A Crack In Creation: A Nobel Prize Winner's Insight into the Future of Genetic Engineering
Rate it:
Open Preview
41%
Flag icon
It’s been estimated that a new individual is added to the national transplant list every ten minutes and that an average of twenty-two people a day die while waiting for a transplant or become so sick that they are no longer eligible to receive a transplant. The shortage of donor organs is the biggest cause of this ongoing tragedy.
42%
Flag icon
60 percent of golden retrievers succumb to cancer, beagles are commonly afflicted with epilepsy,
43%
Flag icon
With the live birth that resulted, the scientists achieved the first-ever resurrection of an extinct animal, though,
43%
Flag icon
Or would it simply be an elephant with new traits inspired by woolly mammoth genetics?
43%
Flag icon
“enhance biodiversity through the genetic rescue of endangered and extinct species”
44%
Flag icon
I’m referring to a revolutionary technology known as a gene drive,
44%
Flag icon
part of the new DNA added in contains the genetic information that encodes CRISPR
45%
Flag icon
“gene bombs”—could
45%
Flag icon
“If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life.” If he’s right and we could have a world free from the ravages of mosquito-borne illness, can we justify not taking the risk?
47%
Flag icon
fifty trillion somatic cells that make up a human
50%
Flag icon
over one and a half million new cancer cases are diagnosed annually, and half a million people die from cancer every year. That’s nearly two thousand deaths a day.
50%
Flag icon
one of the hallmarks of cancer is the increased rate at which DNA mutations creep into the genome,
53%
Flag icon
have developed higher-fidelity versions of CRISPR that are less prone to off-target gene editing than the version nature evolved on its own.
53%
Flag icon
New studies surface at a rate of more than five per day,
55%
Flag icon
but also all future genomes into a collective palimpsest upon which any bit of genetic code could be erased and overwritten depending on the whims of the generation doing the editing.
57%
Flag icon
would permanently alter the human genome, changing the germline in ways that would be passed on to future generations in perpetuity.
58%
Flag icon
“It is my judgment in these things that when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb. I do not think anybody opposed making it; there were some debates about what to do with it after it was made.”
60%
Flag icon
society cannot make decisions about technologies it doesn’t understand, and certainly not about those it knows nothing about.
63%
Flag icon
six weapons of mass destruction and proliferation that nation-states might try to develop, at great risk to America. (The others were Russian cruise missiles, Syrian and Iraqi chemical weapons, and the nuclear programs of Iran, China, and North Korea.)
65%
Flag icon
It’s almost certain that germline editing will eventually be safe enough to use in the clinic.
65%
Flag icon
between two and ten novel DNA mutations creep into the genome.
65%
Flag icon
Every person experiences roughly one million mutations throughout the body per second, and in a rapidly proliferating organ like the intestinal epithelium, nearly every single letter of the genome will have been mutated at least once in at least one cell by the time an individual turns sixty.
65%
Flag icon
fifty to a hundred random mutations that arose de novo (“anew”) in our parents’ germ cells.
65%
Flag icon
“Genetic editing would be a droplet in the maelstrom of naturally churning genomes.”
65%
Flag icon
by editing primordial egg and sperm cells instead of fertilized embryos.
67%
Flag icon
Obviously, evolution didn’t optimize the human genome for the present era, when modern foods, computers, and high-speed transportation have completely transformed the way we live. And
67%
Flag icon
prevents us from alleviating human suffering, it’s also a dangerous one.
67%
Flag icon
renew eugenics, disguised as the fulfilment of the wish for a better, improved life.”
67%
Flag icon
we agree to use CRISPR in the germline to eliminate genetic diseases, we have to acknowledge that it might also be used to create genetic enhancements—changes in which DNA is altered not to correct a harmful gene variant but to provide some type of genetic advantage.
67%
Flag icon
mutations in a gene called ABCC11 are associated with lower levels of armpit odor production
67%
Flag icon
mutations in a gene called DEC2 are associated with a lower requirement of daily sleep.
67%
Flag icon
PCSK9, which produces a protein that regulates a person’s level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (the “bad” cholesterol),
68%
Flag icon
using gene editing to “fix” things like deafness or obesity could create a less inclusive society, one that pressures everyone to be the same—and perhaps even encourages more discrimination against differently abled people—instead
68%
Flag icon
and our society so strong, is its diversity.
68%
Flag icon
Technically, the use of CRISPR in embryos to combat human disease would be a eugenic practice, but so is preimplantation genetic diagnosis, ultrasound technology, prenatal vitamins, and even a mother’s abstinence from alcohol
69%
Flag icon
who decides what constitutes a serious disease or defect? The government? Physicians? The parents?
70%
Flag icon
Unlike nuclear technology, gene-editing technology gives us the chance to hold an informed public discussion about how we want to use CRISPR’s most far-reaching power: the ability to control the future of life. But
71%
Flag icon
while collaborations grease the wheels of scientific research, competition is often the fire that
71%
Flag icon
Healthy rivalries are a natural part of the scientific process, and they have fueled many of humankind’s greatest discoveries.
71%
Flag icon
When people refuse to acknowledge climate change, reject vaccination programs for children, or insist that genetically modified organisms are unfit for human consumption, it signals not only their ignorance about science, but also a breakdown in communication between scientists and the public.
71%
Flag icon
If controlling our own genetic destiny is a terrifying thought, then consider the consequences of having this power but not managing to control it. That would be truly terrifying—truly unthinkable.
71%
Flag icon
an ethos of “discussion without dictation”
72%
Flag icon
The technology we ended up creating did not take anywhere near ten to twenty million dollars
72%
Flag icon
Every time we unlock one of nature’s secrets, it signals the end of one experiment—and the beginning of many others.
« Prev 1 2 Next »