CRISPR, a Revolutionary Advancment in Genetic Engineering

[Glowing Glass]

Warning: Small nerd essay below

So since the development of CRISPR in the genetic field, I've been very interested in studying genetics. CRISPR is an acronym for Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Since I'm still kinda young and just starting high school I still have options for a job. CRISPR unlocked so many options in the field that I thought it might be very useful in the future and I might be right. With enough research and testing it should help stop almost all mental disorders, allow people to change the traits of unborn children, boost people's senses, and do much more. What stuck out to me first is how it could stop aging. When I first learned about this a few years ago I thought "If a jellyfish can quite literally reverse its age and never die, it can be done elsewhere too." But that wasn't so simple back then, it is now. All I knew is that CRISPR developments could stop aging, not sure exactly how, I just knew it was possible with what I researched. 
When I told people this some thought I was crazy, some thought it was bad, some didn't believe me. A smartasses I met said that since I don't have a degree I don't know what I'm saying. One person said "You can't stop what God has planned for us." That was a funny one. 
I still thought it was possible and I wanted to do more research on it myself. Isn't it a funny coincidence that George Church a geneticist at Harvard is now working on the same things I was thinking at that time. 

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/resetting-aging-clock-science-age-reversal/

http://www.lifeextension.com/Magazine/2016/7/Age-Reversal-Research-at-Harvard-Medical-School/Page-01

http://www.industrytap.com/coming-reality-age-reversal/35603

Here's a big "fuck you too" to the smartasses that doubted this stuff was possible.

I thought it would take 20 years at the least to have a project like this even set on a proper track. Church said the first human trials can take 2 maybe 3 years at the most. The predicted age for humans that use whatever is produced from this research is 150-750 years. The scariest part of this is that CRISPR is still very new and this is only scratching the surface of what is to come in the future. Digging a little deeper might be trying to bring extinct animals back to life. Living Mammoth cells were grown in a lab and they might just come back after all. In a hundred years or less, maybe you can touch a live big wooly mammoth.

Genetics is a real funny thing nowadays and it still gets ignored. What are your thoughts on this? Is this exciting? Does it look like a fun toy to play with? Are you absolutely terrified of the future? What funny ideas do you have with something like this? Im excited about developing this technology and I want to hear your opinions on it.

[Osrik]

I've read about this in National Geographic, seems like a really promising development in genetics. They mostly discussed the possibility of eliminating mosquito borne illnesses such as West Nile and Zika through use of CRISPR, but also the possibility of extending the shelf life of produce and eliminating of hereditary diseases in humans.

Overall, it sounds like some more testing is needed before human allocations can be deemed completely safe, but it certainly seems incredibly promising both in human and nonhuman uses, and much more precise than previous methods of genetic engineering.

[DrGravitas]

I've been keeping an eye on this technique's development for a while now via phys.org. While not without its own peculiarities and limitations, it does seem to be a very powerful tool and a great simplifier of existing workflows. I look forward to what can be achieved through it. However, much of what it brings to the table is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. There are few things it does that older techniques could not. That said, it lowers barriers to entry and may yet make many things economically possible that weren't before.

It's too early for genetics to enter the lime light, though. Better to have more proven successes before it more widely enters the public eye, or we may find irrational fears over the unknown strangle it and stunt its growth.

[Strongbob]

While it's true it will take some time to fully realize the benefits from this technology, it does have the capacity of eliminating all genetic diseases and vastly increasing human life spans.  My suggestion, keep yourself as healthy as you can for the next 20 years, because if you survive that long you may have the opportunity to live hundreds more.

[Astus]

having previously wanted to be a genetic engineer, I remember looking at this stuff a long time ago, and wondering its potential in humans. I thought CRISPR's potential lied in making humans somewhat immune to viral infection... as it does in prokaryotic cells where it was discovered... through bacteria i learned about horizontal gene transfer and how they transfer CRISPR's between each other... which somehow led me to HeLa cells, which are an immoral line of cells derived from a cervical cancer caused from a horizontal gene transfer coming from HPV. HeLa cells have that active Telomorase which prevents cell aging by not allowing the telomers to shorten... which in turn prevents the cells from multiplying too much and becoming cancerous; making me think that aging cells are necessary in humans to prevent continual cell growth.

now, actually realizing the potential to have old cells become new through that process... is well mind boggling to say in the least.... and has wonderful applications for stem cell treatments as you can now take human cells and convert them into stem cells in the lab fairly easily through "simple" gene splicing.... but in vivo its pretty much impractical because you'll be converting cells back to their original stem cell like cells, where in the jellyfish that's alright because their physiology is different than ours and they can manage with that; considering they're relatively simple.

 

As well you run into the issue, without death, of extreme population surges, extreme resource depletion, lack of human genetic diversity which can be fatal to the human race, as well as a multitude of other issues. In the end human immortality is not a good thing, even a prolonged life isn't a good idea.... our time would be better spent (at the moment) trying to better understand ourselves, each other, and our planet before we start going off and trying to make ourselves immortal 

[Saxon]

On 14/10/2016 at 3:42 PM, Astus said:

having previously wanted to be a genetic engineer, I remember looking at this stuff a long time ago, and wondering its potential in humans. I thought CRISPR's potential lied in making humans somewhat immune to viral infection... as it does in prokaryotic cells where it was discovered... through bacteria i learned about horizontal gene transfer and how they transfer CRISPR's between each other... which somehow led me to HeLa cells, which are an immoral line of cells derived from a cervical cancer caused from a horizontal gene transfer coming from HPV. HeLa cells have that active Telomorase which prevents cell aging by not allowing the telomers to shorten... which in turn prevents the cells from multiplying too much and becoming cancerous; making me think that aging cells are necessary in humans to prevent continual cell growth.

now, actually realizing the potential to have old cells become new through that process... is well mind boggling to say in the least.... and has wonderful applications for stem cell treatments as you can now take human cells and convert them into stem cells in the lab fairly easily through "simple" gene splicing.... but in vivo its pretty much impractical because you'll be converting cells back to their original stem cell like cells, where in the jellyfish that's alright because their physiology is different than ours and they can manage with that; considering they're relatively simple.

 

As well you run into the issue, without death, of extreme population surges, extreme resource depletion, lack of human genetic diversity which can be fatal to the human race, as well as a multitude of other issues. In the end human immortality is not a good thing, even a prolonged life isn't a good idea.... our time would be better spent (at the moment) trying to better understand ourselves, each other, and our planet before we start going off and trying to make ourselves immortal 

 

Immoral cells? D:

 

People in this thread are discussing the possibility of eliminating genetic disease, but I'm not sure that it is possible to envisage any population which doesn't have genetic disease, because many genes which cause diseases are pleiotropic; they are responsible for more than one trait and their effects are modulated by the presence of other genes.
The gene responsible for sickle cell anaemia is a simple example, because it confers resistance to malaria in heterozygotes, which explains why it has managed to proliferate through the human gene pool, particularly in parts of the world where malaria is endemic.
Many of the genes which we possess, which function to improve our fitness and virility in youth, act to our detriment as we age and are causally implicated in the development of diseases. I suppose you could call that  'temporal pleiotropy'. One might consider a gene, for example, which promotes the development of a large brain, but which also predisposes that brain to develop cancers in later life.

So I am going to be skeptical of the claim that all genetic disease could be eradicated and that aging itself could be prevented, because I think that these two things are essentially inseparable from our biology.
I think there is the potential to greatly reduce the amount of genetic disease and that it is possible to delay aging, but I don't think these beasts can be slain.

[Strongbob]

40 minutes ago, Saxon said:

People in this thread are discussing the possibility of eliminating genetic disease, but I'm not sure that it is possible to envisage any population which doesn't have genetic disease, because many genes which cause diseases are pleiotropic; they are responsible for more than one trait and their effects are modulated by the presence of other genes.
The gene responsible for sickle cell anaemia is a simple example, because it confers resistance to malaria in heterozygotes, which explains why it has managed to proliferate through the human gene pool, particularly in parts of the world where malaria is endemic.
Many of the genes which we possess, which function to improve our fitness and virility in youth, act to our detriment as we age and are causally implicated in the development of diseases. I suppose you could call that  'temporal pleiotropy'. One might consider a gene, for example, which promotes the development of a large brain, but which also predisposes that brain to develop cancers in later life.

So I am going to be skeptical of the claim that all genetic disease could be eradicated and that aging itself could be prevented, because I think that these two things are essentially inseparable from our biology.
I think there is the potential to greatly reduce the amount of genetic disease and that it is possible to delay aging, but I don't think these beasts can be slain.

 

This is likely true Saxon, I'm sure it will be a balancing act to correct diseases without creating unexpected side problems.  The most promising application I've read so far has been about the possibility of using CRISPR to simply extend the telomeres at the ends of our DNA to prevent error creation in our genetic sequence caused by age.  Once again I'm sure there will be some unforeseen side-effects of doing this in humans, but preventing genetic errors from proliferating as we age could significant extend our life spans.

 

42 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 

Immoral cells? D:

 

I'm pretty sure whichever cells turned me into a furry are immoral.  

[Saxon]

7 minutes ago, Sylver said:

I study Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Personally, I think you'd be wasting your time pursuing a career in research, but that's just my opinion.

Glowing Glass is 14, so it's too early to be telling him what career path he should pursue.

[Onnes]

Sylver , you are seemingly arguing from personal experience. This raises the obvious question: what is your actual experience here?

[Tsuujou]

I saw a video on this by Kurzgesagt. Sounds exciting!

[Alexxx-Returns]

You wouldn't really want to bring a wooly mammoth back in this time though. IIRC they died out because the climate changed and became too hot for them. Poor things =(

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Alexxx-Returns said:

You wouldn't really want to bring a wooly mammoth back in this time though. IIRC they died out because the climate changed and became too hot for them. Poor things =(

The woolly mammoth evolved 400,000 years ago, having diverged from the steppe mammoth. It hence survived several glacial-interglacial cycles, so I doubt that warmth was the reason for their extinction.

The stresses of change between a glacial/interglacial, coupled with human colonisation of the northern continents, may be a more likely explanation.

[Onnes]

1 hour ago, Sylver said:

On a personal note, I get the impression that your question is meant to emphasis my lack of experience, thereby largely discrediting what I said. It seems hard to miss the two times I mentioned that I'm a student who's studying it. Maybe I'm just being a pessimistic prick right now because I'm not in the best of moods, and that's making me biased and ignoring some information. Anyway, if that was your objective, I think it's pretty ignorant (I know, ironic because I may be ignorant right now) because you'd be discrediting likely the only person on this forum with remotely any experience within that field.

I'm a dick today for some reason. Try to ignore the shitty things in my posts.

Actually, I was offering you the opportunity to give your opinions some backing, either from your own expertise or that of whatever sources you rely on. Being a student (what level?) really doesn't say anything; I teach students your age, and I wouldn't trust them to know a thing about research careers in Physics, for example.

[Glowing Glass]

@Sylver I can agree with about half of what you said.

Instead of spending the next 20 minutes typing I'm just going to say studying genetics could be a good idea for its potential value in the future or it might be the worst idea ever and I'm going to have no future. It's too early to tell what will happen. 

I doubt I'll be wasting my time even if the wild side of Genetic Engineering is hated and banned in many places. Someone will want what it can offer eventually. IE Antibiotics are slowly becoming less powerful and their use will eventually run out. Where normal solutions to those problems end, new solutions will take their place. Genetics might become a new solution.

There is equal evidence supporting genetics being bad or good. I can't say you're right, but I can't say you're wrong either. I'm going to keep studying it anyways.

[Alexxx-Returns]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

The woolly mammoth evolved 400,000 years ago, having diverged from the steppe mammoth. It hence survived several glacial-interglacial cycles, so I doubt that warmth was the reason for their extinction.

The stresses of change between a glacial/interglacial, coupled with human colonisation of the northern continents, may be a more likely explanation.

Huh, well, the more you know. Thanks ^.^

[WileyWarWeasel]

5 hours ago, Sylver said:

@Saxon @OnnesSorry about being a dick yesterday. Thanks for the responses.

I spoke with two people who work in the industry over the past year and they both said similar things. My posts is basically me conveying what they said. That's the extent of my experience though.

 

@Glowing Glass It's certainly a good idea if you enjoy that material. To clarify, I wasn't talking about whether it's good or bad for the human race, but whether it's worth pursuing as a career.

I have no idea if it will be good or bad. It has the potential to wipe out entire species and break the laws of nature, but at the same time has the capacity to do great good. Interesting video on CRISPR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_OhvOumT0

I think it's important to remember that whatever future we envision will likely be nothing like the future we get. It's important to tread lightly and not rush into things. We're not as intelligent as we think we are.

 

Impossible, we're so intelligent we try to solve problems created by our engineering with more engineering (genetic or otherwise).

Genius ^__^