- Human Germline Genomic Modification
Frankly, although the fuss has been about human germline genomic modification, I think that attention is misplaced. I don’t expect engineered human germline modification to be a big issue – as a practical matter – for a long time, if ever, for several reasons.
First, the safety issues are enormous...
Second, the medical demand should be small...
Third, the non-medical demand will also be small, at least for a reasonable time...
And fourth, germline genome modification in humans will continue, for a long time, to be controversial...
- Human Non-Germline Genomic Modification
Why was this discussed only in passing in Science? I think because it is not very controversial. The issues of somatic cell gene therapy, a.k.a. human non-germline genomic modification, have been discussed for many years and, apart from questions of safety, efficacy, hype, and research ethics, none has seemed very important. Changing the genes of one person, who will die without passing those on to anyone else, just hasn’t raised deep questions.
- Non-Human Genomic Modification
Want to end malaria? Come up with a modified version of Aedes aegypti that can’t transmit yellow fever, dengue fever, or chikungunya viruses to humans and will outcompete and eventually eliminate the wild type. Want to make a really economical biofuel? Take an algae and modify its genome in thousands of ways to optimize it for producing hydrocarbon fuel. Want to bring back the passenger pigeon? Use CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the genomes of existing band tail pigeons to match, more or less, the genomes sequenced from specimens on the extinct passenger pigeon. What to corner the market in high-end gifts? Start playing around with horse genomes adding in bits and pieces from other species in an effort to produce actual unicorns. What to make a splash as an artist? Use CRISPR-Cas9 to make a warren of truly glow-in-the-dark rabbits.
Don't agree with all that was written, but good to see the words of a non-scientist involved at the top. OftenBen, might be of interest to you^^
It's interesting, but it's not really news in the debate in my mind. His argument is 'It's currently dangerous and unethical to do germ line modification on Homo Sapiens. At some point it won't be, so wait until then, and here's research that really should get done in the meantime.' It's a good and valid argument, but nothing revelatory. People are going to get hurt in the process of gaining knowledge, and I can say that with 100% certainty. The part that bugs me is the suggestion that there's nothing morally wrong with fucking with the genomes of species we have no intention of domesticating, like the mosquito he quoted. We shouldn't neuter the world so that successive generations get weaker, we should try to improve ourselves. The designer pet thing is definitely going to take off though among the wealthy. It's Crichtons vision from Jurassic Park, though a few decades late.
I know short-term plans would not be to make the mosquitoes die, but improve their resistance to malaria / prevent their ability to spread malaria. The author brushes over this issue, but it's pretty central to ecology: we never know in advance all of what a change to an ecosystem will affect. Gene drives would likely be impossible to reverse. As such, I doubt they would be used except in the most extreme of circumstances. Speaking of which, this has been on my reading list for a whileThe part that bugs me is the suggestion that there's nothing morally wrong with fucking with the genomes of species we have no intention of domesticating, like the mosquito he quoted. We shouldn't neuter the world so that successive generations get weaker, we should try to improve ourselves.
The designer pet thing is definitely going to take off though among the wealthy. It's Crichtons vision from Jurassic Park, though a few decades late.