Stanford University is a private research university in Stanford, California, adjacent to Palo Alto and between San Jose and San Francisco. Stanford had expanded their research and has now ventured into scientific research about vaccines. They have genetically engineered mice to glow like fireflies. Yes, you heard it right glowing mice. Researchers at Stanford have developed a way to extract firefly proteins and introduce it to the mice specimen. This is envisioned to aid in the treatment and cure of patients with cancer.

According to the co-author of the study, Professor Christopher Contag, this study demonstrated for the first time that we can deliver messenger RNA (mRNA) to cells in a dish, or to cells in organs of living animals. The mRNA is the intermediate between the genome and functional proteins. Prior to this work there has not been an effective way to transfer synthetic mRNA into cells in a way that the cell can turn it into protein. This opens up an entirely new way to have cells express proteins that can treat a myriad of diseases. The research was featured and published in the recent paper journal entitled, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Video Courtesy of Youtube:

In the study, protein expression using mRNA has the ability to transform multiple areas for research, including the prevention, detection and treatment of disease. Functional delivery of mRNA to tissues in the body is key to implementing fundamentally new and potentially transformative strategies for vaccination, protein replacement therapy, and genome editing, collectively affecting approaches for the prevention, detection, and treatment of disease. This is, in particular, quite a challenge for the team because the mRNA is negatively charged; the cell membrane is positive so the transmission of the two is incompatible. To override this imbalance, the scientists came up with a way to create a vehicle for the mRNA. To test that, the specimen mice came into the picture.

Professor Paul Wender from Stanfords department of Chemistry and is one of the authors of the research said that, What we did was to use mRNA that codes for an optical readout, meaning one that we could see. In this case that meant light coming out of a cell. Its the fastest way of discovering whether you have succeeded in getting something into a cell, by getting it to shoot photons back at you. The study was a success that no adverse effects on the test subject were observed. The experiment worked for a few hours, and eventually subsided in 24 to 48 hours after. This experiment also showed a possibility of extending that desired effect by manipulating the DNA involved.

The research is still young as it will need more nurturing and sleepless nights to fully develop it into maturity. Being able to manipulate mRNA transmission and its genetic engineering means more possibilities for learning and being able to create new things. Science is a very complex subject but also very rewarding. The little things you focus on will grow out to affect the biggest if done right. We just hope stability of findings would occur soon so that it can be used for the benefit of the general public.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:
Genetic Engineering to Alter mRNA to Pave a New Way for Cancer Treatment - Mobile Magazine

Sickle cell disease. Image: Flickr

Sickle cell disease is a slow, vicious killer. Most people diagnosed with the red blood cell disorder in the US live to be between 40 and 60. But those years are a lifetime of pain, as abnormal, crescent-shaped hemoglobin stops up blood flow and deprives tissues of oxygen, causing frequent bouts of agony, along with more severe consequences like organ damage. Now, after decades of searching for a cure, researchers are announcing that, in at least one patient, they seem to have found a very promising treatment.

Two years ago, a French teen with sickle cell disease underwent a gene therapy treatment intended to help his red blood cells from sickling. In a paper published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers revealed that today, half of his red blood cells have normal-shaped hemoglobin. He has not needed a blood transfusion, which many sickle cell patients receive to reduce complications from the disease, since three months after his treatment. He is also off all medicines.

To reiterate, the paper is a case study of just one patient. Bluebird Bio, the Massachusetts biotech company that sponsored the clinical trial, has treated at least six other trials underway in the US and France, but those results have not yet been fully reported. The gene therapy has not worked quite as well in some of those other patients; researchers say they are adjusting the therapy accordingly. It is also possible that the boy may eventually experience some blood flow blockages again in the future.

The results, though early, are encouraging. They represent the promise of new genetics technologies to address a disease that has long been neglected and tinged with racism. Sickle cell disease affects about 100,000 people in the US, most of whom are black. It is an inherited genetic disease caused by a mutation of a single letter in a persons genetic code.

This single-letter mutation makes it a promising candidate for cutting edge technologies, like the gene-editing technique CRISPR-Cas9, and other gene therapies. Recently, a rush of new research has sought to address it. Two other gene therapy studies for sickle cell are underway in the US one at UCLA and another at Cincinnati Childrens Hospital. Yet another is about to start in a collaboration between Harvard and Boston Childrens Hospital. Last fall, researchers all demonstrated the ability to correct the mutation in human cells using CRISPR, though that strategy will yet have to surpass significant scientific and political hurdles before reaching clinical trials.

In the new study, researchers took bone marrow stem cells from the boy and fed them corrected versions of a gene that codes for beta-globin, a protein that helps produce normal hemoglobin. The hope was that those altered stem cells would interfere with the boys faulty proteins and allow his red blood cells to function normally. They continued the transfusions until the transplanted cells began to produce normal-shaped hemoglobin. In the following months, the numbers of those cells continued to increase until in December 2016, they accounted for more than half the red blood cells in his body. In other words, so far so good.

Currently, the only long-term treatment for sickle cell disease is a bone marrow transplant, a high-risk, difficult procedure which many patients are not even eligible for. Pain and other side-effects are treated with blood transfusions for temporary relief. New technologies offer the hope of a solution that could provide long-term relief and allow patients to live some semblance of a normal life.

For decades, gene therapies have been touted as a cure for everything. But so far, successes have been infrequent, and often for very rare diseases. But early success in treating sickle cell disease means that soon, if were lucky, the benefits of this technology may reach hundreds of thousands of people.

[New England Journal of Medicine]

Here is the original post:

Will Sickle Cell Be the Next Disease Genetic Engineering Cures? - Gizmodo

Centuries of inbreeding have left many dog breeds with a severely limited gene pool, and this lack of genetic diversity is to blame for disorders like brachycephaly in bulldogs, hyperuricemia in dalmations, and cardiomyopathy in boxers.

[David] Ishee is a breeder from rural Mississippi whos on a mission to change all this.

Youd think that to tweak the genome of an animal, some serious training and education would be necessarymaybe a post-graduate biology degree or several years working in the lab of a large genetics company.

But in a prime example of both the democratization and demonetization of technology, Ishee taught himself to do genetic engineering right in his own backyard shed, using a kit and some DNA he ordered online.

In Ishees opinion, genetic engineering and selective breeding arent all that different. CRISPR doesnt allow us to do anything we couldnt do before. Its just a bit easier, cheaper and faster, he said. Breeding gives you a lot less control and fewer degrees of freedom. But as far as the ethics is concerned, youre doing the exact same thing.

When you think about genetic engineering, you think of PhDs in white coats working in multi-million-dollar labs. The idea of a dog breeder in rural Mississippi doing genetic engineering in his shed is insane. But thats how you know youre in the future, right?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Would You Want a Dog That Was Genetically Engineered to Be Healthier?

See original here:
Designer dogs? In pursuit of the perfect, healthy canine companion - Genetic Literacy Project

The potential and power of genetic engineering looms over the first trailer released for the upcoming Netflix film Okja. Directed by Snowpiercers Bong Joon-ho, the films star is a genetically modified animal who is friends with a young girl and is being hunted by a multinational company. This companys business is genetic modification, and its headed by an icy-blond Tilda Swinton. While Okja is being pegged as science fiction, the fictional part of this film is actually pretty slim: The science that it would take to make such a creature is already in the works.

I took nature and science, Swintons character says in the trailer, clasping her hands. And I synthesized. Shes talking about the massive animal at the heart of the story.

We dont know too much about it: Den of Geek reports that the animal was an experiment that is now growing rapidly, while the films description in Korean describes Okja as somewhere between human and animal. The new trailer only gives us a small look at the creature, whose shape appears to be a pig-hippo crossover with tender brown eyes.

That genetic modification would create a massive creature is not preposterous: Scientists have already used CRISPR technology to increase the size and mass of common animals. In 2015, biotech company AquaBounty Technologies revealed that it genetically modified Atlantic salmon by adding a growth hormone gene and a promoter of an antifreeze gene to the fish. This created much larger salmon that grow at a speed two times faster than average. Double-muscled beagles broke into the CRISPR scene in early 2016, when Chinese researchers from the Guangzhou Institute of Biomedicine and Health announced they used CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology to delete the myostatin gene from the normally small-muscled dogs. These beagles not only look like theyre on steroids theyre stronger and can run faster than their unmodified peers.

Real-life animals that seem more suited for a fantasy novel arent out of the question either: In a 2016 essay in The American Journal of Bioethics, professors Hank Greely and R. Alta Charo argue that creating a dragon yes, a dragon wasnt impossible with CRISPR technology. Sure, physics would prevent it from actually spitting out fire, but a very large reptile that looks at least somewhat like the European or Asian dragon (perhaps with flappable if not flyable wings) could be someones target of opportunity, they write.

And if Okja is indeed somewhere between human and animal and this is a literal explanation, rather than an anthropomorphic sentiment the science is almost there as well. At the end of January, scientists declared they had created pig-human chimeras. These embryos were less than 0.001 percent human and were created with the hope that they could one day allow us to grow human organs inside animals not actual pig-humans. Still, its proof that what seemed like science fiction only decade prior can actually become a reality. Okja the film may seem like science fiction when its released this June, but it could very well be pegged as a documentary in the years to come.

Photos via Giphy/YouTube

View post:
Netflix Movie 'Okja' Teases Uncontrolled Genetic Modification | Inverse - Inverse

BOISE, Idaho -- Three types of potatoes genetically engineered to resist the pathogen that caused the Irish potato famine are safe for the environment and safe to eat, federal officials have announced.

The approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration late last week gives Idaho-based J.R. Simplot Company permission to plant the potatoes this spring and sell them in the fall.

Play Video

New research shows that women who eat a lot of potatoes may be more likely to develop gestational diabetes. CBS News' Danielle Nottingham reports...

The company said the potatoes contain only potato genes, and that the resistance to late blight, the disease that caused the Irish potato famine, comes from an Argentine variety of potato that naturally produced a defense.

The three varieties are the Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet and Atlantic. Theyve previously been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

All three varieties have the same taste and texture and nutritional qualities as conventional potatoes, said Simplot spokesman Doug Cole.

Late blight thrives in the type of wetter conditions that led to the Irish potato famine in the 1840s. Potatoes were a main staple, but entire crops rotted in the field. Historical records say about a million people died of starvation and disease, and the number of Irish who emigrated might have reached several million.

Potatoes in modern times are considered the fourth food staple crop in the world behind corn, rice and wheat. Late blight continues to be a major problem for potato growers, especially in wetter regions. Fungicides have been used for decades to prevent the blight.

Simplot says the genetically engineered potatoes reduce the use of fungicide by half.

The company said the potatoes will also have reduced bruising and black spots, enhanced storage capacity, and a reduced amount of a chemical created when potatoes are cooked at high temperatures thats a potential carcinogen.

Play Video

Foodies will welcome any word that things once thought to be bad for your health might actually be good. That applies to potatoes. Serena Altschu...

Conventional potatoes can turn a dark color when cooked after they were kept cold for too long, a problem Simplot said the three new varieties reduce. The company also said the enhanced cold storage will likely have significant ramifications for the potato chip industry by reducing trucking costs.

There is no evidence that genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, are unsafe to eat, but for some people, altering the genetic code of foods presents an ethical issue. McDonalds continues to decline to use Simplots genetically engineered potatoes for its French fries.

Simplot often notes the potatoes contain only potato genes, and not DNA from an unrelated organism. Organisms that contain DNA from an unrelated organism are defined as transgenic.

The Washington state-based Non-GMO Project that opposes GMOs and verifies non-GMO food and products said Simplots new potatoes dont qualify as non-GMO.

Play Video

By some estimates, 80 percent of all processed foods - cereals, baby formula, canned soups and more - contain at least one genetically-modified o...

There is a growing attempt on the part of biotechnology companies to distance themselves from the consumer rejection of GMOs by claiming that new types of genetic engineering ... are not actually genetic engineering, the group said in a statement.

The most recent federal approvals apply to Simplots second generation of Innate potatoes. The first generation that went through the federal approval process didnt include protection from late blight or enhanced cold storage.

The first generation of Innate potatoes has been sold in stores under the White Russet label. Cole said the company hasnt decided how it will market the second generation.

The company is currently at work on a third generation that Cole said will have protections against additional strains of late blight, all coming from genes within the potato species.

2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Follow this link:
FDA, EPA approve 3 types of genetically engineered potatoes - CBS News

These piglets could be protected from an infection that costs the swine industry billions each year. Image: Laura Dow, The Roslin Institute

For pig farmers, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome is a disaster. Once dubbed the mystery swine disease, it emerged in the late 1980's on farms in Europe and the US and spread rapidly, causing piglets to die and adult pigs to be afflicted with fever, lethargy, and respiratory distress. It is a major problem facing pig farmers, costing the industry billions each year.

Now the same research organization that brought us Dolly the sheep thinks it may have a solution: Scientists at University of Edinburghs Roslin Institute have genetically engineered pigs to be resistant to the virus that causes the disease.

In a new paper published in PLOS Pathogens, the scientists reported that they used the genetic engineering technique CRISPR-Cas9 to delete a small slice of one particular gene that previous studies have shown plays a key role in enabling the PRRS virus to establish an infection. The edits were made early in the embryonic stage, removing the bit of gene in a laboratory while the piglets were still merely zygotes then implanting the embryos into mother pigs. Litters of healthy piglets with that genetic tweak have since been born, and some have even gone on to have their own litters with the inherited edit.

Early tests found that cells from the pigs were entirely resistant to infection from both major strains of the virus. The next step will be to test whether the pigs themselves are resistant to infection when actually exposed to the virus.

The study builds on earlier research that has showed pigs that entirely lack a protein called CD163 do not become ill when exposed to the PRRS virus. CD163 exists on the surface of immune cells called macrophages, and its presence seems to help PRRS take hold in a pigs body and spread. So the Roslin Institute researchers simply deleted a portion of the CD163 gene. So far, it has not shown any signs of adversely affecting the pigs.

In both the US and Europe, regulations and attitudes toward GMOs could make it hard to make such pigs commercially available. But if it works, the super pigs are sure to be in demand among both pig farmers and lovers of bacon.

See the rest here:
Genetically Engineered Super Pigs Could Make Your Bacon Better - Gizmodo

Venkatraman Venki' Ramakrishnan, the Indian born structural biologist who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2009 with two other scientists, cautioned against the risks associated with recent developments in biotechnology. Ramakrishnan spoke about the issue at the annual meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston.

Many of the genetic cells could be treated by removing cells from the body and modifying it, he said while addressing one of the major ethical concerns related to genetic engineering. Treating a well-known genetic disease is something that many people would agree with. It gets trickier when someone says, I consider being a brown guy in today's atmosphere a problem and don't want my children to go through that'.

Currently the President of the Royal Society of London, he said, I grew up in India where lot of people still don't have access to enough food, and cancer survival rates remain one of the lowest in the world. But in UK and US people have far greater access to healthcare. He added, When we decide what to do with the technology that we have, we need to consider not only what we can do, but also what we should do. He also said that the benefits of new technology should not be limited to a few rich countries.

Genetic engineering remains a debated topic among the scientists as well as the general people. We now have a much wider range of tools at our disposal. They are making genetic manipulation faster, easier and simpler, Ramakrishnan said referring to the easier production of insulin, vaccines and the availability of genetically modified crops that give a better yield.

The Nobel laureate was of the opinion that scientists need to address the concerns that the people have and that there must be public debate along with robust science.

If you were to say wipe out mosquitoes, many people won't complain. This may not necessarily be the right thing to do, he explained. There is a natural worry if you would be able to reverse it if there was some kind of problem, he said. Referring to the food shortage in many of the developing countries including India, he pointed out that technology like genetic engineering of crops could help us increase the yield.

The rest is here:

Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan weighs in on future of genetic engineering - Daily News & Analysis

Since the discovery of the genome-editing tool CRISPR/Cas9, scientists have been looking to utilize the technology to make a significant impact on correcting genetic diseases. Technical challenges have made it difficult to use this method to correct disorders that are caused by single-nucleotide mutations, such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Huntington's disease, and phenylketonuria. However now, researchers from the Center for Genome Engineering, within the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) in Korea, have just used a variation of CRISPR/Cas9 to produce mice with single-nucleotide differences. The findings from this new study were published recently in Nature Biotechnology in an article entitled Highly Efficient RNA-Guided Base Editing in Mouse Embryos.

Although genome editing with programmable nucleases such as CRISPRCas9 or Cpf1 systems holds promise for gene correction to repair genetic defects that cause genetic diseases, it is technically challenging to induce single-nucleotide substitutions in a targeted manner, the authors wrote. This is because most DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) produced by programmable nucleases are repaired by error-prone non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) rather than homologous recombination (HR) using a template donor DNA. As a result, insertion/deletions (indels) are obtained much more frequently at a nuclease target site than are single-nucleotide substitutions.

The most frequently used CRISPR/Cas9 technique works by cutting around the faulty nucleotide in both strands of the DNA and cuts out a small part of DNA. In the current study, the investigators used a variation of the Cas9 protein (nickase Cas9, or nCas9) fused with an enzyme called cytidine deaminase, which can substitute one nucleotide into anothergenerating single-nucleotide substitutions without DNA deletions.

Read more:

An Efficient Single-Nucleotide-Editing CRISPR - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Watch the full show online! Visit the Explore More Genetic Engineering video page...

Would you want to clone your pet? Would you change your child's eye color? Do you care if your strawberry contains a gene for fish?

Explore More: Genetic Engineering tells you the story, gives you the facts, and then takes a closer look to help you unravel the core issues. Take a look at and interact with the content. Discuss what you learn with other people, form your own opinion on the subjects, but always keep an open mind.

As you go through this site, think about how genetic engineering is changing the way we live. This is a fascinating area that deserves our attention. Decisions and choices we make in our lifetime will affect how and why genetic engineering is used.

Investigate Explore More Teacher Resources WebQuests, Web links, lesson plans, teaching strategies, discussion questions, standards, and project goals help you leverage Explore More content to help student achievement and motivation. Get your students thinking with this useful collection of tools and tips! Find out more.

Go here to read the rest:

Explore More: Genetic Engineering - iptv.org

Reuters file photo

MUNICH Microsoft founder Bill Gates said at the Munich Security Conference that genetic engineering could be a terrorist weapon and may kill tens of millions of people.

The next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus or a super contagious and deadly strain of the flu, Gates made the remarks on Saturday.

Having spent billions of U.S. dollars in a philanthropic drive to improve health worldwide, Gates said that bio-terrorism could kill more than 30 million people in less than a year.

Furthermore, he predicted that there is a possibility our globe will experience such an outbreak in the next 10 to 15 years.

Some intelligence agencies have noticed that the Islamic State has been trying to develop biological weapons at its bases in Syria and Iraq, according to the Guardian.

Although the threat seems tiny due to technological support and manpower, the pressure from bio-terrorism has become more and more realistic in the past years.

Getting ready for a global pandemic is every bit as important as nuclear deterrence and avoiding a climate catastrophe. Innovation, cooperation and careful planning can dramatically mitigate the risks presented by each of these threats, said Gates.

Read more:
Genetic engineering could become terrorist weapon Bill Gates ... - InterAksyon

Reuters file photo

MUNICH Microsoft founder Bill Gates said at the Munich Security Conference that genetic engineering could be a terrorist weapon and may kill tens of millions of people.

The next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus or a super contagious and deadly strain of the flu, Gates made the remarks on Saturday.

Having spent billions of U.S. dollars in a philanthropic drive to improve health worldwide, Gates said that bio-terrorism could kill more than 30 million people in less than a year.

Furthermore, he predicted that there is a possibility our globe will experience such an outbreak in the next 10 to 15 years.

Some intelligence agencies have noticed that the Islamic State has been trying to develop biological weapons at its bases in Syria and Iraq, according to the Guardian.

Although the threat seems tiny due to technological support and manpower, the pressure from bio-terrorism has become more and more realistic in the past years.

Getting ready for a global pandemic is every bit as important as nuclear deterrence and avoiding a climate catastrophe. Innovation, cooperation and careful planning can dramatically mitigate the risks presented by each of these threats, said Gates.

Follow this link:

Genetic engineering could become terrorist weapon Bill Gates - InterAksyon

CRISPR technology offers potential for genetic manipulation by Kpakpando Anyanwu | Feb 23 2017 | 02/23/17 1:32am

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats offer the potential to manipulate specific DNA sequences or entire genomes. At the University, use of this technology specifically focuses on practical significance.

[CRISPR] describes a DNA sequence pattern which was first reported in E. coli in 1987, but the acronym was not introduced until 2002 along with Cas (CRISPR-associated proteins), Assoc. Medical Prof. Wenhao Xu said in an email to the Cavalier Daily. The function of CRISPR/Cas was revealed in 2005 as the acquired immunity against viruses in prokaryotes. The system was reconstructed in a test tube as a tool for programmable genome editing in a landmark publication in 2012. Quickly, the system was shown to work effectively in both human cell lines and mice.

Xus focus with CRISPR has been intensively concentrated in the Genetically Engineered Murine Model core.

The GEMM began to adopt the CRISPR technology only one week after the [2012] publication on mice and made the first CRISPR mouse at U.Va. eight weeks after, Xu said. We have now successfully generated more than 100 CRISPR mice including knockouts and knock-ins.

CRISPR enables engineers to use mice as primary models mimicking both human structure and function that can then be used to study human diseases.

Following a process of differentiation, cells are typically fated to remain in specific organs and serve a particular function. Stem cells retain the potential to develop into different cell types. A distinct characteristic of CRISPR is its ability to change a cells fate.

In our body, we have about 200 different cell types and they all come from single cells called rhizomes, Asst. Medical Prof. Mazhar Adli said. Stem cells basically differentiate, and become all sorts of different cells in our body.

The Adli lab focuses on understanding genome-level regulation in development, specifically researching cancer pathogenesis and treatment. Use of the CRISPR/CAS9 system and the genetic manipulation it allows provide a means of monitoring cellular state transitions during normal and malignant development.

Due to its extensive use and benefits in the field of genetic engineering, CRISPR is regarded as an advanced system with the potential to alter the future of the medical field.

CRISPR is now becoming a widely-used technology tool for research and clinical trials, Adli said.

At the University, the technology offers insight into the relationship between genes, cells and disease facilitating the discovery of new ways for the improvement of health.

Genetic engineering is not new, and yet the CRISPR as a powerful and precise genome editing tool holds a tremendous promise for understanding and treating many human genetic disorders in the future, Xu said.

Read the original here:

Silent force behind U.Va. genetic engineering - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

New recommendations for human genome editing

Given how controversial genetically modified corn is, it's no wonder that the prospect of genetically modifying humans pushes a lot of people's buttons. But we already have gene therapies, and new technologies are making it faster, safer, and less expensive to modify the human genome in a range of ways. That has the science community and policymakers scrambling to set responsible guidelines for the use of genome editing.

In 2015, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing recommended holding off until the methods could be shown safe and effective, and until there was some public consensus about their use. Last week, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine released recommendations that suggested at least some of those criteria had been met.

The bottom line, according to report co-chair Richard Hynes of M.I.T., is this:

In all cases, the panel recommended public input on the appropriate uses of genome editing. But there remain enormous questions - what that public engagement should look like, how consensus might be defined or achieved, and how public opinion would translate into federal - or even international - policy.

Guests:

Read more:
National Academy Calls for Public Input on Human Genetic ... - WCAI - WCAI

Last week, an international panel of scientists and ethicists concluded that changing heritable aspects in human genes would be permissible under certain conditions, going further than any previous mainstream group in endorsing the long-term aim of producing gene-edited babies ("Gene-edited babies: From red light to orange... and then green?"; Feb 20).

The most straightforward and unique advantage of genetic engineering is that it prevents the inheritance of devastating genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, beta thalassemia or Huntington's disease.

It could also be used to modify genes to lower the risk of contracting diseases like HIV/AIDS.

However, it may be impossible to draw a line between using this technology for "therapy" and using it for "enhancement".

On practical grounds, genetic enhancement procedures could potentially lead to the widening of the rich-poor divide in society, as the wealthy would be able to engineer smarter, healthier and more attractive children, thus giving them even greater advantages in life.

From an ethical point of view, it is important to consider whether parents or medical professionals have the inherent right to alter a baby before it has been born.

As scientists focus on accomplishments and whether a thing can be done, they must also stop to ask if it should be done.

A baby cannot consent to having his body altered. Genetically engineering a child would be a violation of his fundamental right to bodily integrity.

Another ethical issue to consider would be the loss of individuality in a society that prides itself on conformity. This could open the door to eugenics.

It would be wise to exercise caution on this issue. As scientists focus on accomplishments and whether a thing can be done, they must also stop to ask if it should be done.

International scientific bodies should not only implement stringent regulations on genetic engineering practices, but also engage actively and effectively with politicians and the public to ensure a sturdy legal framework.

Denise Lee Hui Jean (Ms)

See the article here:
Proceed with caution on genetic engineering - The Straits Times

A cancer treatment with genetically engineered cells may change how we think about human modification.

By Michael White

When Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein 200 years ago, there was no such thing as genetic engineering, and nobody knew what a gene was. But Shelleys sense that it is wrong, even monstrous, to tinker with the building blocks of life haunts genetic engineering today. This is especially true of human genetic engineering, which our popular culture often portrays as an obsession of mad scientists or a totalitarian tool of social control. Weve inherited our views of human genetic engineering from a time when it was just an idea, not a reality. But now that the reality is here, it turns out that widespread human genetic engineering, at least in its initial form, wont look as radical as we thought it would.

One sign that routine human genetic engineering has nearly arrived appeared earlier this month, when the Food and Drug Administration allowed French biotechnology company Cellectis to initiate United States clinical trials for a new cancer therapy. The therapy is based on so-called CAR-T cells (chimeric antigen receptor T cells), which are human immune cells genetically engineered to be cancer fighters. Various forms of CAR-T therapy have been in clinical trials for a few years now, and scientists first started trying to build the cells in the late 1980s. But whats notable about the Cellectis CAR-T cells is that they are the first off-the-shelf version. That is, unlike other CAR-T therapieswhich are custom products made by genetically engineering each patients own cellsCellectis manufactures CAR-T cells from healthy donors. Human genetic engineering is about to become a commodity trade.

Whats striking about CAR-T therapiesboth the custom form and Cellectis off-the-shelf versionis that they are simultaneously a radical departure and an incremental step from existing medical techniques. In practice, CAR-T therapies involve a familiar procedure, the transfer of cells into a patient to treat an illness. The first successful human blood transfusion was performed in 1818 (coincidentally, the year Frankenstein was published), and the first bone marrow transplant to treat leukemia occurred in the 1950s. Seen from this angle, CAR-T therapy is just a new variation on an old theme.

But though CAR-T therapy may look familiar, it is unprecedented. The first CAR-T treatments for cancer may become generally available within the year, despite some recent setbacks. This means that, over the coming years, there will likely be hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions, of people treated with genetically engineered human cells. This is what the first widespread use of human genetic engineering is going to look like.

Scientists have long anticipated this development because the powerful genetic tools that we routinely use to control biology in a petri dish have such obvious medical potential. We shut genes on or off at will, add or subtract them, and even build synthetic genes with new functions. The advantage of genetic engineering for medicine is that, unlike chemical drugs, cells are functioning systems with the ability to sense signals, to make decisions, and to perform complex behaviors. Cellular signal-sensing and decision-making are key built-in features of the cells that make up our immune system; CAR-T technology harnesses those abilities to help the immune system train its tremendous firepower on cancer cells. Genetic engineering is essentially a form of biological reprogramming, and scientists talk about building CAR-T cells with AND, NOT, and OR circuits; feedback control systems; and kill switches. No drug will ever have those capabilities.

Reprogramming human biology like this may sound ethically suspect in the abstract, but when were talking about a life-saving therapy for someones child or grandparent, its hard not to be sympathetic. Human genetic engineering is thus making its entrance to society as a medical treatment that, on the surface, seems incremental, avoiding the drama and questionable ethics that we expected.

There is an upside and downside to this. The obvious benefits of something like CAR-T therapy make it easier to set aside any knee-jerk moral disgust with genetic engineering, and instead think clearly about ethical boundaries. But the risk is that we become too complacent about the ethics, especially as genetic engineering for health purposes comes to seem normal.

For this reason, its fortunate that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has just released a report laying out ethical guidelines for human genetic engineering. Recognizing that human genetic engineering is no longer just a fantasy, the report lays out two key questions we should ask ourselves as we consider whether particular cases of human genetic engineering are justified.

Most importantly, we should ask: Is the genetic change limited to one person, or will it be passed on to future generations? Patients who receive CAR-T cells dont transmit the genetic edits on to their children, and thus each patient can choose for herself whether to accept any risks posed by genetic engineering. But children who are born from genetically modified embryos will pass on those modifications, together with any associated health risks or social stigmas, to their descendants. The National Academy report therefore argues that we should set a much higher ethical bar for genetic edits to human embryos, only allowing them as a last resort to prevent certain inherited genetic diseases.

The second question to pose is: What is the purpose of the genetic editsto cure disease or to simply enhance human abilities? The report recommends that human genetic engineering should only be aimed at curing disease, and that genome editing for enhancement should not be allowed at this time. That rules out genetic engineering to, say, make someone a better athlete. Why? The report provides two reasons: First, the technology still poses risks that arent outweighed by any benefits of enhancement. And second, the public doesnt seem ready to go there yet. A society in which only the rich have access to genetic enhancements, or, conversely, where everyone is under tremendous social pressure to buy such enhancements, sounds as dystopic as science fiction.

But the question of what qualifies as enhancement is almost certainly going to be a sticking point, because there is a wide range of things you can do between curing cancer and producing super-athletes. What if a company sells a product like CAR-T cells that, rather than fighting cancer, prevents it instead? If you use genetic engineering to lower your cancer risk, is that enhancement? If it is, why should we reject it?

The National Academy report purposely leaves the answer to such questions unanswered, recognizing that there are inevitable differences, rooted in national cultures, that will shape perspectives on whether and how to use these technologies. Our national cultures perspective has been shaped by 200 years of science fiction. But as human genetic engineering becomes realtaking the form of a life-saving cancer treatmentwe will get used to it, and our perspective is likely to change.

Read the original here:
This Is What Real Human Genetic Engineering Looks Like - Pacific Standard

Consider the work of God; for who can make that straight, which He hath made crooked? Ecclesiastes 7:13 (The Israel Bible)

(Shutterstock)

New technology enabling scientists to manipulate genes, mixing human genes and organs with those of animals, is a disturbing trend in science which one rabbi believes mirrors the sin that led to global destruction in the generation of Noah.

Last week, the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine released a new report including recommendations to ensure genetic research done in the United States is performed responsibly and ethically. In essence, this report gave the greenlight to gene research, even though funding for such research is currently banned by the government because of the ethical dilemmas it raises.

The new technology bears with it practical risk. Genetic research can take two forms: gene editing to cure or prevent disease, and gene editing to enhance humans. Genetics is uncharted territory and scientists could accidentally introduce a dangerous mutation that will harm future generations, or, in an attempt to create vaccines, inadvertently create a superior form of the disease which could threaten mankind.

Rabbi Moshe Avraham Halperin of the Machon Madai Technology Al Pi Halacha (the Institute for Science and Technology According to Jewish Law) stated in response to the report that there are clear Torah guidelines for this new technology. Rabbi Halperin referred to the Biblical law concerning mixing of species.

Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Leviticus 19:19

It is forbidden to create a creature that is a mixture of species, but as long as they are not producing a new creature that has a different form, it is permitted, Rabbi Halperin told Breaking Israel News.

However, he noted, Improving species, even the human race, is not forbidden by Jewish law. Changing the color of the skin or hair is permitted, even more so when it concerns removing genetic maladies. But the process certainly needs oversight.

Rabbi Yosef Berger, rabbi of the Tomb of King David on Mount Zion, stressed that the issue of mixing species had serious Biblical ramifications, noting that the verse forbidding mixing breeds of animals directly preceded a section of the Torah dealing with sexual impropriety.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. Leviticus 19:20

The rabbi explained the connection between the two distinct commandments.

This is also expressed in the sin of the generation of Noah, which, according to Jewish tradition was the forbidden mixing of animals and man, Rabbi Berger told Breaking Israel News, quoting Genesis.

And Hashem said: I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them. Genesis 6:7

Noahs generation sinned sexually, but it was expressed in the mixing of species, he explained.

This sexual sin could prevent the coming Messianic era as the connection between man and woman is a holy part of the process of bringing geula (redemption). This is the basis of the requirement to be fruitful and multiply: to bring Moshiach (Messiah).

Rabbi Berger stressed that this mitzvah(Torah commandment) requires a proper level of purity. Mixing of species is an improper manifestation of procreation that led to the destruction of the generation of Noah.

Thus, even when saving lives, one of the most important mitzvot, one must be mindful of dangers and limits, Rabbi Berger cautioned.

The limits of science and ethics are indeed being expanded and tested in remarkable ways. In 2015, several groundbreaking experiments took place in genetic engineering. A herd of cloned cattle, genetically engineered with human DNA, were used to incubate antibodies against the Ebola virus. In the same year, scientists at Duke University announced that they had successfully boosted brain size in mice by using human DNA as a catalyst.

Also at Duke, kidneys from aborted human fetuses were transplanted into rats in order to determine if human organs could be grown in animals, solving the problem of organ donations.

In one particularly disturbing case, geneticists in China modified the DNA of human embryos, concentrating on the gene responsible for -thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disorder. However, in their final report, the researchers said they found a surprising number of unintended mutations.

These experiments illustrate just some of the astounding areas researchers are exploring. The science involved is staggering, but the ethical considerations are even more perplexing, and less likely to receive clear-cut answers.

Certain areas of research in the United States are stalled until the issue of abortions is resolved, establishing once and for all the legal status of fetuses and embryos. Manipulating genes in utero to eradicate genetic disease can alleviate great suffering, but brushes up against eugenics, the intentional improving of the human race. Negative eugenics were first espoused by the Nazis and other racist ideologies as a method of creating a master race.

The research takes on dark spiritual overtones in the context of the growing transhumanism movement, which believes that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations by means of science and technology.

Original post:
Is Genetic Engineering Recreating the Sin of Noah's Generation? - Breaking Israel News

Genetic Engineering Market Reshaping the Fundamentals Of Entire Economies And Industries Around The Globe ... Satellite PR News (press release) Genetic Engineering Market Research Report covers the present scenario and the growth prospects of the Genetic Engineering Market for 2016-2020. To calculate the market size, the report considers the revenue generated from the sales of Genetic ... and more »

See more here:

Genetic Engineering Market Reshaping the Fundamentals Of Entire Economies And Industries Around The Globe ... - Satellite PR News (press release)

A chilling warning that tens of millions of people could be killed by bio-terrorism was delivered at the Munich security conference by the worlds richest man, Bill Gates

Gates, who has spent much of the last 20 years funding a global health campaign, said: We ignore the link between health security and international security at our peril.

Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft who has spent billions in a philanthropic drive to improve health worldwide, said: The next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus ... or a super contagious and deadly strain of the flu.

US and UK intelligence agencies have said that Islamic State has been trying to develop biological weapons at its bases in Syria and Iraq. However, they have played down the threat, saying that the terrorists would need people with the necessary skills, good laboratories and a relatively calm environment free from the confusion and chaos of conflict zones.

Yet other security specialists say the threat from bio-terrorism has become more realistic over the past decade, particularly the past five years, with changes in molecular biology that make development of biological weapons more accessible.

Gates, making his first appearance at the Munich security conference on Saturday, said: Whether it occurs by a quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists say a fast-moving airborne pathogen could kill more than 30 million people in less than a year. And they say there is a reasonable probability the world will experience such an outbreak in the next 10 to 15 years.

He added: Its hard to get your mind around a catastrophe of that scale, but it happened not that long ago. In 1918, a particularly virulent and deadly strain of flu killed between 50 million and 100 million people.

You might be wondering how real these doomsday scenarios really are. The fact that a deadly global pandemic has not occurred in recent history shouldnt be mistaken for evidence that a deadly pandemic will not occur in the future. And even if the next pandemic isnt on the scale of the 1918 flu, we would be wise to consider the social and economic turmoil that might ensue if something like ebola made its way into urban centres.

Gates said advances in biotechnology, new vaccines and drugs could help prevent epidemics spreading out of control. Most of the things we need to do to protect against a naturally occurring pandemic are the same things we must prepare for an intentional biological attack, he said.

Getting ready for a global pandemic is every bit as important as nuclear deterrence and avoiding a climate catastrophe. Innovation, cooperation and careful planning can dramatically mitigate the risks presented by each of these threats.

The international community, Gates told the conference, needed to prepare for epidemics the way the military prepared for war: This includes germ games and other preparedness exercises so we can better understand how diseases will spread, how people will respond in a panic and how to deal with things like overloaded highways and communications systems.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published an Ipsos Mori poll saying that 71% of Britons aged between 16 and 75 are more concerned about the spread of infectious diseases such as Ebola or Zika than war with other nations. Just over two-thirds said they were concerned about war, while 83% said violent terrorist attacks were their main concern.

Originally posted here:

Bill Gates warns tens of millions could be killed by bio-terrorism - The Guardian

The National Academies of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine today published a report Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance that contends with uses of gene editing for human reproductive purposes, prospects which have been brought into vivid reality since the emergence of new biotechnology tools such as the gene modification system, Crispr-Cas9. The report suggests limitations on genetic engineering to the heritable germline code of embryos, or even earlier upstream in the process, sperm and ovum, which convey information passed on to subsequent generations.

However, the report appears to exclude the public from participation and concludes that clinical trials using heritable germline genome editing should be permitted. They should notnot without public discussion and a more conscious evaluation of how this impacts social standing, stigma and identity, ethics that scientists often tendto cite pro forma and then swiftly scuttle.

The statement is a striking reversal in outlook of leadership since just a year ago in December 2015, when the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington D.C., a conference which I attended, also drawing Nobel laureates, lawmakers, and bioethicists from across the globe, and declaring that a broad societal consensus be attained before moving ahead with altering heritable code. Indeed, weeks after the Summit, U.S. lawmakers added a rider to an omnibus spending bill to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from spending time or money reviewing applications of gene modification to heritable code.

Unlike more than 40 other countries, and an international treaty Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, the U.S. does not have a legal ban on modification to heritable code, but it does have a strong regulatory framework on drugs, and federal agencies treat Crispr-Cas9 as a drug. But the limitations on heritable code are only in effect temporarily in so far that spending is restricted on applications FDA can review.

Marcy Darnovsky, director for the Center for Genetics and Society noted the report appears to send from scientists to lawmakers a green light for proceeding with efforts to engineer the genes and traits that are passed on to future children and generations while noting that it excludes the public from participation in deciding whether human germline modification is acceptable in the first place.

In fact, there are a number of critical arguments on how we determine what is acceptable. The first is technical. The field of genetics is by no means accomplished. A group called the Human Aggregation Consortium just last year revealed that of 192 high frequency genetic variants that had previously been considered pathogenic, only nine are likely harmfulan important clarification for anyone wanting to recode their genome. Most mutations have very small effects on biological traits, and we know very little about how genetic variants enhance or diminish other genetic variants and differ based on genetic background.

Secondly, as Darnovsky, and Hille Haker, a bioethicist from Loyola University in Chicago, have pointed out that gene modification in combination with reproductive technologies to engender a genetically connected child is not a medical necessity. There is a difference between a negative right, which is a freedom from, a harm, and a full positive right, which is a freedom to access or gain some benefits. If a gene-edited child were a full positive right, society would be required to pay for all of its citizens to have children, apply genetic tests, gene modification and in vitro fertilization techniques to anyone who wants one. Importantly, scientists who patent gene modification systems such as Crispr-Cas9 have an interest in selling it as much as possible, which means the scientists themselves cannot be left solely responsible for shaping the moral frameworkthe public has an important role to play in shaping the morays around science today more than ever. Andthe debates are becoming more nuanced and sophisticated as gene editing systems such as Crispr-Cas9 allow us to do things like circumvent the oldcause celebreof altering human embryos, by editing heritable code in the sperm or eggs.

Our genomes are a constantly undergoing alteration and it would be incorrect to conceive of them as sacrosanct. Genes are shuffled with each new generation so its unlikely that gene editing will give some families permanent advantages. The theory of evolution suggests that we adapt to local conditions rather than progress to a more perfect form. But gene modification risks market based eugenics, meaning putting values on certain traits, and seeking to eliminate other traits, when genetic variants that contribute to many features such as autism, neuropsychiatric disorders, may be less a disease as ways of being in the world.

Evolution does not create values, we do. And we risk molding our children into commodities we would like to have, rather than emphasizing the people they can become. Darnovsky wrote the problem is stigmatizing people with disabilities, exacerbating existing inequalities, and introducing new eugenic abuses. Strangely, theres no apparent connection between those dire risks and the recommendation to move ahead. Thephilosopher-scientist Jean Rostand wrote a generation ago, science hasmade us godsevenbeforewe are worthy of beingmen. But those are professional experts. Its time to hear more from the public on what we think.

Jim Kozubek is the author ofModern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Jim Kozubek

Jim Kozubek is the author of Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9 (Cambridge University Press)

Credit: Nick Higgins

Read more:

The Public Should Have a Say in Allowing Modification of Our Germline Genetic Code - Scientific American (blog)

From Hannah Devlin, Woolly mammoth on the verge of resurrection, scientists say | Science | The Guardian:

The woolly mammoth vanished from the Earth 4,000 years ago, but now scientists say they are on the brink of resurrecting the ancient beast in a revised form, through an ambitious feat of genetic engineering.

Speaking ahead of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston this week, the scientist leading the de-extinction effort said the Harvard team is just two years away from creating a hybrid embryo, in which mammoth traits would be programmed into an Asian elephant.

Our aim is to produce a hybrid elephant-mammoth embryo, said Prof George Church. Actually, it would be more like an elephant with a number of mammoth traits. Were not there yet, but it could happen in a couple of years.

The creature, sometimes referred to as a mammophant, would be partly elephant, but with features such as small ears, subcutaneous fat, long shaggy hair and cold-adapted blood. The mammoth genes for these traits are spliced into the elephant DNA using the powerful gene-editing tool, Crispr.

Until now, the team have stopped at the cell stage, but are now moving towards creating embryos although, they said that it would be many years before any serious attempt at producing a living creature.

Illustration by Flying Puffin (Mammut Uploaded by FunkMonk) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Read more:

Bringing back the woolly mammoth - Patheos (blog)