
Welcome to the CRISPR Zoo - gwern
http://www.nature.com/news/welcome-to-the-crispr-zoo-1.19537
======
entee
This is precisely an area where CRISPR can have a huge impact in a fairly
short timeline. With animal/crop genetics we often have more understanding for
what genetics are important for what feature and how to introduce the CRISPR
machinery into cells, combined with room for error. Remember that with CRISPR
you usually need a whole bunch of cells/embryos etc. because the recombination
step after cutting the DNA (CRISPR just cuts) may not always succeed as
expected. Hard to do that (and unethical) with human embryos, much easier with
chickens.

That said, we also need to get over the GMO thing. The science is pretty clear
that GMOs are not toxic and no worse for the environment than normal crops (in
some cases less harmful actually). We should continue to be careful and
ethical as we explore this technology, but let's not get distracted by pseudo-
scientific fear-mongering on GMO foods.

~~~
Zigurd
> _That said, we also need to get over the GMO thing._

That, of course, is incontrovertible in that anything that's been domesticated
has been genetically manipulated, often to the extent that it can't survive in
the wild. It's just a matter of how fast and how precise the manipulation gets
with induced mutations, recombinant methods, and CRISPR Cas-9.

But to be fair to the anti-GMO people, what they're really complaining about
is bad outcomes that are not proximate to GM technology, but are enabled by
it, like having herbicide residue on their herbicide-resistant crops, or that
are part of commercializing GM technology, like overreaching IP laws.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> But to be fair to the anti-GMO people, what they're really complaining about
> is bad outcomes that are not proximate to GM technology, but are enabled by
> it, like having herbicide residue on their herbicide-resistant crops, or
> that are part of commercializing GM technology, like overreaching IP laws.

No, people with that kind of complaint are a vanishingly small presence among
anti-GMO people. What they're really complaining about is that a part-fish
part-tomato is contrary to the order of the universe.

~~~
kbenson
I think the progression was something like this:

1\. Advocate: "GMO crops altered to be resistant to herbicides have problems
and some people are getting sick!"

2\. Advocate: Hmm, that's a mouthful, we'll just say GMO and people will
understand. We can also foment fear in GMO in general, which won't hurt us.
"GMO crops are making people sick!"

3\. Consumer: Woah, this is GMO? But I keep hearing GMO is bad!

This became clear to me after the wife of a friend who is a nature educator at
a state park posted something about stopping GMO crops. I was confused about
what was so bad about GMO crops, so asked. She explained that "GMO crops"
refers to GMO engineered crops that are herbicide resistant, and that's what
causes the problems. There was a war over terminology at some point, and the
side of accuracy lost. This is the outcome. Our educators use terminology that
imply a lot of unfounded negative connotations because that's the common
parlance, and the public doesn't know how to disambiguate. This is not a new
problem. Politicians use this to their benefit on a regular basis.

In the meantime, we're all slightly worse off.

------
Dowwie
There was a discussion about the culture of secrecy among CRISPR scientists on
NPR's On The Media. The show host interviewed a scientist from MIT Media Lab,
Kevin Esvelt. Kevin is taking an ethical stand in his field, demanding that
the scientific community conduct itself in a transparent, inclusive way. It's
one of the reasons why he interviewed.

"I want people who ideologically object to the very notion of altering nature
in any way-- I would love for those people to take a close look at _exactly_
what my group is working on and proposing to do and try to find _anything_
they can think of that might go wrong. And if they succeed, if they find
something we can't invent a way around, and we can't make it safe, then the
project has to halt -- and that's as it should be. Right now, scientists do
not tell _anyone_ what they are currently doing and planning to do in the
laboratory. I think the system would be better if all research was done in the
open. Gene drive is the place where we _must_ start. _Everyone_ should have an
opportunity to share their concerns and criticism when it comes to
technologies that will impact all of us, and we would be foolish to dismiss
concerns simply because someone doesn't have a degree."

[http://www.wnyc.org/story/editing-culture-science-
crispr](http://www.wnyc.org/story/editing-culture-science-crispr)

------
carapace
I don't have time today to write a fresh response to this so I'm going to just
scream for a few minutes and then quote myself from somewhere else:

"""

I firmly believe that all genetic engineering applications, except for human
health-related medical interventions, should be delayed for at least several
hundred years. Research, yes, but applications are out of the question for
centuries.

Anything less stringent is open-ended experimentation on the only biosphere in
the known Universe. It is hubris of the rankest sort.

Further I believe that this is a scientific view.

We know our ignorance is far too vast.

The only reasons to use GMOs are hubris and greed. That is it.

Either you are a scientific ego-tripper who can't or won't understand that
real people have serious reservations about participating in your open-ended
genetic experiment, or you just want to make a buck and don't care.

If it could be shown that, for some given application of GE, there is
absolutely no other alternative to save lives, then that's something. However,
I believe we can feed ourselves without GMOs by means of "applied ecology"
("Permaculture" etc.) so there is no call to use GMOs. These doubtless well-
meaning scientists are using the reduction of "Vitamin-A deficiencies causing
blindness and death in children in the developing world" to insist on a highly
controversial technology. It's kind of just as ugly and self-serving as they
paint Greenpeace to be.

The report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
is quoted in the article as saying, "such crops are relatively new and that it
is premature to make broad generalizations, positive or negative, about their
safety."

We know we don't know enough. I don't want to eat your faith. """

~~~
marcoperaza
I see a lot of fear mongering but zero evidence in your position. What exactly
could go wrong? How are those risks different or greater than normal risks
that we accept, like certain levels of air pollution or medication whose side
effects haven't been studied across multiple generations of progeny?

------
pilom
CRISPR really does make me believe that someone who lives to be 200+ is alive
today. The potential and speed of improvement is so astronomical I can't wait
to see the future.

