NGKUR: NYTimes -Biologists call for halt to gene editing

[joy]

We use Crispr in lab. We change cell lines with it to study the effects of losing certain genes. I was completely unaware that people were considering using it in humans.

There are soooooo many rules to handling animal experiments in labs: ethical approval, protocol approval, etc. We need to have approval on what instrument, where on the mouse and how large a section can be shaved on a mouse's back. That's how regimented animal work is. This is a new technique that could be used in humans in some settings so the protocols are not in place. The ethics are not in place!! These scientists are just asking for a pause to let the reality catch up with the invention.

I think all my feels on using this in humans cannot possibly be captured in a short reply. I need to mull over the idea of removing - say - the CF gene from humans forever. what about rhe gene for sickle cell anemia? Carrying one allele protects against malaria. Some of this stuff isn't cut and dry - it's a huge teeter totter with a spectrum of implications.

EDIT: The other thing that needs to mentioned that Crispr isn't a guarantee.  Just because you want to fiddle with a gene doesn't mean that you will be able to.  We have plenty of examples in lab right now of trying to devlop Crispr towards a gene and it's turning out to be very difficult. 

[nerdykitten]

I would agree with Joy that there are so many things that need to be discussed about this issue. Would it be amazing to be able to remove the genes that cause certain diseases/cancers or add one to protect against others? Absolutely, but what would the cost be? Do I think we should be messing around with genes to increase intellect and beauty? No, but I bet there are people who would want that which could be a slippery slope; it makes me think of Brave New World a little bit. Everyone has different ideas of what is and is not ethical so there has to be some sort of guidelines before humanity really starts using this invention. I think it is really rational of these scientist to ask for us to take a pause to figure these things out before doing trials.

[acorn99]

I have been thinking this over and I am so thankful to joy, for being so much more eloquent than me. I also work in research and we are trying to make this technique work for us (with very limited success so far). The oversight of work with lab animals is so very strict, and the work with human subjects is a thousand times more restricted that I have a really hard time believing that we are even close to using it on human subjects in the near future.

I do not even want to get into the ethics of using it. I see both the pros and cons of it, but I do not think I could discuss it with enough clarity to do it justice, especially on the interwebs where i lack the skills to put my thoughts into words.

[ceejay]

Good responses, everyone!!!

I also work in science, and I've believed for a while that gene therapy is really going to be important in healthcare going forward - there is so much research in gene therapy right now and I believe a lot of good can come from that. But as this article explained, there is a big difference between gene therapy and permanently altering the genome. I think that good could potentially come from both, but I agree that there is much research and discussion necessary before anyone can decide what limits to place on using CRISPR technologies in humans. It's hard to know exactly what the long term implications are for removing/altering a "bad" gene when that same gene may have some currently unknown interactions with other genes that could be crucial and beneficial. Interesting article... thanks for sharing, @pineappleoranges!