[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 540 KB, 883x912, CRISPR-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15530389 No.15530389 [Reply] [Original]

Thoughts on CRISPR?

>> No.15530462

>>15530389
i think the idea of genome editing is cool, but something tells me this is not why you made this thread

>> No.15530474
File: 289 KB, 1280x1532, poll-gene-editing-babies-2020.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15530474

It could make India a superpower

>> No.15530889

There was so much hype around CRISPR few years ago, yet all we got is couple of gene therapies for crippled children. What gives?

>> No.15531201

a bit outdated compared to modern methods nut still good

>> No.15531657

>>15531201
>modern methods
Like what? Curious to read more about them

>> No.15531661

>>15530389
Given an advanced enough in-vivo delivery method, it could mean that you can metamorphosize into anything you want, completely stop and reverse aging, and cure cancer

>> No.15532068

>>15530389
1940s technology

>> No.15532081

>>15530889
Filthy plebs don't get nice things

>> No.15532090

>>15531661
>it could mean that you can metamorphosize into anything you want, completely stop and reverse aging, and cure cancer
It would only be a part of such therapies, unfortunately

>> No.15532188

>>15530389
Straying too far from god

>> No.15532309

>>15532188
>making a splint to direct the proper healing of a broken arm is fine
>operating in utero to fix a child's spinal deformity is fine
>editing the genome to aleviate something like schizophrenia is not fine
Why? Why ought the line be drawn there? In all three cases, you're altering faulty biological material that is having a deleterious effect on the life of the individual.
>genetic alterations can have greater consequences further down the line - they don't just affect the life of the individual
This is a fair argument, but it fails to account for the fact that, as a species, we are forced to make decisions that will significantly impact our future survival on an almost weekly basis. Why do we trust corrupt politicians with such decisions yet blanch at the idea of scientists and bioethicists making similar decisions? Obviously the Covid vaccine was not exactly a ringing endorsement of this idea, but that was more an issue of methodology than anything else: they ought to have recognised that there were knowledgeable scientists who were genuinely against it; governments ought to have sought the opinion of a wide variety of experts rather than glorified bureaucrats and careerists like Fauci; they ought not to have threatened people's livelihoods; if, and only if, the disease was shown to be genuinely deadly, they ought to have deployed the vaccine only after it had been fully tested - and, even then, only to a tiny, willing sample of the population likely to be most affected by the disease.