Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 22, 2019

New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant to HIV may also have enhanced their ability to learn and form memories. New research shows that the same alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, deletion of a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins," says Silva. He says the exact effect on the girls' cognition is impossible to predict, and "that is why it should not be done."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is a horror story.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 09:49 AM | Reply

Human history is pretty much a horror story.

#2 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-02-22 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Question. How is gene editing different from chemotherapy? Or blood transfusion? Or NyQuil? Or alcohol? Or tobacco? Asking for a friend.

#3 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-02-22 12:51 PM | Reply

Follow up question. If gene ending is done on the embryo, and you are pro-abortion, What is your basis for disagreeing with gene editing?

#4 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-02-22 12:54 PM | Reply

#3 for a few reasons:

- the gene edits are passed on to offspring, so we are editing the entire species at once
- those things (except for chemo) do not directly target the genome to shatter it and edit it like CRISPR does
- chemo is already known as poison, but CRISPR is seen as only beneficial. This is not true.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 These are not equivalent. You are probably creating a genetic disease which will now enter the general population.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3 I would add to Bruce's post the issue is CRISPR has a targeted region that is altered 95% of the time, although depending on the method the alteration has varying degrees of predictability.

Less known, including by science, is the unintended edits that happen because the fidelity of the syste isn't 100%. These are called off target effects and, at least in studies in mice, are much more prevalent than we expected.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-22 02:21 PM | Reply

"Question. How is gene editing different from chemotherapy? Or blood transfusion? Or NyQuil? Or alcohol? Or tobacco? Asking for a friend."

I got this one:

Just like the climate, genes have always been changing.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 02:23 PM | Reply

"the gene edits are passed on to offspring, so we are editing the entire species at once"

Well, we're editing any descendants they might create. (We should edit in a four year lifespan...)

"chemo is already known as poison"

Plenty of medicines are poison. They're just more poisonous to the things you're trying to kill than they are to you.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 02:28 PM | Reply

I need to add: WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANY OF THESE GENES DO.

Just marinate in that.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy is not being serious. Ignore his idiocy.

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 03:20 PM | Reply

#8 is obviously a joke about Deniers.
#9 is factually accurate.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 03:52 PM | Reply

Science fiction becoming reality again.

#13 | Posted by equshemonius at 2019-02-22 03:53 PM | Reply

"I need to add: WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANY OF THESE GENES DO."

Come on. We have a pretty good idea of most of the things that most of the genes in the human genome do.

That is not to say we know editing them will yield predictable results!

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 03:56 PM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

can you cite one person on the DR who is "pro abortion"

#15 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-02-22 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#15 ####Steam

A lot. The only disagreement is where to draw the line.

#16 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-02-22 05:36 PM | Reply

"can you cite one person on the DR who is "pro abortion"

Is WhiteDevil still around?

He was working on genetic markers for homosexuality, to facilitate abortion of undesirables, in China.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 05:43 PM | Reply

"Could it be conceivable that at one point in the future we could increase the average IQ of the population? I would not be a scientist if I said no. The work in mice demonstrates the answer may be yes," he says. "But mice are not people. We simply don't know what the consequences will be in mucking around. We are not ready for it yet."

As I and many others have said... We are not prepared.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-22 05:43 PM | Reply

"Come on. We have a pretty good idea of most of the things that most of the genes in the human genome do."

False.

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 05:43 PM | Reply

The only disagreement is where to draw the line.

#16 | Posted by gavaster

Good luck with your "line".

And all your walls.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-22 05:46 PM | Reply

What's false about it?

Go grab a gene you like, let's talk it over.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 05:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"But mice are not people. We simply don't know what the consequences will be in mucking around. We are not ready for it yet."

As I and many others have said... We are not prepared."

Yeah well that's humanity in a nutshell.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 05:48 PM | Reply

#20 Donny

Huh? Is there no one on the drudge retort that's for abortion if the mother's life is in danger?

And what do walls have to do with anything? So confused.

#23 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-02-22 05:52 PM | Reply

www.uniprot.org

#24 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 06:03 PM | Reply

CNTF

#25 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 06:03 PM | Reply

What are the critical substrates?

#26 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 06:03 PM | Reply

So confused.

#23 | Posted by gavaster

Splains a lot.

Your "line" won't stop genetic manipulation. China is proof of htat. So now what do you do? Let China make Superhuman mutants while we make none?

We are gonna need our own mutants. And when we get them what wil become of you and me the obsolete humans?

And your walls is The Wall and everyone knows what that is. Walls never solved anything. Stop wasting your and my time on them.

Speaking of Time... I will not waste MY Time on your abortion deflection. It actually has nothing to do with the coming biotech revolution.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-22 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why does it regulate neural survival, appetite, and prevent retinal degeneration in retinitis pigmentosa?

#28 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 06:05 PM | Reply

gavaster

Your current ignorance and confusion regarding abortion will be nothing compared to your confusion and ignorance regarding superhuman mutants.

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-02-22 06:06 PM | Reply

or, tell me which proteins allow cells to recover from late stage apoptosis. www.the-scientist.com

#30 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 06:08 PM | Reply

#Donnyboy

Dang. Triggered. Someone's been hitting the sauce a little early today.

#31 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-02-22 06:50 PM | Reply

"Why does it regulate neural survival, appetite, and prevent retinal degeneration in retinitis pigmentosa?
#28 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER"

Why is not really the right question.

John Snow didn't need to know why cholera kills people to figure out which well was poisoned.

I have no doubts that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg through the fog, especially in terms of complex multi gene interactions. So I went too far when I said we know most things about most genes.

We know plenty about most genes, though, and that's enough to work with.

I'm not saying this kind of human genome editing work should be done, in fact I think it's beyond rash. But people with money to pay and researchers willing to do the work have a different opinion.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 07:08 PM | Reply

can you cite one person on the DR who is "pro abortion"

#15 | POSTED BY 1947STEAMER

I can name a few that are "pro-policies that result in a net increase of abortions".

#33 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-22 08:53 PM | Reply

"We know plenty about most genes, though, and that's enough to work with."

We really know nothing about most genes.

Tell me what protein complexes the gene products form? Which cells in which tissues express which isoforms at which time for which purpose?

#34 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-22 10:24 PM | Reply

BruceBanner there are always going to be people who want to push the envelope. It's probably the case that a lot of people will get hurt along the way, because that's pretty much always the case. But, the tools are here, and people are going to use them.

My question is, how do you think we should respond? I don't hear a lot of "don't do that" coming from scientific quarters, or other places for that matter. which I find pretty surprising. As an analogy, I don't think we can eradicate this weed, but we can prune bits here and there. I'd love to know what you think could be done.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 10:29 PM | Reply

"Which cells in which tissues express which isoforms at which time for which purpose?"

What's it matter? We know how to do enough to get results, and it's pretty obvious we're just getting started.

To frame shift ever so slightly, one molecule in a thousand or a million or whatever becomes a commercial drug, so, it's not like this whole business isn't mostly error with a few successful trials whose precise mechanism of action is unknown. But it works.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 10:42 PM | Reply

To bring that back around, biologics are probably the drugs whose precise mechanism of action are not only understood but the biology is so well understood that it's easier to piggyback a working biological system than disrupt one with exotic plant extracts like an Amazon witch doctor.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 10:45 PM | Reply

(Sorry for bringing up Amazon.)

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 11:58 PM | Reply

"Which cells in which tissues express which isoforms at which time for which purpose?"

What's it matter? We know how to do enough to get results, and it's pretty obvious we're just getting started.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

In depth knowledge of isoform expression is necessary for CRISPR modification.

Leave an isoform unmodified and you've gone through the process for nothing.

Knockout an isoform that's required for tissue function or development and you're just made a lethal mistake.

Now when you're simply trying to knockout a gene for, say, making a mouse strain with said knockout, that's not a big deal.

When you're trying to modify humans that aren't supposed to have side effects, well...

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-23 01:28 AM | Reply

You're correct on all counts, JPW, but it doesn't really change that "We know how to do enough to get results, and it's pretty obvious we're just getting started."

I was hoping to discuss the implications of developing and improving this type of technology for use on humans.

Not, should we be applying it at the current state of the art. (No thanks.)

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-23 01:47 AM | Reply

This article is enough to refute your claims Snoofy. If you are in science, you are being extremely irresponsible.

#41 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-23 10:36 AM | Reply

"This article is enough to refute your claims Snoofy."

Claims?

All I claimed was rich people are going to play fast and loose with the human genome by any means necessary (provided they can find a skileld person to pay them to do it, which they can).

The article doesn't refute that. And if it did, it would be lying, and we all know it.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-23 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Soooo...you all think RCADE might be working with CRISPR? lots of posts by clearly altered humans

#43 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-02-23 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#42 lies.

#44 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-23 04:02 PM | Reply

New research shows that the same alteration introduced into the girls' DNA, deletion of a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.

Beneficial accidental results in medicine sometimes occur. Hopefully, this is one of them. I am doubtful that is what has occurred here. Even if it does make the girls smarter, there is no telling what other impact there may be. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that being smarter is not going to result in a better life. Being smarter could lead to substantial frustration with all the dumbasses that they have to interact with.

#45 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-02-24 08:25 AM | Reply

So, possibly smarter but their remixed genetics cause them to maybe get dementia in their 30s (spitballing here), would it be worth it?

#46 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 08:38 AM | Reply

Smarter is a relative term too. Not every improvement is a good one. Sometimes you need to forget.

#47 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-24 01:18 PM | Reply

"So, possibly smarter but their remixed genetics cause them to maybe get dementia in their 30s (spitballing here), would it be worth it?
#46 | POSTED BY GONOLES92"

Isn't that the parents choice to make?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-24 02:48 PM | Reply

Kids are born into this world without their consent. What if they didn't want to be a science experiment

#49 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 03:38 PM | Reply

What if they didn't want to be an economics experiment either?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-24 04:19 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort