[BartSimpson]

From the San Diego Tribune (buggy site, no link - I like you people too much to do that!)

$1:

Monday, February 29, 2016

It’s being called a “game changer,” the biggest advance in genomics in years. A tool that could help develop better ways to treat everything from cancer to obesity.

But does the powerful new gene editing tool CRISPR represent hope or hype? Have scientists merely come up with a flashy new piece of technology?

And what about using it to modify human embryos? Are “designer babies” next?
The questions will get a hard look Thursday and Friday in La Jolla when some of the nation’s top scientists meet to size up the state of medical genomics, a field that’s long struggled to meet hopes and expectations for improving human health.

The Future of Genomic Medicine — an annual symposium known for blunt talk about big ideas — also will highlight a pair of emerging genetic tests. One screens fetal DNA for Down syndrome. The other searches for mutated DNA thrown off by tumors. The goal of both: Early detection of potential health problems.

The line-up also features Anne Wojcicki, chief executive of 23andMe. She will talk about efforts to rebuild her company, which was slammed by the FDA in 2013 for selling the public genetic test kits of dubious scientific value. Wojcicki has since gained FDA backing for some of the testing.

She’ll speak a short time after the symposium hears from George Church, the famed Harvard geneticist who says it may be possible to use genomics to greatly slow aging. Church is a baby boomer who says he’s eager to press the matter.
There will definitely be a reality check from Eric Topol, the La Jolla cardiologist-geneticist who founded the conference nine years ago. He believes that genomics continues, to significant degree, to be hobbled by doctors who simply refuse to evolve.

“We can easily obtain DNA sequence data for anyone,” said Topol, chief executive of the Scripps Translational Science Institute. “But the medical community is still not grounded in genomics. Surveys show that doctors aren’t comfortable using it in patient care. That’s a serious problem.”

Topol also said that, to a degree, the public is “fearful about genomic data because they think that it might be used against them by their employer or a life insurance company. There’s a lot of confusion, and a lack of knowledge.”
That is especially true about CRISPR, a gene-editing tool developed in the past few years. Scientists are enthralled by the technology, which makes it faster, easier and cheaper to delete, replace or repair genes. It can be used to change any living organism.

UC San Diego used CRISPR to genetically tweak mosquitoes in hopes of making the insects less likely to spread malaria. Researchers say the tool will be useful in longer-term efforts to find ways to neutralize HIV, kill tumors and slow the progression of dementia.

Scientists have been editing genes with limited success for decades. CRISPR represents a potentially major advance — and one fraught with ethical issues.
When hundreds of scientists met in Washington, D.C., in December to discuss gene editing there was lots of agonizing about whether CRISPR should be used to modify human embryos to prevent such things as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease. Such changes could be a step toward changing an unborn baby’s genes to produce specific characteristics or traits, such as intelligence and physical beauty.

Nobel laureate David Baltimore told the gathering: “We could be on the cusp of a new era in human history. Today, we sense that we are close to being able to alter human heredity. Now we must face the questions that arise. How, if at all, do we as a society want to use this capability?”

The Washington meeting generated lots of news coverage. But there’s also been a very nasty public dispute among star scientists over who invented CRISPR. That’s added to the public’s confusion about a subject that’s already hard to understand. Indeed, scientists haven’t made the topic easy for the public; CRISPR is an acronym that stands for clustered regulatory interspace short palindromic repeat.

The public’s confusion and anxiety about gene editing and therapy is embodied in a new national survey conducted in January by the Harvard School of Public Health and the life sciences website Stat.

The survey involved 1,000 adults, almost 70 percent of whom said they knew little or nothing about the subject of modifying the genes of unborn babies to promote health, intelligence, or physical traits.

The survey also asked: “If a genetic test was available that could tell you whether or not you were likely to develop cancer or Alzheimer’s disease in the future, would you want to take the test or not?”

Fixty-six percent of the respondents said that they would want to take the test.
There’s long been hope — and expectation — that scientists would create such tests and come up with treatments for any problems that are discovered.

When President Bill Clinton accepted the draft of the first complete human genome in 2000, he said, “Genome science will have a real impact on all our lives — and even more, on the lives of our children. It will revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases.”
Since then, there have been many notable advances, especially when it comes to screening people for their risk of developing certain diseases. The progress was underscored by actress Angelina Jolie in 2015 when she publicly announced that she had her breasts and ovaries removed after a genetic test revealed that she had a high risk of developing cancer.

There also have been significant advances in prenatal health, including a new test that screens fetuses for Down syndrome and other chromosomal disorders. The test represents an alternative to amniocentesis, which is invasive and can cause miscarriages.

But genomics has yet to lead to dozens of new drugs that effectively treat a broad number of diseases and disorders. Scientists are really just beginning to understand which genes can cause trouble, and how, when and why that happens.
“I don’t know who expected things to happen faster (in medical science),” said Dr. Muin J. Khoury, director of the Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. “People in clinical health weren’t expecting miracles.
“The proper way to look at genomic medicine is as an evolution, not a revolution.”

Will that change? Maybe.

Topol says, “So far, we’ve sequenced about one million genomes worldwide. By 2025 that number will be a billion, and each genome sequence will be far more informative. We’ll have far more potential to help preventing, even preempting, medical conditions.

[BartSimpson]

Imagine being able to custom design a child? If you can afford it, of course.

I suppose my thought here is that this is already happening.

[Thanos]

That's the issue isn't it? It's not that the tech can't be used for vast improvements, like the elimination of every genetic-based disease. It's that in it's initial stages it will only be affordable to the wealthy. Given the way they regard anyone who isn't one of them what happens if they use the tech to make themselves practically immortal while the other 99.9% of the population remains as disposable klooges? Is there any best-interest involved at all in letting this kind of tech be available to egomaniacs who already see themselves as gods simply because they have more money than everyone else put together? The tech can either usher in utopia where the pains and agonies of past generations no longer afflict anyone. Or it can be used to build the most pervasive, and permanent, tyranny ever seen. Hope I'm long gone from the scene before it gets too widespread because in pure human fashion the absolute worst thing will likely happen before the best one ever will.

[raydan]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Imagine being able to custom design a child? If you can afford it, of course.

I suppose my thought here is that this is already happening.

I think I read a book once about a society where the rich had designer children... really created 2 separate classes.

Then there's Perfect People by Peter James.

[ShepherdsDog]

Geneering would be nice. Just got my blood work results back....not good. Would like to have my kids and their descendents avoid these complications.

[BartSimpson]

Well, pretty much any advanced healthcare is initially open only to the wealthy but after a while the prices drop and the rest of us can start to afford it. It's the way of the world.

[BartSimpson]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Geneering would be nice. Just got my blood work results back....not good. Would like to have my kids and their descendents avoid these complications.

If I had kids I think I'd be right there with you on that one.

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Well, pretty much any advanced healthcare is initially open only to the wealthy but after a while the prices drop and the rest of us can start to afford it. It's the way of the world.

Not this kind of tech, and especially not if it starts out as the exclusive preserve of the alleged elite.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Well, pretty much any advanced healthcare is initially open only to the wealthy but after a while the prices drop and the rest of us can start to afford it. It's the way of the world.

That depends on how it's used. In a Free Market Healthcare system, ya, that's how it would be used. In a more Socialistic or other system focused on Need, that can be avoided.

[xerxes]

So far, this is theoretical at best. But I'll admit some applications I think would be useful. If we could get rid of genetic issues like Cerebal palsy, Downs, etc. Or even less life altering things. In my case, if I ever have kids there's a good chance they'll have a ton of allergies, exceptionally bad eyesight, poorly designed feet and bad hair.

Or in the case of one of my cousins, he literally is deathly allergic to almost everything there is to eat save for the blandest and most tasteless food. If we could get rid of shit like that, I'm for it.

But then there are the greater philosophical issues to think of. Setting aside the sci-fi dystopias, there are these genetic maladies because of evolution. To subvert and even negate evolutionary things like this will likely open up a pandora's box no one can anticipate. It is a cold reality, but ages ago, people with birth defects and other chronic medical problems wouldn't have survived. It's only because of modern medicine that they do.

So as usual, I'm of two minds about this ....

[sandorski]

xerxes xerxes:

So far, this is theoretical at best. But I'll admit some applications I think would be useful. If we could get rid of genetic issues like Cerebal palsy, Downs, etc. Or even less life altering things. In my case, if I ever have kids there's a good chance they'll have a ton of allergies, exceptionally bad eyesight, poorly designed feet and bad hair.

Or in the case of one of my cousins, he literally is deathly allergic to almost everything there is to eat save for the blandest and most tasteless food. If we could get rid of shit like that, I'm for it.

But then there are the greater philosophical issues to think of. Setting aside the sci-fi dystopias, there are these genetic maladies because of evolution. To subvert and even negate evolutionary things like this will likely open up a pandora's box no one can anticipate. It is a cold reality, but ages ago, people with birth defects and other chronic medical problems wouldn't have survived. It's only because of modern medicine that they do.

So as usual, I'm of two minds about this ....

I disagree. Evolution doesn't have Reasons for these things. It's not trying to do anything with intent. Some people just inherit these conditions.

[Vamp018]

Talk about walking a Double Edge Medical Scalpel of Ethics. It's Theoretical and open to Controversy, Interpretation.

[housewife]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Geneering would be nice. Just got my blood work results back....not good. Would like to have my kids and their descendents avoid these complications.

I'm with you on that one.

[housewife]

Oh and there is a small chance of a genetic drift during pregnancy. A sad fact I could have lived my whole life never knowing

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Well, pretty much any advanced healthcare is initially open only to the wealthy but after a while the prices drop and the rest of us can start to afford it. It's the way of the world.

That depends on how it's used. In a Free Market Healthcare system, ya, that's how it would be used. In a more Socialistic or other system focused on Need, that can be avoided.

In a more socialistic system genetic engineering will be used to create a population of docile, compliant workers who will serve the elites without question. If their health is bad I doubt that the leadership will give a fuck about their health any more than the Castro brothers do about the average Cuban.

When the Castro brothers are sick either they fly in the best doctors from Spain or they go to Spain themselves.

Everyone else gets dick for healthcare.