CRISPR-Cas9, man GMO arrives, welcome to Gattaca !!

[izentrop]

Ethics is based on a moral, just the opposite of science. This is what has plunged the world into the ignorance and the omnipotence of religious from Greek civilization to the Renaissance.
The industrial era brought us "comfort" and all the knowledge that we have today, but also pollution and global warming, due to human greed.

Advances in technology may allow us to resolve this dilemma.
So much the better if ethics can no longer curb this development. The problem is the rise of nationalism and withdrawal to either which may well plunge us back under the thumb of the despots and thus deprive us of an intelligent resolution.
With a Trump playing with fire, we take the path.

[sen-no-sen]

Ethics is based on a moral, just the opposite of science.

Yes, but science is based on the study of nature and the latter is based on physical laws. These lead us to understand the universe as a living whole, therein lies the principle of ecology.
So beyond the notions of good and evil, sometimes too subjective, it is in terms of balance / imbalance that we must reason.
In addition it should not be forgotten that science is made by humans ...

The industrial era brought us "comfort" and all the knowledge that we have today, but also pollution and global warming, due to human greed.

Pollution and global warming have little to do with the greed of men, it is confusingly banal!
This is only the logical result of industrial development and the process of world transformation.
Industrial evolution had to go through the use of fossil energy and induce the current consequences in view of the dominant ideology.
If the disastrous consequences of his choices were accepted it is not out of greed but quite simply because it was the most energy dissipative model of the moment, greed is the consequence and not the cause of this disastrous outcome .

Advances in technology may allow us to resolve this dilemma.

Unfortunately, this is a very tough reasoning bias.
Technology and intelligence are presupposed are not intended to solve problems but to create them!
We do not increase muscle mass or synaptic connections by remaining apathetic, but by constantly increasing efforts (constraints would be even fairer).
Technological development is based on the principle of outsourcing, that is to say that any local advance results in an increase in global disorder and this is what is naively called "pollution"!
To believe that more technology will solve more problems is to understand nothing about the concept of technology.

The problem is the rise of nationalism and withdrawal to either which may well plunge us back under the thumb of the despots and thus deprive us of an intelligent resolution.

And it may well be that one of his despots uses his technical means against humanity, we live in the middle of technological feudalism.

[izentrop]

"Greed" might not be the right word, but bringing everything down to thermodynamics isn't necessarily the best way either. On earth, the sun still has at least 4 billion years to provide the energy that sustains life.

The damage to the environment began as soon as man was able to control it for his benefit ... in the Neolithic.
And nuance, it became a problem for the planet only from the industrial era. So we just need to identify them and reduce those that are harmful and damage the balance of ecosystems.

The scientific consensus is that the exponential rise in global warming must be quickly stopped, the main element to be monitored is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if its proportion is very low.
Some have understood the way forward http://www.slate.fr/story/100895/chine- ... climatique.
With us we favor wood / energy

It is therefore necessary to favor remedies that go in the right direction rather than looking for those responsible. If CRISPR can allow the living to be modified so that it solves these problems for us, let's go cheerfully.
How about a cyanobacterium modified to produce easily stored lignin.
To stop overfishing, cultivate genetically modified algae to make it non-toxic and appetizing.
Lots of possibilities to do what the Zumans don't want to do.

Nothing to do, but people don't want to be vaccinated anymore, let's modify the mosquito genome so that they do it for us

[sen-no-sen]

The problem of RCA is indeed likely to find a solution thanks to CRISPR case 9 but may not be the way we would like ....

[izentrop]

The week of July 2, 2018, two drugs obtained a favorable opinion for a European marketing authorization, Kymriah and Yescarta. Both show impressive results in the field of leukemias (blood cancers). Administered in young patients, for whom an initial treatment had had no effect, Kymriah allowed 83% of patients to go into remission, even with a single dose. “It's a revolution. Before, we tried to correct the defective genes by injecting a normal gene. But the defective part was still there and the DNA introduced into the body would integrate anywhere, which had even caused cancer. CRISPR makes it possible to go and introduce this gene in a safe place ”, reminds Carine Giovannangeli

Today, hundreds of laboratories use this tool. It has democratized to the point that, for a few hundred dollars, it is possible to get a kit on the internet and engage in bio hacking experiments in your kitchen. "Can it be dangerous?" Yes. As the tool is simple to use and accessible to everyone, this means that we can edit the genome as we want and make inappropriate use of it, such as eugenics. But I don't think the threat really comes through biohackers who conduct experiments in their garage, ”underlines Anne Galy.

MONSANTO, THE GMO SPECIALIST BECOMING A SUBSIDIARY OF THE BAYER GROUP, REDEEMED THE RIGHTS OF CRISPR-CAS9 IN 2016

In the food industry too, large groups do not hesitate to develop genetically modified foods. Monsanto, the GMO specialist who has become a subsidiary of the Bayer group, bought the rights to CRISPR-Cas9 in 2016 from the Broad Institute in Cambridge in the United States. The operation alerted part of the scientific community, which fears that the tool could lead to drifts.

As a precaution, the Broad Institute has issued three restrictions on the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in the contract with Monsanto. Prohibition to proceed to the “gene drive”, a technique which makes it possible to amplify a gene and which could disturb the ecosystem. No right to make seeds sterile, which risks putting farmers under the yoke of the giant firms which produce the seeds. And finally, no right to touch tobacco to make it more addictive.
https://www.numerama.com/sciences/39455 ... mains.html

[sen-no-sen]

Chinese scientist says he gave birth to 'GMO' babies resistant to HIV

A Chinese scientist claimed, Monday, November 26, to have given birth to the first genetically modified babies, an announcement seen by many researchers as crossing an ethical red line and an act "dangerous" and "irresponsible".

He Jiankui, a university professor in Shenzhen, in southern China, posted a video on YouTube announcing the birth, a few weeks ago, of two twins whose DNA was modified to make them resistant to the virus AIDS. He specifies that the father is HIV positive.

A Chinese scientist claimed, Monday, November 26, to have given birth to the first genetically modified babies, an announcement seen by many researchers as crossing an ethical red line and an act "dangerous" and "irresponsible".

He Jiankui, a university professor in Shenzhen, in southern China, posted a video on YouTube announcing the birth, a few weeks ago, of two twins whose DNA was modified to make them resistant to the virus AIDS. He specifies that the father is HIV positive.

Resistance to HIV?

The researcher, who was trained at Stanford (United States) and heads a laboratory specializing in the genome in Shenzhen, explains having used the Crispr-Cas9 technique, known as "genetic scissors", which makes it possible to remove and replace unwanted parts of the genome, like correcting a typo on a computer.

The babies, nicknamed "Lulu" and "Nana", were born after in vitro fertilization, from a modified embryo before being implanted in the mother's uterus.

"Immediately after injecting the husband's sperm into the egg, an embryologist also injected a Crispr-Cas9 protein responsible for modifying a gene to protect the little girls from future HIV infection," explains He Jiankui.

The target gene is the one that codes for CCR5, which acts as a gateway for HIV to enter cells.

He says he thus proceeded to modify the genomes of the embryos of seven couples, and resulted in a birth, that of two twins.

All the fathers concerned were HIV positive. Thanks to the elimination of the CCR5 gene from their genome, these "GMO babies" could be able to resist HIV, according to the scientist. Who declares:
"" I feel a great responsibility not only to achieve a world first, but also to make an example of it. The company will decide what it wants to do next. ""
"Unconscious"

The scientific evidence of He Jiankui will be scrutinized by the world's genetic authorities, uneasy at having been faced with a fait accompli. Several researchers have already stood up against this research. Nicholas Evans, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, deplores:
"" It is a very problematic scientific practice to announce these results via a video on YouTube. This rules out the monitoring processes on which many scientific advances are based, such as peer review. ""

"It's unconscious," said Dr. Kiran, of the University of Pennsylvania, deploring "an experiment on human beings which is neither ethically nor economically defensible. moral point of view. "

Whether the experience is proven or not, it raises "serious ethical concerns", also underlines Dr. Sarah Chan, of the University of Edinburgh, quoted by the Science Media Center. "Making such assertions in this way ... is irresponsible," she adds.

This self-proclaimed medical first has not yet been independently verified, as the results of the Chinese team have not been published in a scientific journal.
Impossible in France

This type of research would not have been possible in many countries apart from China, which has invested heavily in the field of life sciences for more than twenty years, explains Guillaume Levrier, doctoral student at Cevipof, on the site The Conversation. Research on the embryo is framed in China by a text: the "ethical rules for research on human embryonic stem cells", published in 2003 by the Ministries of Science, Technology and Health, adds the doctoral student. But these rules are subject to "interpretation" before each implementation.

In France, on the contrary, the genetic modification of human embryos can only be practiced "for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons and only if their aim is not to introduce a modification in the genome of the descendants", specifies the Oviedo Convention (for the protection of human rights and the dignity of the human being). Hen Jiankui's modifications could, if they are effective, be transmitted to the offspring of the twins.

This international first comes on the eve of a conference of world genome experts in Hong Kong, during which the researcher must present his results in more detail.

https://www.nouvelobs.com/sante/20181126.OBS6026/un-scientifique-chinois-dit-avoir-fait-naitre-des-bebes-ogm-resistants-au-vih.html

[Christophe]

I also heard this news but I didn't know it was about HIV ...

A Chinese scientist claimed, Monday, November 26, to have given birth to the first genetically modified babies, an announcement seen by many researchers as crossing an ethical red line and an act "dangerous" and "irresponsible".

Nothing dangerous there, irresponsible can be a little for the "donor" and so? It's just that, if it turns out to be news, those who haven't done it before are jealous of not being the first!

Am I cynical? A little but not that much because nothing can prevent human cloning from existing one day for X or Y reason ...

We did let nuclear weapons develop: there it was really dangerous and irresponsible! So be sure that human cloning nothing will stop it! We will try to slow it down for sure!

Besides, it would do some good: imagine Trump or Macron in front of their own clone, maybe they would realize the nuisance for humanity that they are?

Then at the time of Dolly, the sheep, nobody cried ... wolf!

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

A video which dates a little but which was transmitted to me by a friend ... I discovered this precise subject ...

[Exnihiloest]

Ethics and morals are mechanisms for regulating societies. They accompany their development, in particular by their transposition into laws as the need arises, for various reasons, to channel societal practices and facts which are gaining importance. It is part of legitimate regulation.

But today, we pretend to direct, orient, constrain societal developments in the name of a moral even before they take place, before any attempt, so as to prevent the functioning of society from emerging from individual activities and their diversity, but that it conforms to the ideology of the censors.

It's suicidal. You never know in advance how you can benefit from our experiences. I will be told that we do not know all the risks either, but then this is one more reason to try, to be able to decide on the interest or not to continue. This is how Nature has progressed for millions of years, with the success we see in it. Attempts / success / failure / selection is the right method.

That the selection includes moral criteria when it comes to human activity, it is understandable, but still it would be necessary that there are concrete things to sort out, tried, tested, and not the smoky ideas that would be made one or the other on such or such possibility which one could henceforth access thanks to the progress of our knowledge.

[izentrop]

Cocoriko

The Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded this year to Frenchwoman Emmanuelle Charpentier and American Jennifer Doudna for their work on “molecular scissors”. The Swedish Academy thus awarded the two researchers for the development of the universal genome editing system Crispr-Cas9.

While a handful of fanatics hostile to GMOs have taken the debate on plant biotechnology hostage, several teams of researchers were blazing the trail for the revolution of the century: genome editing.