited primary literature.

Yes, that's what it sounds like.  "This gene editing technology has a significant error rate, but this isn't news."  "Well, that must mean there's no such thing as a small edit to human genes!"


Until they get a tool that reliably makes only the changes they program it to make, human gene editing will be strictly experimental.  They'll have to have five to ten years of absolute reliability before this gets rolled out clinically. 

That is, unless some big drug company comes up with a proprietary tool they can patent and market as 100% reliable.  The real key question for any company marketing an "almost perfect" tool is: "Are the inevitable fark-ups low enough in frequency and severity that they can be considered a cost-of-doing-business problem?"
 
2020-06-17 4:02:31 PM  

baronbloodbath: Germ-line editing is akin to a human rights violation.

Don't Fark with DNA, pal.


As someone who suffers from a genetic illness, DIAF
 
2020-06-17 4:04:06 PM  
Basics: gene regulation cascades. A change in certain genes, changes the expression of a second generation of genes, that affect the expression of yet subsequent genes. The cascade can often be many layers deep.

Further, there is, at times, feedback so that a later generation effect can in turn promote upstream changes resulting in a complicated dynamic network.

Changes made to the early "upstream" genes can thus have profound repercussions to hundreds or more downstream genes. That translates into profound changes. Obviously, it is imperative to consider how dangerous it is to manipulate a gene involved early in a regulatory cascade. Further, it should become obvious that it is dangerous to interfere with a gene that is involved in feedback to an upstream regulatory element.

The feedback to an upstream regulatory element is not always obvious. Sometimes such feedback can be direct. Direct feedback would be where the product of a gene --- most typically a protein, directly binds to either the regulatory elements of an upstream gene (to enhance or suppress it being expressed), or to the upstream gene product (again, usually a protein but it could be to the intermediate mRNA).

Variations on this feedback include a "once removed" binding where a downstream gene product binds to and changes the activity of another protein that is involved in regulating the upstream gene. It gets confusing but by that I mean that there exists some factor, call it B, that is involved in regulating the expression of a gene. If B regulates the expression of a gene that is upstream in a regulatory cascade, it is possible, and even common, that a protein from downstream in a regulatory cascade can interact with B to turn off the whole cascade.

To briefly belabor this last point, it is a necessary sort of thing. When you turn something on, it's good to have a way to turn it off. If you need a genetically controlled pathway to turn on, it can happen where gene1 turns on genes 11 and 12, and genes 11 and 12 turn on genes 111, 112, 121, 122. But once they've been turned on and you're making enough "stuff" for whatever purpose, you want to turn off the hose. So if gene product 122 helps turn off gene 1 you've got a good feedback loop.

The point of all this is to have outlined a greatly simplified cartoon of how gene regulation ad feedback can have profound repercussions.

Nevertheless, not all genes are involved in regulation of other genes. There are some that are involved in disease that might be good targets for editing. Just as one example, most have heard of sickle cell anemia. It is a mutation in a hemoglobin gene that can result in some catastrophic health consequences. However, there are a number of known compensatory mutations that are known that greatly decrease the likelihood of a person suffering from as many negative consequences of this mutation. Generally, these involve the expression of additional forms of hemoglobin genes, including for example a form expressed in fetuses. So if the fetal form of the right hemoglobin gene "leaks" and is expressed later in life, it dilutes the effect of the bad gene and largely ameliorates the negative consequences of the sickle cell mutation. An edit that increased expression of the fetal hemoglobin gene would be relatively safe.
 
2020-06-17 4:05:07 PM  

Bandito King: The professor in the article is a cowardly wimp.

Oh no! We learned something via experimentation! WE MUST STOP!

Genes aren't holy or special, we should be learning as much as possible about how to control our bodies and all these weird luddite laws against it might as well be laws against the advancement of mankind.


You are right, they are not.

The problem is the complexity of the task, and, as had been noted in this thread, the very real posibility of farkups.  Even if there are no obvious sign of a screwup, there could be hidden dangers that do not express themselves for years.  THAT is the danger....  you have to be a special kind of pyscho to willingly do that to someone who cannot express consent to living a life of hell, because you didn't understand what a particular gene sequence did under specific circumstances.
 
2020-06-17 4:12:31 PM  

Too-Tall: Until they get a tool that reliably makes only the changes they program it to make, human gene editing will be strictly experimental.  They'll have to have five to ten years of absolute reliability before this gets rolled out clinically. 

That is, unless some big drug company comes up with a proprietary tool they can patent and market as 100% reliable.  The real key question for any company marketing an "almost perfect" tool is: "Are the inevitable fark-ups low enough in frequency and severity that they can be considered a cost-of-doing-business problem?"


I agree with you on the first paragraph.

I am not sure any company will be able to get the frequency of anencephaly or other serious congenital defects low enough to keep juries from awarding eight- and nine-digit awards to parents, even if the birth defects might have some unrelated origin.  But maybe we will get lucky and find a good approach to early, but reliable, screening for severe defects.
 
2020-06-17 4:44:11 PM  
Do you want GATTACA? Because this is how you end up with GATTACA
 
2020-06-17 4:56:46 PM  

Chevello: Do you want GATTACA? Because this is how you end up with GATTACA


Technology is generally morally neutral. You only get a dystopia due to how it's applied.
 
2020-06-17 5:12:45 PM  

GrogSmash: GrogSmash: Eravior: It's like the Shed of Doom. Built over millions of years, instead of weeks, where it's just a tangled up mess. You remove one hammered in screw from a particle board wall and the ceiling that was resting on that screw collapses.

I was thnking more on the lines of a billion line program written in C, chock full of 'goto's and implicit side effects that are essential for its operation.

Any sane developer just goes 'Fark this with a bag of hammers' and finds a new job rather than touch it.

Actually, no.  A billion line program written in assembly is probably a better analogy...

Lumped in 25000 gigantic files, two different copies of each one, and no documentation.


So, what you're saying is what happens when your company decided to go on the cheap and  pay some Russians off of Freelancer for some shiatty spaghetti code instead of hiring a new guy or two for a major project?

No, I can't fix it. I'm not even sure where to start really. It's better just to start from scratch. Also, why do they never comment? Like I don't expect it to be in English, but any annotations would be something. I could always use Google translate to get the gist of things. You get what you pay for I guess?
 
2020-06-17 5:16:03 PM  

NihilismKat: GrogSmash: GrogSmash: Eravior: It's like the Shed of Doom. Built over millions of years, instead of weeks, where it's just a tangled up mess. You remove one hammered in screw from a particle board wall and the ceiling that was resting on that screw collapses.

I was thnking more on the lines of a billion line program written in C, chock full of 'goto's and implicit side effects that are essential for its operation.

Any sane developer just goes 'Fark this with a bag of hammers' and finds a new job rather than touch it.

Actually, no.  A billion line program written in assembly is probably a better analogy...

Lumped in 25000 gigantic files, two different copies of each one, and no documentation.

So, what you're saying is what happens when your company decided to go on the cheap and  pay some Russians off of Freelancer for some shiatty spaghetti code instead of hiring a new guy or two for a major project?

No, I can't fix it. I'm not even sure where to start really. It's better just to start from scratch. Also, why do they never comment? Like I don't expect it to be in English, but any annotations would be something. I could always use Google translate to get the gist of things. You get what you pay for I guess?


YUP!

Best evidence AGAINST intelligent design I can think of is DNA itself.  3 billion years of code mutations that didn't kill the host, but can never be 'fixed'.
 
2020-06-17 5:22:30 PM  

baronbloodbath: Germ-line editing is akin to a human rights violation.

Don't Fark with DNA, pal.


If humanity is to have a future, we must master completely DNA as much as we've come to understand thermodynamics or orbital mechanics.

First we should probably do the climate thing though.
 
2020-06-17 5:24:47 PM  

Stile4aly: The article isn't much help, but it seems the gene they tried to remove is associated with embryonal cancer.  Did they just try and remove it or correct it to the normal expression of the gene?  If they took it out without putting anything back in its place, of course there are going to be consequences.


The point wasn't just the consequences of removal, it was also that genetic abnormalities were found in other places, aside from this specifically edited Jean. It's probably very challenging and human embryo to do an extremely precise edit.
 
2020-06-17 5:26:27 PM  

Bandito King: The professor in the article is a cowardly wimp.

Oh no! We learned something via experimentation! WE MUST STOP!

Genes aren't holy or special, we should be learning as much as possible about how to control our bodies and all these weird luddite laws against it might as well be laws against the advancement of mankind.


You miss the point. He saying you shouldn't rush into edley human embryos. because the consequences, and the technology is currently not sufficiently well-developed to do a highly precise edit.

Embryo editing something some people are pushing for the short-term or immediately. It's almost definitely a bad idea at this time, and maybe a bad idea more last forever. weather we get to the point of control where we can understand the complex interrelationships between huge sets of genes, and how any kind of edits to those genes might affect long-term outcomes and behaviours, it's still an open question. But we're certainly not at that point now.
 
2020-06-17 5:28:35 PM  

BigNumber12: PapermonkeyExpress: BigNumber12: Nowhereman: Do you want mutant mole people? Cause that's how you get mutant mole people.

"An analysis later revealed 10 of those edited embryos looked normal, but that the other eight revealed 'abnormalities across a particular chromosome,' OneZero writes. Of them, 'four contained inadvertent deletions or additions of DNA directly adjacent to the edited gene,'"

Do you want more Trump voters? Because that's how we'll get more Trump voters.

2/10

Your fruit, it's low hanging.

I haven't yet heard a better explanation for how anyone can continue to support Trump after 3-1/2 years of his Presidency. If you have a better one, go for it.


Keep your politics out of our  science, number 12!
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.