LavishLoach

Ah! Scooped on the first CRISPR post. Oh well, sounds like Doc Randal's Science bona fides are beefy-er than mine anyhow. I have but a lowly BSc but one that specialized in molecular genetics none the less. So whenever the topic comes up it catches my interest. As already mentioned various systems for gene editing have been in use since the 1970ies. Many of them more difficult to work with than CRISPR Cas 9 and far less precise. On top of this CRSPR is proving to work (with some tinkering of course) in a wide range of species (even cross Kingdoms) whereas previous and other current systems often only work in a cluster of related species. My personal favorite is the Gene Gun. Its more a delivery method than a gene engineering method unto itself. The perception that Scientists don't think about ethical ramifications and the trope of the mad Scientist actually drives me crazy. I can't handle certain pieces of media because of it. I know it is blaspheme but Jurassic Park is hard for me because it plays so hard into this trope but then again we have people wanting to de-exstinct the mammoth. Majority of the Scientists do consider the ethical ramifications of their discovery as shown in the video above. I think the part that Nick noted as concerning with the expert is when he talks about engineering for traits like height or hair colour not being terribly likely. The reason for this is that any engineering is constrained by the biology. Believe it or not but editing away certain genetic disorders is easier than engineering for intelligence or athleticism or other such things associated with eugenics. Most traits are very complicated and controlled by multiple genes that take cues from environmental factors. Doe that mean some people might not try? Hard to say. The British Medical Bulletin has a pretty good review of ethical issues related to CRISPR The National Academy of Sciences just recently released a report concluding for the first time it might be permissible to edit the human germ-line, see here. Not a decision taken lightly but for certain genetic disorders like Huntington's it might be more permissible. Some Chinese Scientists have already run trails on nonviable human embryos. They weren't terribly successful mind you but they none the less generate data which will allow them to refine it: Whether or not Trump is willing to fund Science other countries may and will. China most certainly is and has been investing heavily in Science. The Bejing Genomics Institute is one of the biggest genome sequencing centers. So far no one's mention the patent fight that's happening over CRISPR. Zheng Feng of the Broad institute and Jennifer Douda of Bearkly are currently throwing down in the courts as I type this. Kishore Hari gave a pretty good lay explanation on last week's episode of This is only a Test. Here Skip to 1:03:11. I finally if you're interested in learning more about genetics and it's dark sibling eugenics I would recommend Siddhartha Mukerjee's book "The Gene" (he is also author of Emperor of all Maladies which is about cancer). He's a oncologist and research Scientist. I'm not all the way through but so far it's good. If you don't have time for a book or have a titanic reading list he recently did a very interesting interview on Sam Harris's podcast. MASSIVE CAVEAT (Please read before proceeding) I am no fan of Sam Harris. Quite frankly I suspect he is of the same intellectual caliber as many of the early eugenicists that are discussed in the actual interview. Intelligent but he can't see the forest for his own ego. For all his grousing about others lacking intellectual honesty I think he lacks it himself (but that's the trouble with that arguement. Infinitely recursive finger pointing). Rarely have I heard him acknowledge how hard Science and the collection of good data is. Yet he beats people over the head with supposedly reliable data sets without acknowledging that they could be flawed or missing something else. So why would I recommend bothering with an episode of his podcast? Well I think Mr. Harris's academic grade motivated reasoning provides an excellent foil for Siddhartha Mukherjee's cogent, historically informed, and carefully thought through perspective on the topic. If that hasn't discouraged you. The interview can be found here. Skip to 32:12 for the actual interview. There's stuff at the top of the show that isn't strictly relevant but might given you the measure of Mr. Harris. The attempted hoaxing of a humanities journal he talks about is a whooooole other weird thing that despite his jubilation has largely backfired on its authors. Not to mention his interview with Charles Murray which he is surprised and indignant over the blow back he's receiving.