Generation CRSPR

[Ambers Troll]

Given recent news about new successes in gene modification, I think we can say that generation CRSPR has just begun.
With the first very successful removal of a heart condition (1 in 500 people are born with the condition) from fertilized embryos without damaging them, we can now correct damaging genetic conditions before being born with them. It will be safe and really cheap to use and enable people to have healthier children from fewer eggs/ sperm.
The problem ethically... CRSPR enables the same tool to make any controlled modification that we choose to make.

This new tool is exploding in use right now, with application across the whole biotech/ medical industry. From experimentation on mini-organs grown from stem cells to allergen free chicken eggs, was curious about some of your thoughts on the arrival of Generation CRSPR?

Personally given how cheap and easy to use these techniques are, we are going down this path like it or not. It should be an exciting ride.

 

[ExcellaExe]

Personally, there are some exciting prospects for this. I was born with a disease this can prevent. As were a few others in my family. A cousin is tay sachs positive, and should she find a man she loves that is also positive, this could prove to be the only viable way they could have children without putting that child through unbearable hell that ends in death 100% of the time.

Now, ethically, this can be taken too far. I can see this easily being used to correct for children being born with simple disorders that don't truly effect anything but are considered a stigma. Where we draw a line for that as a society is something we should discuss at length because this is new territory. We're breaking new ground. New morals are needing to be discussed and it's an interesting time to be alive.

 

[PopcornCup]

It is great if it can save the life of a baby or make that baby be born without a life changing disease/ailment. I don't like the designer baby thing, though. "Let's make this kid blonde/blue eyes" etc. I personally would never, ever do that, and if that happened to me I'd always wonder what I would have looked like, why my parents didn't want me to just be me, idk. I think it'd give me a lot of inner turmoil even if I was a better looking person because of it. I think it'd also be hard to teach a child that looks aren't everything when you made sure they match certain aesthetic ideals.

...That's not to say I don't wish I was born with sky scraper legs, perfect Pantene hair, crystal clear eyes, flawless skin, etc. Haha.

(Note: I know this isn't the same thing as designer babies, but it just makes me think of designer babies and then I go on a tangent.)

 

[AudriTwo]

Given recent news about new successes in gene modification, I think we can say that generation CRSPR has just begun.
With the first very successful removal of a heart condition (1 in 500 people are born with the condition) from fertilized embryos without damaging them, we can now correct damaging genetic conditions before being born with them. It will be safe and really cheap to use and enable people to have healthier children from fewer eggs/ sperm.
The problem ethically... CRSPR enables the same tool to make any controlled modification that we choose to make.

This new tool is exploding in use right now, with application across the whole biotech/ medical industry. From experimentation on mini-organs grown from stem cells to allergen free chicken eggs, was curious about some of your thoughts on the arrival of Generation CRSPR?

Personally given how cheap and easy to use these techniques are, we are going down this path like it or not. It should be an exciting ride.

someone with a genetic mutation, this excites me. im terrified of passing along my mutation to my future kids.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Not going to lie, very mixed thoughts on this. On the one hand, it's great that we're being able to eliminate certain medical issues and the positives coming from it.
But, on the flipside, I'm also very much against this type of thing for a number of different reasons. In past civilizations, they used to discard babies with known maladies in an effort to make a stronger society. Is this much different? What about the "designer babies" as some have mentioned?
Add to it that as it is now, people are living longer lives causing strain on many social and economic realms of the world. May lead to over population due to decreased death rates from natural illnesses, health issues, etc. Many people only look at the "life" side of things. They seem to easily forget that death is as much a part of life as birth is and will do almost whatever it takes to avoid it.
Call me old fashioned. Maybe even a little cold hearted. But, I honestly believe that there are some things we really shouldn't be tampering with. This is not from a religious perspective. But, rather from a "natural" perspective. People are all about protecting nature by keeping things free from the damaging hands of mankind as well as beautiful. Shouldn't human life, especially at the genetic level, then also be protected?

 

[n_i_c_u]

Call me old fashioned. Maybe even a little cold hearted. But, I honestly believe that there are some things we really shouldn't be tampering with. This is not from a religious perspective. But, rather from a "natural" perspective. People are all about protecting nature by keeping things free from the damaging hands of mankind as well as beautiful. Shouldn't human life, especially at the genetic level, then also be protected?

I don't think it is cold hearted to be be a skeptic. I'm not much of a buyer for Genetically Modified Organisms in food sources, but, most corporations find it to beneficial and cost productive. It is even cheaper to buy foods that contain GMOs. A part of the public cares but most people just want cheaper food and don't really care and think "they couldn't sell it if it was bad." If one might apply this thought to the health costs involved with manipulating a human genetic code, wouldn't it be cheaper for corporations, and the people they attend to (via heath care--caring for a healthy person is cheaper than caring for people with conditions that are incurable)? I understand that someday people might have to pay for genetic modification if it gets to be a easy procedure and capitalized on. Right now, people have options (buy gmo, or non-gmo foods) and I don't see that changing in the future. The prices may vary for what one wants, but, there are organizations that work toward distinguishing between the two sorts of ways to cultivate organisms. I imagine it would be expensive, as everything is in the medical field, to have genetic conditions addressed.

I think most people, aside from the religious, would want their offspring to live a happy and healthy life and would opt in to a program to correct "possible damaging genetic conditions." But then again, I think tons of religious people already participate in the purchasing of GMO modified food products, so, maybe they will see this medical science in much the same way: as an act of God (I mean, if their God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent--not that I have much faith in a peoples that are unwilling to adopt the children they fight so hard to save).

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. I'm guessing that corporations take hold and it becomes something akin to cosmetic surgery at first when commercialized, but, maybe it eventually gains traction and is available to everyone and not just the rich.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

I've personally gone way out of my way to try not to have kids due to a past riddled with genetic ailments. I'm sure many would gladly agree to a law to make sure it's used for proven inheritable genetic illness rather than altering genes to one's preferences like customizing a video game character.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I've personally gone way out of my way to try not to have kids due to a past riddled with genetic ailments. I'm sure many would gladly agree to a law to make sure it's used for proven inheritable genetic illness rather than altering genes to one's preferences like customizing a video game character.

Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't that also be customizing preferences? It would make a person stronger/healthier than they most likely would have been born naturally.



Personally, I'd rather see all the GMO and garbage food go away and focus more on natural health from clean organic food and exercise than modifying genes. All the chemicals they spray on our food, as well as into the ground is going into us. Add to it that our world is filled with chemicals, particularly petroleum due to plastics, and we've pretty much screwed ourselves.

 

[Teagan]

I've personally gone way out of my way to try not to have kids due to a past riddled with genetic ailments. I'm sure many would gladly agree to a law to make sure it's used for proven inheritable genetic illness rather than altering genes to one's preferences like customizing a video game character.

I sure hope so. I'm sure many would fight to be able to customize their baby too though. If they lost a black market will pop up for it somewhere sadly. I see this going way past wanting to use it for medical reasons or even picking hair or eye color. People will be wanting kids who are not gay, one with an IQ over a certain range, selecting height and body mass to get a basketball athlete, choosing skin color as lighter is seen as better by some, picking one out to even be smaller to be competitive at gymnastics even. It will happen. Legal or not. Imagine the ends those parents will go to push the kids into being certain things despite the kids own hopes and dreams. It'd be a disaster. "I made you to have long fingers so you could play piano! Now play!!!!" This will go very badly one day.

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

I find "it's nature don't mess with it" arguments riddiculous. Thankfully they never truly stopped the progress from happening.
As for people living longer, I'm sure if the moment it will truly start to hamper our nations the solution will be found.
I understand the concens about the designer babies but I think the danger of making kids uncomfortable about how they parents picked and chose their appearance far outweights the benefits of genetically ill people not having to go through the soul and body destroying experiences and pain.
We have started this ride with the modern medicine, helping people who otherwise would die, survive - we are not getting off it.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't that also be customizing preferences? It would make a person stronger/healthier than they most likely would have been born naturally.



Personally, I'd rather see all the GMO and garbage food go away and focus more on natural health from clean organic food and exercise than modifying genes. All the chemicals they spray on our food, as well as into the ground is going into us. Add to it that our world is filled with chemicals, particularly petroleum due to plastics, and we've pretty much screwed ourselves.

For me and most of my family (the non-tmi version) is it's a situation of organs were built differently, no surgery could be done to fix it, so the person would have pain and suffering most of their lives and come in for dr's check up every so often for monitoring the condition.

There are a few things in my family like this, and MANY conditions that are common that I thankfully don't have, but for all I know I could carry the gene.

Diet isn't something that would magically change any of this, so I'm not taking about GMO's, chemicals or whatever in this case. Even if we assume that my family genetic issues are caused by some ancient relative eating some genetically modified apple; that doesn't change the fact that my kids and their offspring would likely have the same health issues as myself and those before me.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

As for people living longer, I'm sure if the problems will truly be hampering our nations the solution will be found. Wait for it to cost too much money.

Let's say, for example, the solution is to start denying people certain procedures if they're on a Gov't insurance plan. Would you, and the masses accept it? This was a big fear of some people whom were against universal healthcare due to the so-called "Death panels". Whether the probabilities of these actually occur isn't part of the discussion. just a simple "Yes" or "No" answer is all as for arguments sake, they are in place at this time.

For me and most of my family (the non-tmi version) is it's a situation of organs were built differently, no surgery could be done to fix it, so the person would have pain and suffering most of their lives and come in for dr's check up every so often for monitoring the condition.

There are a few things in my family like this, and MANY conditions that are common that I thankfully don't have, but for all I know I could carry the gene.

I come from a family with many health issues myself, and one of my parents had a very debilitting disease that eventually led to their death while in their 50's. I've also faced some very serious medical issues in previous years. Even with all of that, I personally would rather face the natural order of things.

Diet isn't something that would magically change any of this, so I'm not taking about GMO's, chemicals or whatever in this case. Even if we assume that my family genetic issues are caused by some ancient relative eating some genetically modified apple; that doesn't change the fact that my kids and their offspring would likely have the same health issues as myself and those before me.

I'm aware that there are conditions which diet isn't the cause, nor the cure. My comments about food, chemicals, etc. was more of a generic statement in that there's a lot of those things known to cause cancer, known to cause other issues, etc. Given the fact that cancer, heart disease and diabetes are most likely the biggest health risks people typically will face, I'd rather see focus placed on that since it's a greater risk in terms of sheer numbers.

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

Let's say, for example, the solution is to start denying people certain procedures if they're on a Gov't insurance plan. Would you, and the masses accept it? This was a big fear of some people whom were against universal healthcare due to the so-called "Death panels". Whether the probabilities of these actually occur isn't part of the discussion. just a simple "Yes" or "No" answer is all as for arguments sake, they are in place at this time.

People would accept it. As they now accept the current US medical system and it's costs which also cost lives of people who are simply not wealthy enough to be healthy. As they accept NHS waiting lists and cuts in Britain.

 

[Teagan]

I'm aware that there are conditions which diet isn't the cause, nor the cure. My comments about food, chemicals, etc. was more of a generic statement in that there's a lot of those things known to cause cancer, known to cause other issues, etc. Given the fact that cancer, heart disease and diabetes are most likely the biggest health risks people typically will face, I'd rather see focus placed on that since it's a greater risk in terms of sheer numbers.

Why can't we do both? Many cases of cancer, diseases, and diabetes are caused by diet so some focus on that would be wonderful. It's very hard to eat clean these days. A push for different would be welcomed by open arms from me. For the cases that are genetic though some gene modification can come in to play then. Of course by choice.

The other issue I guess I see with this is in regards to religion. Some screaming it's against their god while others screaming they want certain things done because of their god. I mentioned people not wanting their kids to be gay and I could see religious crazies fighting for their "religious rights" to pick something like that. It would be a battle on that front as well. They would claim religious freedom and persecution if they got denied their "right" to that crap. I can see it now already. Of course I guess then they would have to admit it's something people are born with instead of a choice. Hmm.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

People would accept it. As they now accept the current US medical system and it's costs which also cost lives of people who are simply not wealthy enough to be healthy. As they accept NHS waiting lists and cuts in Britain.

They would have to. For the record, I could never understand how some procedures were either recommended by doctors, nor for that matter, approved by insurance companies in situations where it would not be beneficial to someone or was very risky. Just like medications costing thousands of dollars a month.

When my time is up, and my health is at a point where I no longer feel I'm able to do what I want, I'm taking a long one way trip into the woods.

 

[Smores]

Given recent news about new successes in gene modification, I think we can say that generation CRSPR has just begun.
With the first very successful removal of a heart condition (1 in 500 people are born with the condition) from fertilized embryos without damaging them, we can now correct damaging genetic conditions before being born with them. It will be safe and really cheap to use and enable people to have healthier children from fewer eggs/ sperm.
The problem ethically... CRSPR enables the same tool to make any controlled modification that we choose to make.

This new tool is exploding in use right now, with application across the whole biotech/ medical industry. From experimentation on mini-organs grown from stem cells to allergen free chicken eggs, was curious about some of your thoughts on the arrival of Generation CRSPR?

Can you explain technically how this new technique works? Are they doing a manual gene replacement during the first few cell divisions of an embryo? Or did they create some genetic machine that can act on every DNA of a multi-cell organism?

Personally given how cheap and easy to use these techniques are, we are going down this path like it or not. It should be an exciting ride.

There are lots of problems here:

* These techniques that work on embryos normally do not work on fully adult animals. There are too many cells to modify once the organism is grown, and how can you make sure to get to all of the cells?

* The way the system works now it is all about money. Doctors don't even care about patients any more. There is zero curiosity even about your symptoms. It is all about proving you have a disease, and once you have a disease then there is a drug (that costs hundreds of millions to develop). So even though this technique could help a lot of people, no one will be allowed to (legally) use it unless they spend a huge amount to develop a drug, and having expended the costs and time for that then they need to charge a fortune to give that therapy.

* We barely understand genetics at this point. For some clear cases there is one gene that has a defect and causes a disease. For most of us, there are just genetic imperfections spread here and there, and it is not clear what symptoms they cause. Even though techniques like this could clean us up, no one will ever get FDA approval to do that because there is no "disease" and there is no approved "drug" to treat the disease.

I think mostly these genetic hacks will be done on plants and animals to develop better characteristics in those. No doubt that someone will do it illegally in humans and it will possibly create some kind of super genius or super athletic individual. But that won't help the rest of us.

I am one of those people who believe that machine intelligence will destroy us within the next 100 years, so I do not think this experiment is going to get too far.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Why can't we do both? Many cases of cancer, diseases, and diabetes are caused by diet so some focus on that would be wonderful. It's very hard to eat clean these days. A push for different would be welcomed by open arms from me. For the cases that are genetic though some gene modification can come in to play then. Of course by choice.

Both are currently being worked on, so it's a moot point now.

Agreed though that eating clean is very difficult, and is extremely expensive...

The other issue I guess I see with this is in regards to religion. Some screaming it's against their god while others screaming they want certain things done because of their god. I mentioned people not wanting their kids to be gay and I could see religious crazies fighting for their "religious rights" to pick something like that. It would be a battle on that front as well. They would claim religious freedom and persecution if they got denied their "right" to that crap. I can see it now already. Of course I guess then they would have to admit it's something people are born with instead of a choice. Hmm.

Or, on the flip side, people may feel it's their right to decide whether they have a boy or a girl, and whether it's gay/straight or whatever tendencies they want. By this, I'm thinking along the line of the arguments of whether a mother has the right to an abortion since it's still within her body. I can see things getting even more heated. Which is yet another reason why I think sometimes it's just better to let nature take her course.

 

[Smores]

Personally, I'd rather see all the GMO and garbage food go away and focus more on natural health from clean organic food and exercise than modifying genes. All the chemicals they spray on our food, as well as into the ground is going into us. Add to it that our world is filled with chemicals, particularly petroleum due to plastics, and we've pretty much screwed ourselves.

It is actually about 100 times worse than your worst nightmare. They have developed GMO plants now that can take higher doses of glyphosate (the chemical name for Roundup) and glyphosate has become pervasive in the food chain, literally entering into all processed foods through the plants like wheat that are used as ingredients. A published study showed urine of pregnant women with more than 100 times the level of glyphosate that the FDA would find toxic in a food. Studies in the last five years are showing that glyphosate messes with key biochemistry in the human body and may be the responsible chemical for a whole slew of chronic diseases. Most of Monsanto's studies on glyphosate toxicity in humans was hacked to be short-term and therefore ignore all of the chronic long-term exposure risks.

Overall I get the feeling that humans have no idea what they are actually doing with genetic modification. The unintended consequences have generally been equal to or worse than the benefits.

 

[Teagan]

Honestly it is being worked on but not really at the same time. The produce section in comparison to the rest of the store is tiny. Plus looking at the "organic" choices are pitiful. Add to that the produce may not be sprayed with chemicals now but if the ground was at one time, which it most likely was, then it's still in the ground and thus in the food too. Whoever makes a way to actually clean the soil of that stuff could make a lot of money one day once this stuff gets exposed more openly about how bad it is for us really. People can scream conspiracy theory all they want but the fact is we know this stuff isn't good for us. I understand the need to keep ahead of the bugs but ingesting massive amounts of chemicals and poisoning the ground is not the way to do it.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

It is actually about 100 times worse than your worst nightmare. They have developed GMO plants now that can take higher doses of glyphosate (the chemical name for Roundup) and glyphosate has become pervasive in the food chain, literally entering into all processed foods through the plants like wheat that are used as ingredients. A published study showed urine of pregnant women with more than 100 times the level of glyphosate that the FDA would find toxic in a food. Studies in the last five years are showing that glyphosate messes with key biochemistry in the human body and may be the responsible chemical for a whole slew of chronic diseases. Most of Monsanto's studies on glyphosate toxicity in humans was hacked to be short-term and therefore ignore all of the chronic long-term exposure risks.

Overall I get the feeling that humans have no idea what they are actually doing with genetic modification. The unintended consequences have generally been equal to or worse than the benefits.

Agreed, I've been aware of chemicals being transferred from food source to humans for many years. My first knowledge of it was steroids given to animals for rapid growth. There were claims that it couldn't be passed on. But, history has shown itself far too many times that it happens, especially in the wild due to poisons being used.

 

[Smores]

Honestly it is being worked on but not really at the same time. The produce section in comparison to the rest of the store is tiny. Plus looking at the "organic" choices are pitiful.

That is true, but in some areas of the country the organic section has a good enough selection that you can avoid about 80% of the risks just by buying organic.

Add to that the produce may not be sprayed with chemicals now but if the ground was at one time, which it most likely was, then it's still in the ground and thus in the food too. Whoever makes a way to actually clean the soil of that stuff could make a lot of money one day once this stuff gets exposed more openly about how bad it is for us really. People can scream conspiracy theory all they want but the fact is we know this stuff isn't good for us. I understand the need to keep ahead of the bugs but ingesting massive amounts of chemicals and poisoning the ground is not the way to do it.

This! As you say, the soil, the waterways, etc can also have contamination from the crop next door that is not organic, or from a prior crop in the soil that was not organic. In some areas that were once used for mining there are all kinds of heavy metal problems in the soil. Organic food still exposes you to those risks.

In the end, you cannot avoid the risks. You can only minimize your exposure while trying to still lead a somewhat normal life. Avoid processed foods. Avoid non-organic foods. That's a good base to work from.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Honestly it is being worked on but not really at the same time. The produce section in comparison to the rest of the store is tiny. Plus looking at the "organic" choices are pitiful. Add to that the produce may not be sprayed with chemicals now but if the ground was at one time, which it most likely was, then it's still in the ground and thus in the food too. Whoever makes a way to actually clean the soil of that stuff could make a lot of money one day once this stuff gets exposed more openly about how bad it is for us really. People can scream conspiracy theory all they want but the fact is we know this stuff isn't good for us. I understand the need to keep ahead of the bugs but ingesting massive amounts of chemicals and poisoning the ground is not the way to do it.

Agreed. The produce section, along with fresh meats, is very small overall. Add to it that "natural" and "organic" really don't have a standard to adhere to. I've been attempting to buy from farmer's markets and places where I know the meats are not mass fed chemicals. But, the costs are so damn prohibitive...

 

[Teagan]

HGHs and antibiotics in animals is absolutely being passed on to us. I'm kinda happy to see Perdue has started using oregano instead for some of their animals now. I'm still not eating meat, or dairy, but it's nice to see them trying something and I hope it works for them. Small victories where you can get them. I know my Whole Foods has the more "humane" meats but damn if it's not $30 for a very small pack of chicken even. Cost prohibitive is right with stuff like that. Eesh. I can get so much more by skipping it, plus being actually more humane. I don't poo poo on other people though who do eat meat. It just costs our environment so much as well and pollutes a ton.

And yes since I'm not living on some self sustaining commune this stuff is unavoidable. There is really no such thing as organic for the most part. I'm not growing stuff in my back yard. I have to choose stuff at the store so I just try to choose the best I can when I can. I'll probably still get cancer though lol.

 

[Ambers Troll]

Can you explain technically how this new technique works?

CRSPR cas9 is a genetic editing tool, you can use it to unzip a section of DNA, any section as long or short as required, and replace or correct it with any other code you please.
Anyone qualified in genetics can do it, and the technique is extremely cheap hence the explosion in the method. For instance we have someone working to repair missing genetic coding in those we have of the Mammoth with plans to bring the extinct animal back to life soon. As you can imagine, it is not the kind of thing that will attract much funding. It won't be a technique controlled by the rich or be able to be strongly controlled by any government.

The real significance is just how selective it can be, you can remove one base pair in one place within an organism. All that is required is that the scientist know what they are changing, this is the real challenge.

For medicine it can be used for some very surprising things especially related to diagnostics because you can observe genetic change at such a precise level.

Overall I get the feeling that humans have no idea what they are actually doing with genetic modification. The unintended consequences have generally been equal to or worse than the benefits.

My concern too, I can imagine some seriously scary things we could do with such a tool.

 

[Teagan]

The real significance is just how selective it can be, you can remove one base pair in one place within an organism. All that is required is that the scientist know what they are changing, this is the real challenge.

What if this turns into some Jurassic Park stuff, aka frogs DNA, and people can change sex at will. Now that would be some science.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

What if this turns into some Jurassic Park stuff, aka frogs DNA, and people can change sex at will. Now that would be some science.

You beat me to it....

 

[Smores]

CRSPR cas9 is a genetic editing tool, you can use it to unzip a section of DNA, any section as long or short as required, and replace or correct it with any other code you please.
Anyone qualified in genetics can do it, and the technique is extremely cheap hence the explosion in the method. For instance we have someone working to repair missing genetic coding in those we have of the Mammoth with plans to bring the extinct animal back to life soon. As you can imagine, it is not the kind of thing that will attract much funding. It won't be a technique controlled by the rich or be able to be strongly controlled by any government.

The real significance is just how selective it can be, you can remove one base pair in one place within an organism. All that is required is that the scientist know what they are changing, this is the real challenge.

I understand you as far as changing a DNA, and then using that DNA to clone a new animal with modified genetics. The question is how could you pervasively modify trillions of cells of many different types in an adult organism. And what are the consequences if you only change a subset of all of the cells?

 

[Teagan]

I understand you as far as changing a DNA, and then using that DNA to clone a new animal with modified genetics. The question is how could you pervasively modify trillions of cells of many different types in an adult organism. And what are the consequences if you only change a subset of all of the cells?

I think you're misunderstanding a bit. You are not changing cells. You're changing coded DNA. DNA is quite different and is our genetic make up. If you pull the section of DNA for eye color for instance you could then input any other DNA into its place and change someones eye color then. Your DNA then tells your body to make the cells and which ones to make. Which cells your body makes are all told to do so because of your DNA. That's the way simplified version of it anyway. How this would work on an adult would be a bit different than just test tubes but imagine it like when people get a marrow transplant. They input healthy new marrow from someone without cancer into you, after destroying your body mind you, and your body takes the new stuff and starts rebuilding it instead. It would be an incredibly painful and arduous experience as an adult to go through, but you theoretically do it one day. I believe right now they're just doing it on very small scales though instead of adult trials.

 

[Smores]

I think you're misunderstanding a bit. You are not changing cells. You're changing coded DNA. DNA is quite different and is our genetic make up. If you pull the section of DNA for eye color for instance you could then input any other DNA into its place and change someones eye color then. Your DNA then tells your body to make the cells and which ones to make. Which cells your body makes are all told to do so because of your DNA. That's the way simplified version of it anyway. How this would work on an adult would be a bit different than just test tubes but imagine it like when people get a marrow transplant. They input healthy new marrow from someone without cancer into you, after destroying your body mind you, and your body takes the new stuff and starts rebuilding it instead. It would be an incredibly painful and arduous experience as an adult to go through, but you theoretically do it one day. I believe right now they're just doing it on very small scales though instead of adult trials.

Oh, I do understand you. The problem is there is a copy of your DNA in the nucleus of all cells in your body, excluding some like blood cells that lack a nucleus or organelles. If you put one of these gene clippers into an adult animal's body, it presumably has to get into the nucleus of every living cell of your body, otherwise on the next cell division your cell's DNA will make a copy of the wrong DNA and proliferate the DNA you did not want to keep around.

I am not saying that this thorny issue cannot be overcome. I am genuinely curious *how* are they proposing to overcome it? It's one thing to do this on a single DNA in a test tube. It's a whole new level of complexity to do this on an animal.

 

[Teagan]

I see how they can do it sometimes, like with bone marrow, other times....I haven't a god damn clue lol. Sorry. Maybe they don't either or maybe someone more versed in it than me can let us in on that info. Would they honestly have to single-handedly destroy certain systems of our bodies for this? I wonder how it will go, or if it really can. They may simply not be able to with reliability and instead rely on cloned organ transplants instead.