
First Human Embryos Edited in U.S - astdb
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/
======
eggie
We would need a very particular set of conditions for embryonic editing to be
justifiable under a medical dogma that aims to "do no harm." Both parents
would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, as
this would make embryonic selection of non-carriers very difficult. Then we
would need the editing system to be so reliable as to not introduce off-target
mutations. In a preimplantation setting, we can't easily observe if non-
desired mutations have been introduced in some cells, as this would require
sequencing every cell in the developing embryo. Serious disease introduced
through chimeric errors in the editing process would be a real possibility,
and there is no feasible way we could guard against this result using
sequencing as it would require destruction of the embryo.

A more realistic scenario would be to develop a human embryonic stem cell
culture that has been edited as desired and then implant this into a
developing blastocyst at a point at which it would take over the and develop
into the fetus. This is done with mice and there is no reason it wouldn't work
for humans. I think that most people would find this much more abhorrent than
directly editing the germline. However, it would be much safer for the
engineered proband and would not require a "perfect" editing system that we do
not have.

~~~
alextheparrot
I'm not certain where the premise that our medicine must "Do no harm" comes
from. Chemotherapy, for example, is known for being extremely toxic and
harmful, yet the justification is that it often yields better outcomes than no
treatment. Why can we not use the same justification for editing DNA? Honestly
some therapies cause mutations by design, as some cancers are less capable of
DNA repair.

I do see one argument, hinging on the difference between an embryo and an
adult aged many years. If your argument is that better techniques may exist at
the embryonic stage, then I submit to the medical community to ascertain the
appropriate course. However, I don't think offsite mutations pose a
significant enough risk that one can say that, on aggregate, gene editing
won't "do some good".

~~~
ekianjo
Chemotherapy is more of an exception than the norm when it comes to what
treatments are acceptable. Most other drugs have to be proven safe to use even
before showing tangible benefits. And even in oncology there are Phase I
studies to ensure that your treatment is not Too toxic either. So yeah, Do Not
Harm is very much a thing.

~~~
dlss
> Most other drugs have to be proven safe to use even before showing tangible
> benefits.

What? I encourage you to read about prescription drug side effects. If a drug
were safe, it would be over the counter rather than prescription. Prescription
drugs are exactly the kind of harm/benefit bundle GP is describing.

~~~
ianai
As someone with chronic migraines, the question is very much about benefits
outweighing costs. Also largely ineffective.

------
plaidfuji
I've seen most of these arguments for and against gene editing before, but the
fact of the matter is that it will come down to the economic competitiveness
of nations, as always.

What concerns me in the long term is that gene editing will cause human
genomes to converge to a single gold standard with proven mental and physical
benefits, thereby reducing our species' genetic diversity and leaving us more
vulnerable to a mass extinction event. A "zero day exploit" that everyone
missed in the popular new cancer-fighting edit.

~~~
pcnonpc
From an interview with Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist:

"Q: What does that mean in human language? A: Any given couple could
potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and
the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s
going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had
it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce
if they had 100 kids. It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes, it’s
the genes that couples already have.

Q: And over the course of several generations you’re able to exponentially
multiply the population’s intelligence. A: Right. Even if it only boosts the
average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic
productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get,
how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is.

Q: How does Western research in genetics compare to China’s? A: We’re pretty
far behind. We have the same technical capabilities, the same statistical
capabilities to analyze the data, but they’re collecting the data on a much
larger scale and seem to be capable of transforming the scientific findings
into government policy and consumer genetic testing much more easily than we
are. Technically and scientifically we could be doing this, but we’re not.

Q: Why not? A: We have ideological biases that say, “Well, this could be
troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with
God.” I just attended a debate in New York a few weeks ago about whether or
not we should outlaw genetic engineering in babies and the audience was pretty
split. In China, 95 percent of an audience would say, “Obviously you should
make babies genetically healthier, happier, and brighter!” There’s a big
cultural difference.

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gw8vn/chinas-taking-
over...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gw8vn/chinas-taking-over-the-
world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program)

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge
difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the
country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how
innovative their economy is."_

IQ points? Hasn't IQ long ago been discredited as a measure of intelligence?

~~~
jchien17
Don't think it is - do you have anything to back this up? I think IQ is pretty
accepted as a measure of intelligence.

~~~
kwhitefoot
Maybe, but what is the definition of intelligence? And even if there is a
usable definition is it something that warrants being optimized?

~~~
csa
See my comment above. Some additional comments:

\- Optimizing EQ is probably far more valuable for society.

\- I am not sure that EQ can be optimized for in genetics as easily as IQ can.

\- On an individual level, putting a child on the right side of their
potential IQ curve will probably make their lives easier or better assuming
that relatively few of their peers have this same advantage.

\- If every child is on the right side of their potential IQ curve, then
optimizing IQ will largely just be a different state for society rather than a
noticeable improvement. Most (all?) improvements would likely be seen on the
high end in terms of theoretical developments.

\- Note that if this switch is somehow flipped in a society, I personally
believe that there will be a huge EQ intergenerational crisis such that EQ
will be valued even more.

------
sethbannon
I am so insanely excited for the potential of this technology. There are many
ethical questions here, but the potential benefits far outweigh the downsides.
In the near future, we can detect and eliminate genetic disorders, ensuring no
child has to suffer from these defects any longer. Long term, this gives us a
tool to take control of our own evolution in a way never before possible.

Couldn't be more excited for what's possible.

~~~
tcbawo
While I appreciate the optimism in this sentiment, the similarity to the early
atomic age gives me pause. Human beings have shown time and time again that
they cannot be absolutely trusted.

~~~
theWatcher37
The atomic age came without the world or our species ending.

~~~
austinjp
By that token, every single activity of anyone, anywhere, any time has been a
success.

~~~
TeMPOraL
So let's put it differently: was the atomic age net good for humanity? I'd say
_very much, yes_.

~~~
austinjp
Maybe. I think it's difficult painting these things as having a net value.
There's good and bad, and they co-exist, one doesn't come without the other.

------
kanzure
here's a TODO list i made for possibly interesting genome editing targets:
[http://diyhpl.us/wiki/genetic-modifications/](http://diyhpl.us/wiki/genetic-
modifications/)

Many of these have low demonstrated correlation or significance so don't just
blindly load everything on that document into your at-home CRISPR kit
[http://www.the-odin.com/gene-engineering-kits/](http://www.the-odin.com/gene-
engineering-kits/) but it should be a good starting point for thinking about
what can be modified, improved, disimproved, etc.

~~~
hirenj
I can't speak for all the genes on that list, but I wouldn't go around
knocking out FUT2 just yet. We don't know the full extent of biological roles
for it, and the functionality is probably redundantly encoded in multiple
genes too.

Specifically for viral interactions I reckon you'd be better off designing a
small molecule inhibitor of viral binding via whatever lectin they have to
whichever protein (or lipid for that matter) the sugar that FUT2 glycosylates
is attached to. This allows for much more precise targeting of the undesired
behaviour, rather than just chopping out the whole gene.

~~~
Symmetry
Agreed. I'm a non-secretor and I've benefited from not getting a norovirus
when I really ought to have. But if such a valuable trait hasn't reached
fixation in the population there's bound to be a reason. It also has a variety
of effects on susceptibility to other diseases, some positive, some negative.

[https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs601338](https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs601338)

------
artur_makly
"Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few
days—and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—"

oh im sure human trials have begun by the time mass articles like this
surface.

i've met young gententic research students who told me they went to work for
labs based in Latam simply because they were allowed to do perform any
experiments deemed illegal in the US - to get a precious few years of a head
start.

~~~
austenallred
Yup. Common startup advice for US startups in the healthcare space is "go to
India"

------
albertTJames
Ethics questions need to be raised now, and guidelines have to be decided. The
future of humanity is in gene editing. It should not depends on the lazyness
of law makers and outrage of godfearing creatures to decide the fate of
humanity. It is time we take our evolution into our own hands.

~~~
rubatuga
Most agree that it is unethical to purposely have a disabled/diseased child if
it possible to not have a nondisabled one. In that case, I think it is quite
ethical for this technology to be used on those with debilitating genetic
defects. We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

~~~
nyolfen
> We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

china in particular does not have the west's historical scruples wrt genetic
editing and eugenics. i think this 'debate' will last about as long as it
takes for the first generation of modded chinese children with two or three
SDs on the mean to be brought into the world.

~~~
ernestipark
I don't think you can make a very strong argument for the "west's historical
scruples wrt genetic editing and eugenics" when you look at the prevalence of
convenience abortions and the history of eugenics in America.

~~~
Sprocklem
The west has been very anti-eugenics for over half a century at this point,
but I agree it isn't very historical. That being said, there's a big
difference between genetic editing and abortions of fetuses with genetic
disorders (which is what I assume you mean by "convenience abortions").

A lot of people are scared of GMOs, even if it's just a simple alteration to a
plant. I doubt that genetic modification of people will begin in the west
without significant outcry and pushback.

------
dr_
I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be
permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one
nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't
other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their
citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and
status? Just a thought.

~~~
theWatcher37
I all honestly, we can not allow a gene-gap.

Forget racism, what happens when a country can _actually_ make it's people
"better" (faster/smarter/live longer/stronger) by significant margins?

~~~
Tade0
The rest of the world either catches up or lands in a zoo eventually.

~~~
biggerbistro
The fact that more people aren't terrified of this worries me. Hitler may have
been wrong with his "aryan superman" view but what happens when there is
science backing it up? Not really looking forward to a genetically-enforced
caste system.

------
WalterBright
Gene editing is probably the only way humans can colonize space. By adapting
people to different gravities, air chemistry and pressure, radiation, etc.,
the need for life support equipment can be significantly reduced, and the
quality of life of the colonists can be improved.

~~~
rxhernandez
Let me start by saying I'm not a biologist. However, it would seem prudent to
think we are much much farther from doing most of what you said than doing
terraforming at small levels when we just started editing embryos. Ostensibly
the science doesn't even yet exist to do what you are describing whereas
funding is the majority of the problem for terraforming at small levels.

~~~
WalterBright
Even small adjustments can make things better. One example is how melatonin
levels in people vary based on what latitude they came from. Native Eskimos
can digest different foods. The ability to synthesize vitamin C. Some people
are more adapted to lower pressures (high altitude). Smaller body size can
reduce life support requirements. It's endless.

------
pcnonpc
"The BGI Cognitive Genomics Project is currently doing whole-genome sequencing
of 1,000 very-high-IQ people around the world, hunting for sets of sets of IQ-
predicting alleles. I know because I recently contributed my DNA to the
project, not fully understanding the implications. These IQ gene-sets will be
found eventually—but will probably be used mostly in China, for China.
Potentially, the results would allow all Chinese couples to maximize the
intelligence of their offspring by selecting among their own fertilized eggs
for the one or two that include the highest likelihood of the highest
intelligence. Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any
one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of
"preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family
to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. After a couple of
generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness."

[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838](https://www.edge.org/response-
detail/23838)

What do you think about this? From what I gather, the Chinese and much of East
Asia do not have cultural resistance against using genetic engineering to
increase their children's IQs. I will even guess that the governments will
encourage their populations to use it.

Will the US, in particular the educated portion of the population, will adopt
the practice soon after it is proven safe?

If China starts to do that en masse, Europe and the US will likely criticize
them initially. Will they then be forced to adopt the practice soon
afterwards? If so, how many years of lag approximately? How much resistance
will there be on adopting the practice especially considering the left's
belief on everyone's fundamental equality?

The denial about the importance of intelligence is quite obvious now at least
by a significant percentage of Americans and Europeans. (They claim "hard work
and culture are what matter.", ignoring twins and adopt studies) Will they
wait for 1-2 generations until it's so obvious they cannot compete when they
start to use genetic engineering themselves?

~~~
pcnonpc
The average Chinese also values education and intellgence much more than the
average American.

"Beijing parents splurge £154,000 on street alleyway in catchment area for
desirable school

It may be a dusty passageway, ridden with insects and with electric cables
dangling precariously from crumbling concrete overhead, but its value
outstrips top-end property in Kensington and Chelsea due to rising demand from
Chinese parents battling to get their children into elite schools."

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/beijing-
parents-s...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/beijing-parents-
splurge-154000-on-street-alleyway-in-catchment-a/)

------
roceasta
The talk is of 'genetic enhancement' but the potential benefit seems more
boring and necessary to me: removal of many new and as-yet-unidentified
mutations. It is thought that these have been accumulating generation by
generation since about 1800 when child mortality started to fall.

~~~
evolve2017
I would be very interested to read an academic paper that made this point. 200
years is a blink of an eye in almost any vertebrate's evolutionary time.

Also, to support your claim, one would need evidence that the child mortality
of the past reflected genetic unfitness (as opposed to poverty or the
unavailability of antibiotics).

~~~
sillysaurus3
200 years is a decent chunk of time from an evolutionary standpoint. We feel
it's short because of how long our history has been. But within 200 years you
can manufacture N new breeds of dogs, for example. We just underestimate how
much change takes place in the world.

~~~
maxerickson
Dogs are fertile at 1 or 2 years of age. You can do an awful lot more in
100-150 generations than you can in 10-15 generations (probably more like 6-8.
Checking my family tree, many of my great-great grandparents were born ~1850,
so for me personally, 5 or 6 generations).

In any case, we have to go back to the question that the GP asked, that dogs
are malleable doesn't help us. Does reduced child mortality really cause more
mutations to accumulate?

------
Mikeb85
As if there wasn't enough inequality in the world, now the rich will be able
to afford to make their offspring genetically superior to everyone else's.
Have fun with a 1% that are literally overlords.

~~~
literallycancer
Ideally we'd all improve together, but hey, I'm not going to let people like
you stop me, you are right about that.

~~~
biggerbistro
Do you really think you will be among the ones allowed at the top? Protip: if
you were you wouldn't be here right now. We will all likely be denied access
to the best technology and will quickly fall behind within a couple
generations.

~~~
literallycancer
Here? As in posting on the internet? Why not?

~~~
biggerbistro
I of course have no sources to back this up (how would one even get such
data?) but I suspect billionaires have better things to do than go e-slumming
with those of us with fewer than 30 cars.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Billionaires? Perhaps. But aren't most of us on here taking a quick break from
our Silicon Valley-like software engineering jobs that put us in or near the
highest income 1% of the United States, and firmly within the highest income
1% of the world? I'm sure any significant medical advance that is remotely
scalable will be available to most of us if our competitiveness and survival
depends on it.

------
thosakwe
In my class just Monday, we watched a film titled Gattaca, which tells the
story of a society fueled by eugenics, where most births are in-vitro modified
babies, and there is clear discrimination against those with "imperfect"
genes. It's crazy how close these things are to reality.

~~~
Symmetry
I hated that movie. It's nice to think that you could overcome a heart
condition through willpower, but the flip side of that is that if someone has
a heart condition and doesn't overcome it then it's their fault. In reality
life is just biologically unfair and disease or infirmity isn't actually a
moral failing.

~~~
Pulcinella
I don't think they ever confirm he has the heart condition, just when they
screen him as an infant there is "~99% chance" he has it. Part of the plot is
that the main character and others like him are never given a chance at
anything in life because genetics have become viewed as destiny. They have
futuristic advanced medical technology that probably could give everyone a
good, meaningful life. He lives at the best time in history to survive a heart
condition and yet he can't even get into daycare because the insurance won't
cover him.

The society in Gattaca has used their advanced technology to imprison
themselves and eliminate social mobility rather than expand it.

------
chiefalchemist
Wasn't there a HN post/thread a week or so ago about some scientist having a
(new-ish) theory about DNA and the role specific genes play? If there's enough
doubt that there's still room for other theories, is CRISPR really a good
idea?

~~~
88e282102ae2e5b
Well, you wouldn't want to modify a gene that isn't well-characterized, sure.
But there are some things that are known with a great deal of certainty.

~~~
chiefalchemist
I remember they used to say that...when the world was flat :)

The issue I have with this type of engineering is there is no means of egress
(if you will), no thought about how a recall would be implemented.

Humans are flawed. The history of engineering displays those flaws. But
instead we purposely stand in our own blindspot and insist "no. THIS time I'll
be different" completely forgetting the countless times that was said
previously.

Long to short, our certainty is likely overstated. It wouldn't be the first
time either.

------
noir-york
Evolution made us, then we discovered it, and now we can directly code it.

Pity evolution didn't give us the intelligence, restraint and good judgement
to make sure that we will not screw this up. And we will.

A myriad of reasons will be given. Medical reasons - how could one refuse?
Then parents: "Harvard is expensive and I want to give my child the best
chance I can afford". Then nation states will feel pressure to 'level the
genetic playing field'.

On the other hand, with AI soon replacing us, apparently, we can fight back
and enhance ourselves!

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Pity evolution didn 't give us the intelligence, restraint and good
> judgement to make sure that we will not screw this up. And we will._

Because this is how we grow up. We screw up, again and again, but as long as
we come out stronger each time, I'd say it's worth it.

That's why I believe a top priority today should be ensuring that our
technological civilization does not collapse - through neither technological
mistakes, nor through social upheaval. And if we were not given enough
intelligence, restraint and good judgement to avoid making stupid errors, then
maybe at some point, we'll fix that too.

------
mmirate
Well this is exciting, but hopefully it will advance beyond "genetic disease".
Or maybe in the future we will be able to expand our definition of that term,
to include all genetic predispositions to suboptimal traits? (e.g. slow
observation-decision loop, hedonism, sentimentalism/too-much-empathy,
neuroticism, etc.)

Either way - hopefully, when this tech is completed, we will be able to accept
and enjoy that our descendants will literally be superior beings to us, and
not look upon them with too much envy.

~~~
zanny
Wait, being empathic is now a negative trait? I'd hope we would want our first
generation of superhumans to be too empathic, or else they might exterminate
all of us of inferior breed.

~~~
mmirate
In addition to the factors mentioned in the sibling comment, empathy can often
lead one to make the wrong decision. (Where by "wrong" I mean any decision
other than the one best supported by one's rational analysis.)

~~~
mmirate
So I suppose it's not the empathy itself that's the problem; rather, it's that
we are so emotionally sensitive to the data we gain from our empathy.

------
djohnston
We already have a clear division in health along socioeconomic lines, but
delivberately encoding our inequalities into our DNA is a future I could skip.

------
nonbel
Yet another mainstream news report on CRISPR before any scientific report is
available.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Yeah, science by press release is unfortunately quite common nowadays.

------
Noos
I don't think the modest raise in IQ would be worth a society that considers
children as products they can alter to specification. Bill McKibben in Enough
wrote eloquently about the existential dread that could happen if we somehow
managed to select for musical skill for example. It's one thing to deal with
your talent or lack of it in terms of the randomness of normal life, another
thing to realize you are little more than a racehorse that has been bred
because your parents want you to be something.

------
k__
Sounds nice, but I don't want children, I want myself to be improved.

~~~
plaidfuji
This is the real shit right here. There's going to be gene-ism against older
generations with inferior genetics, talk of "cutting them off" of government
health programs because their fragile bodies are too expensive to maintain...

~~~
gpawl
Did you know that even today, old people are less healthy than young people?

------
stillhere
Seems like a more socially acceptable form of Eugenics since society seems to
value advanced science more than it does traditional mate selection based on
desired physical traits.

------
patkai
I know very little about this topic, but let me shoot: isn't this method for
improving competitiveness misguided and shortsighted? How about working on
emotional intelligence, better education and talent management, better food in
schools, better child care, more support for disadvantaged families - there is
so much we can do... Or is it just not about improving society, but
individuals (with deep pockets)?

------
greendestiny_re
I'm eager to see the long-term results of the gene editing procedures.

>The earlier Chinese publications, although limited in scope, found CRISPR
caused editing errors and that the desired DNA changes were taken up not by
all the cells of an embryo, only some.

Instability is an inherent property of genes.

------
gehwartzen
"Now Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of
embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely
and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases."

Seems a little early for such a claim based on embryos that only developed for
a few days.

~~~
corndoge
In the US human embryos used for research are restricted from developing for
more than two weeks

------
idibidiart
Evolutionary logic is like a massive legacy codebase without any tests. Fuck
with it at your own risk. You could definitely get lucky and improve
functionality but you'll never know what you'll be breaking.

------
vivekd
I think enough people recognize the ethical issues inherent in designer babies
enough that we are in no danger of reaching that point. I think the tech could
have great applications in livestock and curing genetic defects.

------
analog31
In the future, every dissertation will include in its Acknowledgements
section, the student's parents, faculty advisor, and gene editor.

------
ysleepy
Why do in on human embryos instead of any other animal? At this stage, it must
be for publicity reasons alone. Tasteless in my view.

~~~
freeflight
Because we've already done it with plenty of other animals, even cloned them
and let them grow to maturity. Never heard of Dolly?

We've been at a point, where it's viable for human application, for quite a
while. But the ethical and religious stigma is preventing us from going the
full distance.

As of right now, it is very likely that the first genetically
engineered/enhanced human will be a Chinese person because they are way more
pragmatic about those issues.

------
jlebrech
Reactivate Vitamin C synthesis, etc.

------
ziikutv
Wow it's a Brave new world.

------
cellis
CRISPR is coming. I seriously think with CRISPR we could see several trillion
dollar companies. From cancer and aids cures to fundamentally altering what it
means to be human, this is all within the near grasp of CRISPR ( if what i've
been reading is to be believed ).

~~~
adventured
Gilead managed to demonstrate how curing a major disease does not result in
such a spectacular outcome (of the trillion dollar scale). They did very well
by curing HepC, briefly, and now they're eroding back down after just a few
boom years. The same would occur with curing HIV/AIDS. There would be a brief
boom derived from sales in some developed nations (most nations would receive
the cure _extremely_ inexpensively, as with HepC). It might get a company to a
couple hundred billion market cap short-term, nowhere near a trillion dollar
outcome however. Further, attempting to charge a lot for the HIV/AIDS cure
(such that you could get to a trillion dollar market cap), would result in a
far worse PR outcome than what Gilead & Co. saw with HepC drugs; calls for
nationalization would be overwhelming. Nations such as India and China would
simply ignore all patents and proceed to copying the cure - few would support
any economic counter/consequence against that move.

It is often said that companies would intentionally prefer not to cure major
diseases. Then Gilead (Pharmasset), goes ahead and does so, while charging
less for the cure than the cost of healthcare for living with HepC (much less
all that is lost from HepC, including quality of life and economic
contribution) - and for doing so, they were treated as a villain due to what
they charged. For such reasons, I doubt we'll ever see drug prices high enough
to deliver trillion dollar outcomes. Throw on top of this, that the last
bastion of crazy drug prices - the US - is nearing an end on its tolerance for
such.

~~~
trhway
what you describe just shows that the old business model - pill in exchange
for money - starts to show its limitations in the globalized world. Facebook
would never get where it is now if it charged $10/year in Africa and $100/year
in US. The pharma company who figures out that new business model would become
that trillion dollar company.

~~~
adventured
There is no new business model that will derive a lot more money. There's a
finite amount of global income available in a given year and it's not
expanding at a rapid clip.

The very specific problem is the rest of the world will never pay it, and the
US is aiming to stop paying it (exorbitant prices). Nothing is going to change
that, it's a fact of life when resources such as income and wealth are
inherently limited and expand fairly slowly overall. If you come up with
something spectacular that is very valuable, they're still not going to pay it
- it was demonstrated overwhelmingly by the HepC cure (and has been
demonstrated by vaccines as another for decades; what's more life saving than
vaccinations? and yet the developing world simply will not - and frequently
can't - pay high prices for such).

Vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives. Give me an example of
something that is going to beat that. Now take a look at the extraordinarily
unspectacular financial outcome for the vaccination market (particularly
compared to the trillion dollar premise being discussed). Why would anyone by
default believe something amazing that comes out of CRISPR, would produce a
dramatically superior financial outcome versus what vaccines have produced?

~~~
kanzure
Perhaps I am up too late and don't completely understand where your question
is coming from... but there's a lot of hope available in biology because DNA
is one of the most successfully widely deployed technologies of the last 4
billion years. It's had hundreds of trillions of years being battletested in
production environments. It's cheap to copy, replicate and eventually it will
be cheap to modify and write. Literally everyone is (badly?) programmed with
DNA-- and CRISPR isn't the last word on genome engineering. There will
absolutely be changes that large chunks of the population will _demand_ , far
and beyond the demand for vaccines.

------
theRhino
question is did they use emacs or vim?

------
thrwaway655366
GATTACA!

------
SiempreZeus
You want a Gattaca world?? This is how you get a Gattaca world.

------
aphextron
Why?

------
Cozumel
Related: 'Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo'
[http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.h...](http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.html)

~~~
88e282102ae2e5b
This paper was incredibly sloppy and has been widely dismissed by scientists
in the field.

~~~
djsumdog
Well it was refuted by people in biotech, who have a considerable stake in
that field.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608073/gene-editing-
compa...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608073/gene-editing-companies-
hit-back-at-paper-that-criticized-crispr/)

I thought the original authors had a rebuttal, but I can't seem to find it.

~~~
88e282102ae2e5b
I don't think there's any need for a cui bono line of thinking. There are
biologists who have nothing to gain who thought this paper was lousy. For
example, every single biologist in my department that I spoke to, and every
biologist I've found online who had something to say on the matter.

Perhaps that's too much of a selection bias for you, so I'll offer this
critique: if you wanted to measure the off target effects of Cas9 in an
organism, you would probably sequence the organism before you edited it, and
then sequence it again after you edited it. But that's not what they did.

