Generation CRSPR

[Deleted member 37064]

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.

Maybe this isn't to quite the level of DNA reprogramming. But, it is pretty close to it.

http://ventures.mayoclinic.org/impact/stem-cells-for-heart.php


This is also a video about heart cell regeneration.

 

[Smores]

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.

For certain genetic defects, the process he is describing is the holy grail of medicine. You should be able to have your genetic robots go in and transform every part of the person, converting bad DNA sequences into good ones. And at that point the person is "like new" and cured of their disease.

BUT...get things wrong and you can kill the person, or leave them even worse than they were. Since many of the diseases they want to cure are extremely rare, you won't get a lot of opportunities to test the technology on large groups of people. So yes it is all high risk.

In this thread, I am just bouncing off the original post and asking what is currently even possible, using this technology.

 

[Teagan]

Hmm okay so bone marrow stem cells, like usual, but done in a way our body naturally develops to being with. Very smart on their part to try. Mapping heart growth had to be no easy feat.

Smores what you would do with someone with a failing heart isn't treat a bad DNA sequence, you would treat the actual heart. You'd get a transplant in that case with a cloned heart with good cells for your body to replicate. However if you're going the DNA route because or predisposed conditions you would be dealing with only DNA then. You'd be copying and pasting things then before there's an actual human being alive. We will someday be able to easily replace failing parts on people, it'll just be our own cloned parts grown in a lab. Or ones that are more universally accepted.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

One of the thoughts I'd read in other places is that the hope is to trigger stem cells to "rebuild in place" rather than replace with surgery. In some ways, I can agree. But, as mentioned before, I also think that some things should be left alone.

Either way, there is some pretty cool shit happening...

 

[Smores]

Hmm okay so bone marrow stem cells, like usual, but done in a way our body naturally develops to being with. Very smart on their part to try. Mapping heart growth had to be no easy feat.

Smores what you would do with someone with a failing heart isn't treat a bad DNA sequence, you would treat the actual heart. You'd get a transplant in that case with a cloned heart with good cells for your body to replicate. However if you're going the DNA route because or predisposed conditions you would be dealing with only DNA then. You'd be copying and pasting things then before there's an actual human being alive. We will someday be able to easily replace failing parts on people, it'll just be our own cloned parts grown in a lab. Or ones that are more universally accepted.

So the post he put up about stem cells creating a new heart is a different technology. There is no DNA being modified there. They are taking stem cells, which are like the precursors to specific tissues that have not yet "decided" what kind of organ they will become. The technology they are talking about there is some biochemistry that will force these stem cells to decide to become heart tissue. And I guess the hope would be that they could inject that around dead heart tissue and have it partly regenerated. But that heart tissue would have all of the good - and bad - DNA of the original heart tissue. And, yes, they might grow an entire heart in a test tube, and then they might operate on you to give you a new heart. I suppose that is possible.

Modifying a person's DNA would not solve the same problem. You could fix every defect in the DNA of a person's heart DNA, yet that would do nothing to regenerate dead heart tissue.

The stem cell technology is exciting and probably very low risk once they work out the bugs. After all they are just taking your own stem cells and allowing them to regenerate your own organs, with all the DNA unmodified.

The DNA modification technology is unbelievably scary stuff. In theory, you could be converted into a frog. You could be turned into a super-genius. You could be turned into almost anything. The potential for good and evil is almost without limit.

 

[Teagan]

One of the thoughts I'd read in other places is that the hope is to trigger stem cells to "rebuild in place" rather than replace with surgery. In some ways, I can agree. But, as mentioned before, I also think that some things should be left alone.

Either way, there is some pretty cool shit happening...

That would work for slight damage however some genetic diseases that couldn't work for. At least I don't think so or see how. Some babies are born with really bad organs or deformed ones or completely missing ones.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

That would work for slight damage however some genetic diseases that couldn't work for. At least I don't think so or see how. Some babies are born with really bad organs or deformed ones or completely missing ones.

Agreed, it's most likely not rebuilding without defect. Rather, with them due to DNA genetic coding. Then, I could see some DNA remapping to correct issues. But, as has been mentioned, how to address the sheer number of cells within each organ.

Also, I don't think they've really figured out the "why" these things happen in the first place. So, now it's just a thought of replacement rather than true cause for it.

 

[Teagan]

Agreed, it's most likely not rebuilding without defect. Rather, with them due to DNA genetic coding. Then, I could see some DNA remapping to correct issues. But, as has been mentioned, how to address the sheer number of cells within each organ.

Also, I don't think they've really figured out the "why" these things happen in the first place. So, now it's just a thought of replacement rather than true cause for it.

Really cool one day stuff though. I like that they really are pushing things so heavily and working so hard on it. Heart disease is a major killer for a lot of people, and all organs have a chance of failing. It seems there's some options too for what may work best for each person. Transplant here, stem cells there, DNA work there, etc.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Really cool one day stuff though. I like that they really are pushing things so heavily and working so hard on it. Heart disease is a major killer for a lot of people, and all organs have a chance of failing. It seems there's some options too for what may work best for each person. Transplant here, stem cells there, DNA work there, etc.

Yeah, it's cool to see this stuff progress. But, I still hold to my beliefs that some things we really shouldn't be messing with. However, I don't have much of a say in the matter. So, I adhere to my own personal convictions.

 

[Lucid1]

Having read all of the replies in this post I can't help but wonder out-loud about a few things...

1. Is this technology/ability patented or protected, thereby initially limiting its use to those companies who developed it?
2. How much is something like this going to cost? With all the talk about designer babies and such, I can't help but get a feeling that the costs will be based on how much the "elite" is willing to pay to get those designer babies, thereby pricing the procedure out of the realm of affordability to those who could actually benefit from it.

 

[Teagan]

You can't patent DNA. What you could own though is any programs, software, or machinery to do the work with.

Second this most likely would be something either only elite or those with great insurance could do at first. As time goes on it would be more available to those with more basic insurances as well. Doing it on your own would be extremely costly even after a while of it being available. Bankruptcy costly.

 

[Smores]

Having read all of the replies in this post I can't help but wonder out-loud about a few things...

1. Is this technology/ability patented or protected, thereby initially limiting its use to those companies who developed it?
2. How much is something like this going to cost? With all the talk about designer babies and such, I can't help but get a feeling that the costs will be based on how much the "elite" is willing to pay to get those designer babies, thereby pricing the procedure out of the realm of affordability to those who could actually benefit from it.

Like gene splicing, it is likely to be a very cheap technology to do on a small number of genes, at least eventually.

In some respects, that makes it even scarier, as you may start to see individuals developing designer animals or designer babies, all on a cloak and dagger basis. The person would modify individual genes and then use cloning techniques to insert single DNA into a newly fertilized egg, replacing the old DNA with the new one, or maybe the DNA is replaced directly in the newly fertilized egg.

Doing this on adult animals is a much tougher problem, probably very very expensive to do.

 

[Lucid1]

You can't patent DNA...

You can't patent naturally occurring DNA, but you can patent cDNA, which a company named Myriad did several years ago, and in 2013 the Supreme Court upheld their right to patent it. Under the Supreme Court ruling, a company has the right to patent any procedure or technology used to test, sequence or alter DNA.

 

[Teagan]

You can't patent naturally occurring DNA, but you can patent cDNA, which a company named Myriad did several years ago, and in 2013 the Supreme Court upheld their right to patent it. Under the Supreme Court ruling, a company has the right to patent any procedure or technology used to test, sequence or alter DNA.

Yeah so you can't patent the DNA but you can own other stuff having to do with it like I said.

 

[Lelo1]

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.

With CRSPR you could change xx to xy, or xy to xx.
Along the same lines change your skin color, hair color, hair type, eye color, breast size. Everyone could look like models.

CRSPR could reverse the genetic changes that happen with aging. Resetting your genetic clock.

CRSPR is being used to kill virus like AIDS.

One of the questions is should we? There are evolutionary and pack advantages of having diverse DNA. Being fat can save your life in famine. Whiping out sickle-cell disease would also remove protection against malaria. Having light skin isn't good with lots of sun, but it is good with lots of snow.

 

[Smores]

Just to add a reference for anyone interested in the whole issue of how GMO crops can have unintended consequences, here is a good presentation on glyphosate, how GMO crops have gotten glyphosate deeply into the food chain, and on the possible health consequences of that.

 

[WickedTouch]

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.

I tend to agree. It may already be too late. When people like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking voice concerns about the speed at which we are devolving more and more decision making power to the machines in our lives, then for sure, I am sitting up and taking notice. At the current speeds of AI development, we could potentially be as close as 30 - 40 years before that happens... not 100!

http://observer.com/2015/08/stephen...ill-gates-warn-about-artificial-intelligence/


Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540

He told the BBC:"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."
His warning came in response to a question about a revamp of the technology he uses to communicate, which involves a basic form of AI.

 

[Lelo1]

Australopithecines replaced hominns. neanderthals replaced Australopithecines. Humans replaced neanderthals. So it's only logical that humans will evolve into some thing else. Assuming some thing doesn't kill us. Allot of the threats to humanity are from humanity. Take nuclar war, global warming, mad cow.

RIght now computer nural networks are very basic. I mean like earth worm basic. We see them being used to make very basic scalable tasks. And the results of those tasks are accessable for everyone.

Like google images being able to reconise a car. And every one then being able to take advantage of that information.

The current issue is that these systems are they're not sentient. And as a result, may take actions without understanding the consiquinces or impact.

 

[Smores]

Australopithecines replaced hominns. neanderthals replaced Australopithecines. Humans replaced neanderthals. So it's only logical that humans will evolve into some thing else. Assuming some thing doesn't kill us. Allot of the threats to humanity are from humanity. Take nuclar war, global warming, mad cow.

RIght now computer nural networks are very basic. I mean like earth worm basic. We see them being used to make very basic scalable tasks. And the results of those tasks are accessable for everyone.

The underlying assumption that everyone makes is that - *IF* - machines become sentient and kill us all off, that they will be the next step in evolution. That is the analogy you are implying. The problem with that analogy is that there is no reason to assume that these machines will form any kind of stable civilization at all. As they lack biological components, they are not dependent on life on earth or on any ecosystem. It took millions of years for our species to evolve into something stable, and our species has a vested interest in making sure that life on earth continues, and that the general course of history remain on a stable slope. As animals, we have children, and we try to create something better for them.

Machines would probably have none of that. Any machine that replaces us will probably have no ties to any specific pattern of civilization. Their entire identity could be massively unstable as technology continues to develop more and more sophisticated machines. Machines of like kind might fight each other and destroy everything on both sides in the process. Machines might "feel" a lack of purpose and simply allow their lives to extinguish. It could easily end up that such machines kill all life on the planet and then within a few years they are extinguished too.

Maybe the reason we do not hear radio signals in our galaxy from other civilizations - as theory predicts we should - is because no biological civilization is ever able to manage this transition. Maybe technology always runs away from their control, and what arises to replace the biological civilization is never stable enough to continue long-term on its own. So we never hear the radio signals because those signals only get broadcast for 100 to 200 years before everything goes dark. Very few civilizations overlap each other given such narrow time windows.

All of the above is not to express any certainty that things will happen this way. Rather, it is to make the point that we are on a very slippery path, and we should not just casually assume that the worst case is that something might replace us. The worst case - which might actually be a very probable case - is that we might create something that results in the end of life of any type.