9 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2019
    1. ethical ramifications of widely accessible tools for altering genomes.

      Is this the philosophical problem underlying CRISPR? Isn't anything else beyond the widespread availability of the technology that is troublesome? It also reiterates the dual use problem: good and bad people can have access to the technology and we need to make sure only good people have access to it

      For the dual use, see Bennett et al 2009

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. Some worry that this is the first step toward using gene editing to create people with extreme intelligence, beauty or athletic ability. But that, for now, is not possible. Such traits are thought to be affected by possibly hundreds of genes acting in concert, and affected in turn by the environment. The biggest ethical concerns for now are with rogue scientists enticing couples who do not realize the risks to babies that might result from the experiments. And when those children grow up, the altered genes will be passed on to their children, and to their children’s children, for generations to come

      Is that how we should portray He Jiankui? Like a "rogue scientists enticing couples who do not realize the risks to babies that might result from the experiments"? But what if the current values (in the sense of a virtue ethics for example) that we uphold for the life sciences, are the ones that brought He to take these actions? Values that do not correspond to what we should think regarding science's values, but rather to the values that are usually uphold in corporations.

      See Shorett et al 2003

    1. This is a very important piece in the discussion of the ethical issues of CRISPR-Cas9. Instead on focusing only on the aspect of editing of human germ-line, the authors focus on more pressing aspects such as the use on foods, gene drives to decimate vector species, and biofuels, pharmaceuticals.

      Some of the outstanding issues are:

      • More transparent and accountable regulatory processes
      • Risks on ecological balance and unforeseeable effects on decimating vector species
      • Need to assign liability for ecological damage
      • Measures to halt the effects of edited animals if they prove harmful

    Tags

    Annotators

  2. Jul 2018
    1. The MGEs are less abundant in archaea and bacteria, conceivably due to the intense purifying selection that constrains the spread of selfish elements but nevertheless constitute up to 30% of some bacterial genomes ( Casjens 2003 ; Carle et al. 2010 ).

      This is interesting!

  3. Apr 2018
  4. Feb 2018
  5. Nov 2017
    1. CRISPR screening has emerged as a powerful method for identifying critical functional dependencies in vitro (Koike-Yusa et al., 2014xGenome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. Koike-Yusa, H., Li, Y., Tan, E.-P., Velasco-Herrera, Mdel.C., and Yusa, K. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014; 32: 267–273Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (285)See all References, Shalem et al., 2014xGenome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Shalem, O., Sanjana, N.E., Hartenian, E., Shi, X., Scott, D.A., Mikkelson, T., Heckl, D., Ebert, B.L., Root, D.E., Doench, J.G., and Zhang, F. Science. 2014; 343: 84–87Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (936)See all References)
  6. Feb 2017
    1. Where should we draw the ethical and moral lines? Will CRISPR mean people are making designer babies and eliminating genetic diseases, and is that acceptable? We can wipe out whole species, like the mosquitos that carry the malaria parasite. But should we?

      All good questions.

    2. The controversial gene editing technique CRISPR could help scientists solve antimicrobial resistance, cure genetic diseases and much more

      I'm so excited to learn more about this!