
Update: CRISPR - binalpatel
http://www.radiolab.org/story/update-crispr/
======
greggman
First off let me say I'm 100% for this tech because IMO there's no way to stop
progress. You can't control 7+ billion people.

That said, the first thing that came to my mind when they mentioned putting
the CRISPR engine in new cells so they make more of the same and spread kind
of like a virus... They mentioned they tried it and it worked first time. So,
unless I'm missing something, it's only a short matter of time before some
disgruntled person could try to destroy the world's food supply or cause many
other large scale issues.

Maybe that's harder than it sounds but it just seemed like a crazy amount of
power for any one person with access to the tech to have. And, unlike nukes
there's really no way to prevent this power from getting stronger, easier, and
more accessible. Nukes you need the fuel. This you mostly just need the
knowledge.

Sorry I'm not suggesting any course of action. It's just I believe we won't
make it past The Great Filter because as tech progresses it gets easier and
easier for a single person to destroy the world. Embedding the CRISPR engine
so it spreads seemed like a step in that direction.

~~~
nolite
This is also true for many domains. Space travel for instance... in just a few
hundred years, it'll be relatively easy for a disgruntled individual to
trigger a nontrivial sized piece of space debris to hurl towards a major city.
Once we begin harnessing asteroids to mine them in earth orbit, Someone could
eventually alter its orbit to destroy a city or worse..

The clock is ticking, and we might not make it

~~~
Chris2048
> to trigger a nontrivial sized piece of space debris to hurl towards a major
> city

How?

Also, maybe with personal space travel, comes an extension of the usual
'air'-space.

That said, 9/11 shows how both easy, and how hard something like this might
be.

------
jwcrux
This podcast mentions that only testing against non-viable embryos has been
done. It's worth noting that just the other day, the results of the first
testing against viable human embryos was released [0].

Also, I thought it was interesting when they talked about "who would turn down
the ability to remove diseases for $x?" My answer would be people who simply
don't have that kind of money.

This makes things complicated.

I'm not even close to an expert in this area, but I don't think it's too far a
stretch to consider that having technology like this where you can
theoretically pick and choose "add ons" for set prices would lead to class
divides that are clearly visible when these add ons stop being just internal
changes and start including exterior traits.

[0] [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-
results-o...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-
crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released)

~~~
Amezarak
I firmly believe that the advent of human genetic engineering marks the end of
humanity, at least as we know it, and if we had any sense, we'd abolish it
right now and and punish any research into it with the most severe penalties
possible. We lost our chance with nuclear weapons, we still might have a shot
with genetic engineering.

Yes, we can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering. But as
you allude, it won't stop there. People will pick and choose external
characteristics for their children. The idea that doctors will somehow be able
to keep this in check is to ignore history and the huge incentives that are
set up here. First, it will be diseases. Then it will be, for instance, the
genetic propensity to obesity. Then 'disadvantages', like being too short or a
little too dull. Then it will be external traits, like blue eyes or blonde
hair. Then it will be mental traits and personality characteristics. And where
it will end will be totally inhuman and beyond our present comprehension.

The result will be massive suffering, inequality, and possibly even the
extinction of humanity as human genetic diversity is replaced with an ever-
accelerating social competition that ends in a monoculture that will probably
be ill-suited for survival the same way modern dog breeds often end up
unsuited for survival.

Yes, it would be lovely if we could use genetic engineering technology safely
and responsibly. We can't. That's to say nothing of the risks inherent in the
technology if it became simple and cheap for anyone to use even on _non_
-humans.

~~~
chillacy
We left the pool of normal species as soon as we started using tools,
agriculture, and industry. This is just the next step. Who knows where it'll
go, but homo sapiens isn't equipped to be space-faring or even survive on this
planet beyond a few billion years.

~~~
Amezarak
Humans have taken tools and industry to a whole new level, but there's nothing
unnatural about that; it doesn't make us an "abnormal" species, whatever that
means. But this is something well beyond just "the next step." We're directly
and consciously changing our own genetic code. This is also not unnatural, but
it represents an existential threat.

> Who knows where it'll go, but homo sapiens isn't equipped to be space-faring
> or even survive on this planet beyond a few billion years.

So? I don't see how that's an argument for human genetic engineering. If we
want to perpetuate life throughout the universe for some reason, we can send
probes loaded with microbes, maybe even advanced probes that can incubate more
advanced animal and plant species to create an ecosystem. In your scenario,
humanity is presented with its extinction through either natural causes or by
being the architect of its own destruction. I'd prefer the former.

~~~
chillacy
It's not like these things people have done are exactly safe and side-effect
free already. People have:

* Made entire species extinct through hunting and deforestation

* As a side effect of industrialization, dumped enough CO2 to change the climate and will probably keep it up

* Domesticated multiple other species into being dependent on us, from crops to farm animals to dogs

* Started work on AI and machines which might even replace us one day

Genetic modification isn't a one-way street to destruction as much as AI is,
or industrialization.

Also regarding perpetuating life: the one thing life has in common is that it
perpetuates itself. We'd be a shitty species if we perpetuated machines or
microbes instead of ourselves.

------
cyanbane
Fantastic piece. This makes me wonder if we today are technically the
"backup". The (potential) last non-CRISPR gene-driven generation that someone
in the future may have to revert to.

~~~
taneq
“I’ve told you before, Daniel: roach isn’t an insult. We’re the ones still
standing after the mammals build their nukes, we’re the ones with the
stripped-down OS’s so damned simple they work under almost any circumstances.
We’re the goddamned Kalashnikovs of thinking meat.”

― Peter Watts, Echopraxia

------
folli
Re: Gene Drive

The emergence of gene drive resistance in modified mosquitoes might help
relieve some of the fear expressed in this thread:
[http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-
emergence...](http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence-of-
resistant-organisms-1.21397?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox)

------
scentoni
The
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive)
is one of the most frightening developments I've heard of in genetic
engineering.

~~~
soVeryTired
Could you give a quick explanation for the non-biologists among us? The
wikipedia article goes a little over my head.

~~~
macca321
You can edit the genes so they are always passed on, rather than passed on
half the time. This means that the genes will eventually spread to every
organism in the species (given enough generations, but it will be an
exponential rate).

It's cool you could encode your name into your genes and then it would live on
as long as humanity.

------
e40
A little unusual, this post. I don't remember seeing podcasts posted to HN. In
any case, it's a good episode, which includes the original it updates. Highly
recommended.

------
tgb
Re: gene driving. Does this mean they 'quine' the CRISPR genes inside the
CRISPR? Any details on how that works?

~~~
dnautics
explanation starts around 38 minutes in the audio

~~~
tgb
Not answering my question, though (listening to it is _why_ I was asking).

------
dmix
Here is the original podcast they reference at the beginning:

[http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-
part-1-crispr/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/)

~~~
luhn
If I remember right, Pt 1 is also included in this podcast before they get to
the updates.

~~~
dmix
Yes that's right, I paused it to find it before listening to it all the way.
It's already included together with the originally linked podcast.

------
nardi
Gene-driving (forcibly replacing a gene in an individual and all of its
descendants, forever) is how the world will end.

------
robg
I'm surprised these reviews don't include the recent history of science funded
by the wealthy - eugenics, asylums, lobotomies, thalidomide, and now kids
taking psychotropics. That doesn't mean the same will be true of CRISPR but
why create test subjects just because you can afford it?

~~~
kolinko
You might want to get educated about the history of psychiatry. Asylums were
an amazing upgrade to people being tied up in basements by their families.
Medications helped people who otherwise would spend their whole lives in
asylums, or simply kill themselves.

Even lobotomies kind of made sense, although thankfully far better treatments
were invented at roughly the same time, so they were short-lived.

A nice book on the history of psychiatry: [https://www.amazon.com/History-
Psychiatry-Era-Asylum-Prozac/...](https://www.amazon.com/History-Psychiatry-
Era-Asylum-Prozac/dp/0471245313)

~~~
robg
I'm very familiar, thanks. I didn't say these efforts didn't work in some
cases. I pointed out that the early beta testers were the wealthy. That said,
minors are still getting psychotropics without their consent and where their
lives aren't in any danger (ADHD). Again, a phenomenon driven by wealthy
parents.

------
nilved
> Friday, February 24, 2017

------
spoinkaroo
Is there a way to listen to podcasts without ads? I have tried Podblocker on
the mac app store. It doesn't work very well.

~~~
nyolfen
many (most?) podcast apps have 'skip' buttons that allow you to set (say, 15
or 30 second) increments. if you have your podcatcher downloading mp3's of the
shows, you can control what you listen to

