Daily Archives: August 1, 2017

Scientists in Portland, Ore., just succeeded in creating the first genetically modified human embryo in the United States, according toTechnology Review. Ateam led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov ofOregon Health & Science Universityis reported to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases.

The U.S. teamsresults follow two trialsone last year and one in Aprilby researchers in Chinawho injected genetically modified cells into cancer patients.Theresearch teamsused CRISPR, a new gene-editing system derived from bacteria thatenables scientists to editthe DNA of living organisms.

The era of human gene editing has begun.

In the short term, scientists are planning clinical trials to use CRISPR to edit human genes linked to cystic fibrosis and other fatal hereditary conditions. But supporters of synthetic biology talk up huge potential long-term benefits. We could, they claim, potentially edit genes and build new ones to eradicate all hereditary diseases. With genetic alterations, we might be able to withstand anthrax attacks or epidemics of pneumonic plague. We might revive extinct species such as the woolly mammoth. We might design plants that are far more nutritious, hardy, and delicious than what we have now.

But developments in gene editing are alsohighlighting a desperate need for ethical and legal guidelines to regulate in vitro genetic editingand raising concerns about a future in which the well-off couldpay for CRISPR to perfect their offspring. We will soon be faced with very difficult decisions aboutwhen and how to use this breakthrough medical technology.For example, if your unborn child were going to have a debilitating disease that you could fix by taking a pill to edit theirgenome, would you take the pill? How about adding some bonusintelligence? Greater height or strength? Where would you draw the line?

CRISPRs potential for misuse by changinginherited human traits has prompted some genetic researchersto call fora global moratoriumon usingthe techniqueto modify human embryos. Such use is a criminal offense in 29 countries, and the United States bans the use of federal funds to modify embryos.

Still, CRISPRs seductiveness is beginning to overtake the calls forcaution.

In February, an advisory body fromthe National Academy of Sciences announcedthe academys support for usingCRISPR to edit the genes of embryos to remove DNA sequences that doctors saycause serious heritable diseases. The recommendation came with significant caveats and suggested limiting the use of CRISPR to specific embryonic problems. That said, the recommendation is clearly an endorsement of CRISPR as a research tool that is likely to become a clinical treatmenta step from which therewill be no turning back.

CRISPRs combination of usability, low cost, and power is both tantalizing and frightening, with the potential tosomeday enableanyone to edit a living creature on the cheap in their basements. So, although scientists might use CRISPR to eradicate malaria by making the mosquitoes that carry it infertile, bioterrorists could use it to create horrific pathogens that could kill tens of millions of people.

With the source code of life now so easy to hack, and biologists and the medical world ready to embrace its possibilities, how do we ensure the responsible use of CRISPR?

Theres a line that A Prairie Home Companion host Garrison Keillor uses whendescribing the fictional town of Lake Wobegon, whereall the children are above average. Will we enter a time when those who can afford a better genome will live far longer, healthier lives than those who cannot? Should the U.S. government subsidize genetic improvements to ensure a level playing field when the rich have access to the best genetics that money can buy and the rest of society does not? And what if CRISPR introduces traits into the human germ line with unforeseen consequencesperhaps higher rates of cardiac arrest or schizophrenia?

Barriers to mass use of CRISPR are already falling.Dog breeders looking to improve breedssuffering from debilitating maladies are actively pursuing gene hacking. A former NASA fellow in synthetic biology now sells functional bacterial engineering CRISPR kits for $150 from his online store. Its not hard to imagine a future in which the big drugstore chains carry CRISPR kits for home testing and genetic engineering.

The release ofgenetically modified organismsinto the wildin the past few years has raised considerable ethical and scientific questions. The potential consequences of releasing genetically crippled mosquitoes in the southern United States to reduce transmission of tropical viruses, for instance, drew a firestorm of concern over the effects on humans and the environment.

So, while the prospect of altering the genes of peoplemodern-day eugenicshas caused a schism in the science community, research with precisely that aim is happening all over the world.

We have arrived at a Rubicon. Humans are on the verge of finally being able to modify their own evolution. The question is whether they can use this newfound superpower in a responsible way that will benefit theplanet and its people. And a decision so momentous cannot be left to the doctors, the experts, orthe bureaucrats.

Failing to figure out how to ensure that everyonewill benefit from this breakthroughrisks the creation of a genetic underclasswho must struggle to compete with the genetically modified offspring of the rich. Andfailing to monitor and contain how we use itmay spell global catastrophe. Its up to us collectively to get this right.

This article was originally published byThe Washington Post. Read theoriginal article.

Stock Media provided by Skripko / Pond5

Read more from the original source:
The Era of Human Gene Editing Is HereWhat Happens Next Is Critical - Singularity Hub

After Jennifer Doudna and other scientists improved the technology known as CRISPR to edit human genomes, a long-awaited, and sometimes feared, milestone arrived.

For the first time in human existence, it became practical to change genes throughout the entire human genome with high precision and accuracy. And today, a decade after the introduction of CRISPR, its newly apparent that such manipulations have been made to human embryos a feat achieved by scientists at the Salk Institute in La Jolla and elsewhere.

Tinkering with genetics, a system that has been produced through billions of years of evolution, takes humanity into unknown territory. This powerful technology can be used for many purposes, not just stopping disease. Alterations in an embryos edited genome would be passed along to generations of descendants for good or ill.

Doudna, a UC Berkeley molecular biologist, said during a visit to San Diego this week that society needs to catch up to this potentially world-transforming field of science. She has co-authored a book, A Crack in Creation, on the benefits, perils and ethics of what scientists call germline editing.

The question will be as the technology comes to fruition ... should we use it in that fashion? Doudna said about germline editing in a Monday interview at the American Association for Clinical Chemistrys scientific meeting in San Diego.

Its a question that has many facets to it, she said. Who decides who gets access, who pays for it and under what circumstances should that type of editing be done? These are important questions because the technology is already at the point where its possible to do this.

Her points were underscored by reports last week of a germline-editing study performed by a team in the United States (including the Salk researchers), China and Korea. The report showed that CRISPR could be used to repair a genetic defect in single-celled human embryos. The embryos were not allowed to develop beyond a few days.

This project received private funding, allowing it to sidestep government restrictions on such genetic editing.

The study was leaked to a British reporter and hasnt been published yet.

Doudna said she wasnt cognizant of the ethical issues when she and collaborator Emmanuelle Charpentier began exploring CRISPR.

Beyond the call for society to grapple with the ramifications of germline editing, Doudna said, its difficult to get more specific, except to exercise general caution.

In many cases, genetic defects dont even need to be repaired if multiple embryos are being generated, she said. These embryos could simply be screened for genetic defects, and a healthy embryo would be chosen.

In my opinion, we still need to respect the recommendations in the (National Academy of Sciences) report published in February that recommended refraining from clinical use of human germline editing until and unless theres broad societal consensus about the value, Doudna said.

The report available at j.mp/nasgene doesnt actually spell out how the technology should be used; it merely suggests a method for making decisions, Doudna said.

The challenge is how to actually implement discussions that might lead to a broad societal consensus. The debate is still out on how we might proceed.

International scientific organizations, leading research and medical groups in the United States, the Trump administration and others have neither taken the lead nor been able to unify the wide spectrum of parties to arrive at a joint set of standards.

Amid the political, ethical and cultural questions, Doudna emphasized that CRISPR also might transform human suffering by treating or even eradicating various diseases. The method can do so by altering the genome of non-reproductive cells, and these changes wouldnt get transferred to the next generation.

It's important to for people to appreciate that this is a powerful technology that has the potential to do a lot of good, to solve real-world problems not only in clinical medicine but also in agriculture and synthetic biology, Doudna said.

Untold millions of years ago, Mother Nature invented genetic editing.

Bacteria use CRISPR short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats to fight viral infections.

The system contains an RNA sequence that can locate a complementary DNA sequence, along with an enzyme called Cas that acts as molecular scissors to cut up the DNA. The RNA matches sequences from previous infections, which the bacteria capture and incorporate into the CRISPR system.

Humans entered the picture when they realized that the RNA sequence could be swapped out with other sequences specifying various DNA segments of interest. This approach could be used to chop up a defective sequence.

Doudna said her lab is exploring genetic editing to treat diseases of the brain. This endeavor is strictly in the research stage, and much more testing will be needed before it can be considered for testing in people.

I think were still years away from having a clinical application, especially for things like Huntingtons disease, Doudna said.

In the end, she said, its important for the public to understand that all the good CRISPR might produce has emerged from basic research.

It really came about from fundamental science that was going on in international collaboration, that led to an understanding of a system that could be harnessed as a tool for gene editing, Doudna said. The value of fundamental research is really underscored when you look at what can happen when scientists are allowed to do creative work that is not applied in a particular direction.

bradley.fikes@sduniontribune.com

(619) 293-1020

Read this article:
CRISPR star Jennifer Doudna calls for public debate on embryo editing - The San Diego Union-Tribune

In recent days, countless media outlets have carried bold headlines alleging that a new study calls into question key details presented in the Bible.But theresa big problemwith that narrative:It simply isnt true.

It all started with a newly released study published in theAmerican Journal of Human Genetics that claimed to find some intriguing information aboutthe Canaanites, an Old Testament people group that inhabited Palestine before the Hebrews conquered them and claimed the biblical promised land.

READ: Trumps Most Powerful Cabinet Members Are Making History With Weekly Bible Study

Titled, Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences, thereportpurports to show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population. On the surface, thats pretty interesting stuff.

But heres why the studys claim of finding Canaanite ancestors really made such a splash:Deuteronomy 20:17 discusses Gods call to utterly destroy the Canaanites, leading some reporters to make some inaccurate claims aboutwhat really happened.

The versereads, Completely destroy them the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites as the LORD your God has commanded you. And Joshua 10 does proclaim that there were no survivors during the conquests, but there are anumber of theoriesinvolving the language used that could help explain that proclamation.

Either way, many in the media simply stopped there, purporting that any modern day evidence of Canaanite DNA must mean that the Bible is incorrect.

Rather than media outlets digging deeper into the truth about whats in the biblical texts, writerDavid Klinghoffer accused culturally illiterate science reporters of using the study to slap [the] Bible around. Klinghoffer, writing for Evolution News,compiled a listof the media headlines that emerged in the wake of the studys release:

Theres a major problem with all of these gotcha Bible headlines, though: Some of them are pretty inaccurate.

AsKlinghoffer noted, the Bible makes it clear in the Book of Judges that the Canaanites lived on beyond the invasion. In fact, the first chapter (verses 28-33)says it all:

When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely.Nor did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, but the Canaanites continued to live there among them.Neither did Zebulun drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron or Nahalol, so these Canaanites lived among them, but Zebulun did subject them to forced labor.Nor did Asher drive out those living in Akko or Sidon or Ahlab or Akzib or Helbah or Aphek or Rehob.The Asherites lived among the Canaanite inhabitants of the land because they did not drive them out.Neither did Naphtali drive out those living in Beth Shemesh or Beth Anath; but the Naphtalites too lived among the Canaanite inhabitants of the land, and those living in Beth Shemesh and Beth Anath became forced laborers for them.

After realizing that there were some major errors in their reporting, some journalists issued retractions. The Telegraph was among those that published an honest assessment of the previously incorrect information in the outlets initial report.

The original version of this story erroneously said the Bible claimed the Canaanites were wiped, a correctionreads at the end of the story. However, elsewhere in the Bible, it says the elimination was not successful.

Its possible that some of the confusion could have emerged from the DNA study itself, as there are some lines of text in the report about the so-called destruction of the Canaanites.

Uncertainties also surround the fate of the Canaanites: the Bible reports the destruction of the Canaanite cities and the annihilation of its people; if true, the Canaanites could not have directly contributed genetically to present-day populations, the textreads. However, no archaeological evidence has so far been found to support widespread destruction of Canaanite cities between the Bronze and Iron Ages: cities on the Levant coast such as Sidon and Tyre show continuity of occupation until the present day.

So, there you have it. Unfortunately, its yet another example of journalists misunderstanding biblical details and making claims that simply dont add up to the facts.

Some might call it fake news, though others would simply attribute it to laziness. Either way: the record has now been cleared.

Here is the original post:
'The Bible Was WRONG!': Media Massively Bungle Bible Story and Are Forced to Issue Corrections - CBN News