Scientists are claiming a major breakthrough in HIV cure researchers at the University of Amsterdam successfully eliminated the virus from infected cells using Nobel prize technology called CRISPR the gene editing technology.

Scientists claim they have successfully cut HIV out of infected cells

Using CRISPR gene-editing tools to grow engineered trees, researchers have made a breakthrough in reducing the environmental impact of paper production.

They’ve successfully grown poplar trees with significantly less lignin, a woody material present in plants.

The process separation of this lignin during the papermaking process is what typically generates millions of tonnes of chemical waste and substantial greenhouse gas emissions each year.

<h2>What will these genetically-engineered trees do?</h2>

As per a study published in Science, milling these engineered trees could lead to a substantial reduction in papermaking pollution while also saving the industry billions of dollars.

Traditionally, paper production involves cutting wood into small chips, with poplars being a common source due to their fast growth.

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/google-ai-health-chatbot-cracks-us-medical-exam-says-study-615168">Google's AI health chatbot Med-PaLM cracks US medical licensing exam, says study</a>

Water and chemicals are added to extract cellulose fibres from the tough lignin structures, which is then used to form a wet pulp that is pressed and dried into paper.

Previous efforts to reduce lignin content in trees have yielded modest results. However, the researchers behind this study took a different approach by targeting the genes responsible for regulating overall lignin production.

Using CRISPR gene editing, the team led by Jack Wang and Rodolphe Barrangou, biotechnologists at North Carolina State University built a computer model, and evaluated approximately 70,000 gene-editing combinations in poplar trees to identify changes that would enhance cellulose production and reduce lignin content.

They successfully identified 347 combinations that showed potential improvements for papermaking.

<h2>How will these benefit the paper industry?</h2>

After implementing the gene changes associated with the most promising combinations, the engineered trees demonstrated a 49.1 per cent reduction in lignin content and a 228 per cent increase in cellulose-to-lignin ratio.

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/nasa-rover-discovers-new-evidence-of-organic-molecules-on-mars-615591">NASA rover discovers new evidence of organic molecules on Mars</a>

Implementing these varieties in a typical paper mill could increase paper output by 40 per cent, and also reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent. This can result in approximately $1 billion in additional profits.

<h2>The way forward</h2>

While these findings offer promising solutions for the paper industry, as per Barrangou further steps are necessary. He says that field trials are required to ensure that the engineered trees can grow to maturity and withstand real-world conditions, including wind storms and insect protection.

Regulatory approval is also needed, although the fact that the engineered trees do not contain transgenes — genes from other organisms — may facilitate the acceptance process.

Wang and Barrangou, who re behind a spin-off company called TreeCo, now plan to conduct field trials for CRISPR-edited poplars and are exploring similar gene edits in eucalyptus and pine trees, which are also widely used in paper production.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Using CRISPR gene-editing tools to grow engineered trees, researchers have made a breakthrough in reducing the environmental impact of paper production. They’ve successfully grown poplar trees with significantly less lignin, a woody material present in plants.

Using CRISPR gene-editing tools to grow engineered trees, researchers have made a breakthrough in reducing the environmental impact of paper production. They’ve successfully grown poplar trees with significantly less lignin, a woody material present in plants. The process separation of this lignin during the papermaking process is what typically generates millions of tonnes of chemical waste and substantial greenhouse gas emissions each year. What will these genetically-engineered trees do? As per a study published in Science, milling these engineered trees could lead to a substantial reduction in papermaking pollution while also saving the industry billions of dollars. Traditionally, paper production involves cutting wood into small chips, with poplars being a common source due to their fast growth. Also read | Google's AI health chatbot Med-PaLM cracks US medical licensing exam, says study Water and chemicals are added to extract cellulose fibres from the tough lignin structures, which is then used to form a wet pulp that is pressed and dried into paper. Previous efforts to reduce lignin content in trees have yielded modest results. However, the researchers behind this study took a different approach by targeting the genes responsible for regulating overall lignin production. Using CRISPR gene editing, the team led by Jack Wang and Rodolphe Barrangou, biotechnologists at North Carolina State University built a computer model, and evaluated approximately 70,000 gene-editing combinations in poplar trees to identify changes that would enhance cellulose production and reduce lignin content. They successfully identified 347 combinations that showed potential improvements for papermaking. How will these benefit the paper industry? After implementing the gene changes associated with the most promising combinations, the engineered trees demonstrated a 49.1 per cent reduction in lignin content and a 228 per cent increase in cellulose-to-lignin ratio. Also read | NASA rover discovers new evidence of organic molecules on Mars Implementing these varieties in a typical paper mill could increase paper output by 40 per cent, and also reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent. This can result in approximately $1 billion in additional profits. The way forward While these findings offer promising solutions for the paper industry, as per Barrangou further steps are necessary. He says that field trials are required to ensure that the engineered trees can grow to maturity and withstand real-world conditions, including wind storms and insect protection. Regulatory approval is also needed, although the fact that the engineered trees do not contain transgenes — genes from other organisms — may facilitate the acceptance process. Wang and Barrangou, who re behind a spin-off company called TreeCo, now plan to conduct field trials for CRISPR-edited poplars and are exploring similar gene edits in eucalyptus and pine trees, which are also widely used in paper production. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

CRISPR gene editing offers promising solution to reduce environmental impact of paper industry: Report

A powerful gene-editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9, which this month nabbed the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for two female scientists, can cause serious side effects in the cells of human embryos, prompting them to discard large chunks of their genetic material, a new study has found.

Administered to cells to repair a mutation that can cause hereditary blindness, the CRISPR-Cas9 technology appeared to wreak genetic havoc in about half the specimens that the researchers examined, according to a study published in the journal Cell on Thursday.

The consequences of these errors can be quite serious in some cases, said Dieter Egli, a geneticist at Columbia University and an author of the study. Some cells were so flummoxed by the alterations that they simply gave up on trying to fix them, jettisoning entire chromosomes, the units into which human DNA is packaged, Egli said.

The new paper’s findings further underscore that “it’s really too soon to be applying CRISPR to reproductive genetics,” said Nita Farahany, a bioethicist at Duke University who was not involved in the study.

Scientists can use CRISPR-Cas9 to home in on a specific region of the genome and snip it in two. Sensing trouble, the cell rushes to heal its genetic wound, sometimes using a similar-looking stretch of nearby, intact DNA as a template as it stitches the pieces back together. This gives researchers an opportunity to splice in a tailor-made template of their own, in the hopes that the cell will incorporate the intended change.

In 2017, a team of researchers led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a geneticist at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, reported that human embryos carrying a mutation could be coaxed into this process without a synthetic template. The researchers generated embryos from a union between two cells: a sperm carrying a mutation that can make it harder for the heart to pump blood, and an egg with a healthy version of the gene. Mitalipov and his team used CRISPR-Cas9 to cut the broken copy of the gene to see if the intact version would guide its repair. They reported the experiment a success and published it in the journal Nature.

The new findings could cast some doubt on the 2017 work, Egli said.

A powerful gene-editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9, which this month nabbed the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for two female scientists, can cause serious side effects in the cells of human embryos, prompting them to discard large chunks of their genetic material, a new study has found.

A powerful gene-editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9, which this month nabbed the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for two female scientists, can cause serious side effects in the cells of human embryos, prompting them to discard large chunks of their genetic material, a new study has found. Administered to cells to repair a mutation that can cause hereditary blindness, the CRISPR-Cas9 technology appeared to wreak genetic havoc in about half the specimens that the researchers examined, according to a study published in the journal Cell on Thursday. The consequences of these errors can be quite serious in some cases, said Dieter Egli, a geneticist at Columbia University and an author of the study. Some cells were so flummoxed by the alterations that they simply gave up on trying to fix them, jettisoning entire chromosomes, the units into which human DNA is packaged, Egli said. The new paper’s findings further underscore that “it’s really too soon to be applying CRISPR to reproductive genetics,” said Nita Farahany, a bioethicist at Duke University who was not involved in the study. Scientists can use CRISPR-Cas9 to home in on a specific region of the genome and snip it in two. Sensing trouble, the cell rushes to heal its genetic wound, sometimes using a similar-looking stretch of nearby, intact DNA as a template as it stitches the pieces back together. This gives researchers an opportunity to splice in a tailor-made template of their own, in the hopes that the cell will incorporate the intended change. In 2017, a team of researchers led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a geneticist at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, reported that human embryos carrying a mutation could be coaxed into this process without a synthetic template. The researchers generated embryos from a union between two cells: a sperm carrying a mutation that can make it harder for the heart to pump blood, and an egg with a healthy version of the gene. Mitalipov and his team used CRISPR-Cas9 to cut the broken copy of the gene to see if the intact version would guide its repair. They reported the experiment a success and published it in the journal Nature. The new findings could cast some doubt on the 2017 work, Egli said.

CRISPR gene editing can cause unwanted changes in human embryos, study finds

The University of California will soon be granted a potentially valuable patent on the revolutionary gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, according to a document filed by the US patent office on Friday.

The US Patent and Trademark Office decision to grant the patent could further fuel a long-running rivalry between the university and the Broad Institute, a biological and genomic research centre affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University that also holds patents on CRISPR.

Patent rights to CRISPR could eventually be worth billions of dollars because the technology could revolutionize the treatment of diseases, crop engineering, and other areas.

The so-called notice of allowance from the Patent and Trademark Office means the patent will likely be issued within eight weeks. Once issued, it could still face challenges in administrative or court proceedings.

"The issued patent will encompass the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in any cellular or non-cellular environment", Eldora Ellison, a lead patent strategist on CRISPR matters for the University of California, said in an online statement.

CRISPR works as molecular scissors that can trim away unwanted pieces of genetic material and replace them with new ones. Easier to use than older techniques, it has quickly become a preferred method of gene editing in research labs.

The patent being approved stems from an application filed by microbiologists Jennifer Doudna of the University of California at Berkeley and Emmanuelle Charpentier of the University of Vienna in 2012. The scientists filed the application, the first ever for a CRISPR-related patent after they discovered how CRISPR could be used to edit genomes in simple pieces of DNA called plasmids.

A team at the Broad Institute led by bioengineer Feng Zhang applied for their own patent months later but paid for a fast-track review process, which landed them the first CRISPR patent in 2014. The Broad's patents covered CRISPR's use in so-called eukaryotic cells, which include animal and human cells.

The new patent decision "does not affect the CRISPR patent estate held by Broad, MIT, and Harvard in any way," Broad Institute spokesman David Cameron said in a statement.

In April 2015, the University of California filed a petition with the Patent and Trademark Office challenging the Broad Institute's patents, claiming they covered the same thing as the university's earlier application.

However, the board rejected that petition, allowing both the University of California's application and the Broad Institute patents to stand. Its decision was upheld by a federal appeals court last year.

Both institutions have licensed their CRISPR intellectual property to biotech companies.

The University of California will soon be granted a potentially valuable patent on the revolutionary gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, according to a document filed by the US patent office on Friday.

The University of California will soon be granted a potentially valuable patent on the revolutionary gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, according to a document filed by the US patent office on Friday. The US Patent and Trademark Office decision to grant the patent could further fuel a long-running rivalry between the university and the Broad Institute, a biological and genomic research centre affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University that also holds patents on CRISPR. Patent rights to CRISPR could eventually be worth billions of dollars because the technology could revolutionize the treatment of diseases, crop engineering, and other areas. The so-called notice of allowance from the Patent and Trademark Office means the patent will likely be issued within eight weeks. Once issued, it could still face challenges in administrative or court proceedings. "The issued patent will encompass the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in any cellular or non-cellular environment", Eldora Ellison, a lead patent strategist on CRISPR matters for the University of California, said in an online statement. CRISPR works as molecular scissors that can trim away unwanted pieces of genetic material and replace them with new ones. Easier to use than older techniques, it has quickly become a preferred method of gene editing in research labs. The patent being approved stems from an application filed by microbiologists Jennifer Doudna of the University of California at Berkeley and Emmanuelle Charpentier of the University of Vienna in 2012. The scientists filed the application, the first ever for a CRISPR-related patent after they discovered how CRISPR could be used to edit genomes in simple pieces of DNA called plasmids. A team at the Broad Institute led by bioengineer Feng Zhang applied for their own patent months later but paid for a fast-track review process, which landed them the first CRISPR patent in 2014. The Broad's patents covered CRISPR's use in so-called eukaryotic cells, which include animal and human cells. The new patent decision "does not affect the CRISPR patent estate held by Broad, MIT, and Harvard in any way," Broad Institute spokesman David Cameron said in a statement. In April 2015, the University of California filed a petition with the Patent and Trademark Office challenging the Broad Institute's patents, claiming they covered the same thing as the university's earlier application. However, the board rejected that petition, allowing both the University of California's application and the Broad Institute patents to stand. Its decision was upheld by a federal appeals court last year. Both institutions have licensed their CRISPR intellectual property to biotech companies.

University of California to be granted pioneering CRISPR patent

The announcement by researchers in Portland, Oregon that they&rsquo;ve successfully modified the genetic material <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/">of a human embryo</a> took some people by surprise.

With headlines referring to &ldquo;<a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/world/americas/2017-07-27-us-university-edits-embryo-genes-in-experiment-hailed-as-groundbreaking/">groundbreaking</a>&rdquo; research and &ldquo;<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4734364/First-editing-human-embryos-carried-United-States.html">designer babies</a>,&rdquo; you might wonder what the scientists actually accomplished. This was a big step forward, but hardly unexpected. As this kind of work proceeds, it continues to raise questions about ethical issues and how we should we react.

What did researchers actually do?

For a number of years now we have had the ability to alter genetic material in a cell, using a technique called CRISPR.

The DNA that makes up our genome comprises long sequences of base pairs, each base indicated by one of four letters. These letters form a genetic alphabet, and the &ldquo;words&rdquo; or &ldquo;sentences&rdquo; created from a particular order of letters are the genes that determine our characteristics.

Sometimes words can be &ldquo;misspelt&rdquo; or sentences slightly garbled, resulting in a disease or disorder. Genetic engineering is designed to correct those mistakes. CRISPR is a tool that enables scientists to target a specific area of a gene, working like the search-and-replace function in Microsoft Word, to remove a section and insert the &ldquo;correct&rdquo; sequence.

In the last decade, CRISPR has been the primary tool for those seeking to modify genes &ndash; human and otherwise. Among other things, it has been used in experiments to make <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3439">mosquitoes resistant to malaria</a>, genetically <a href="http://www.genengnews.com/gen-exclusives/crispr-applications-in-plants/77900846">modify plants to be resistant to disease</a>, explore the possibility of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18448">engineered pets</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/crispr-used-cows-help-fight-tuberculosis">livestock</a>, and potentially treat some human diseases (including <a href="http://sites.tufts.edu/crispr/applications/hiv-treatment/">HIV</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201606325">hemophilia</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2016.12.012">leukemia</a>).

Up until recently, the focus in humans has been on changing the cells of a single individual, and not changing eggs, sperm and early embryos &ndash; what are called the &ldquo;germline&rdquo; cells that pass traits along to offspring. The theory is that focusing on non-germline cells would limit any unexpected long-term impact of genetic changes on descendants. At the same time, this limitation means that we would have to use the technique in every generation, which affects its potential therapeutic benefit.

Earlier this year, an international committee convened by the National Academy of Sciences <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/24623">issued a report</a> that, while highlighting the concerns with human germline genetic engineering, laid out a series of <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24623">safeguards and recommended oversight</a>. The report was widely regarded as opening the door to embryo-editing research.

That is exactly what happened in Oregon. Although this is the first study reported in the United States, similar research has been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5">conducted in China</a>. This new study, however, apparently avoided previous errors we&rsquo;ve seen with CRISPR &ndash; such as changes in other, untargeted parts of the genome, or the desired change not occurring in all cells. Both of these problems had made scientists wary of using CRISPR to make changes in embryos that might eventually be used in a human pregnancy. Evidence of more successful (and thus safer) CRISPR use may lead to additional studies involving human embryos.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/180203/area14mp/file-20170728-5295-1tgc36j.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/180203/width754/file-20170728-5295-1tgc36j.jpg" /></a>

<figcaption>
We have ways to go before ordering up desired traits in a future baby.
</figcaption>
</figure>

What didn&rsquo;t happen in Oregon?

First, this study did not entail the creation of &ldquo;designer babies,&rdquo; despite some news headlines. The research involved only early stage embryos, outside the womb, none of which was allowed to develop beyond a few days.

In fact, there are a number of existing limits &ndash; both policy-based and scientific &ndash; that will create barriers to implanting an edited embryo to achieve the birth of a child. There is a <a href="https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-gene-editing-technologies-human-embryos">federal ban on funding</a> gene editing research in embryos; in some states, there are also <a href="https://nyscf.org/scmapus">total bans on embryo research</a>, regardless of how funded. In addition, the implantation of edited human embryos would be regulated under the <a href="https://humansubjects.nih.gov/pregnant-women-human-fetuses-neonates">federal human research regulations</a>, the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/cellulargenetherapyproducts/">Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act</a> and potentially the federal rules regarding <a href="https://wwwn.cdc.gov/CLIA/Regulatory/default.aspx">clinical laboratory testing</a>.

Beyond the regulatory barriers, we are a long way from having the scientific knowledge necessary to design our children. While the Oregon experiment focused on a single gene correction to inherited diseases, there are few human traits that are controlled by one gene. Anything that involves multiple genes or a gene/environment interaction will be less amenable to this type of engineering. Most characteristics we might be interested in designing &ndash; such as intelligence, personality, athletic or artistic or musical ability &ndash; are much more complex.

Second, while this is a significant step forward in the science regarding the use of the CRISPR technique, it is only one step. There is a long way to go between this and a cure for various disease and disorders. This is not to say that there aren&rsquo;t concerns. But we have some time to consider the issues before the use of the technique becomes a mainstream medical practice.

So what should we be concerned about?

Taking into account the cautions above, we do need to decide when and how we should use this technique.

Should there be limits on the types of things you can edit in an embryo? If so, what should they entail? These questions also involve deciding who gets to set the limits and control access to the technology.

We may also be concerned about who gets to control the subsequent research using this technology. Should there be state or federal oversight? Keep in mind that we cannot control what happens in other countries. Even in this country, it can be difficult to craft guidelines that restrict only the research someone finds objectionable while allowing other important research to continue. Additionally, the use of assisted reproductive technologies (IVF, for example) is <a href="http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/health_care/2009-07-States_Regulation_ART.pdf">largely unregulated in the U.S.</a>, and the decision to put in place restrictions will certainly raise objections from both potential parents and IVF providers.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/180211/area14mp/file-20170728-18243-1g5vqx3.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/180211/width754/file-20170728-18243-1g5vqx3.jpg" /></a>

<figcaption>
Who should be able to use this technology? And who should decide?&nbsp;

Moreover, there are important questions about cost and access. Right now most assisted reproductive technologies are available only to higher-income individuals. A handful of <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-infertility-laws.aspx" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">states mandate infertility treatment coverage</a>, but it is very limited. How should we regulate access to embryo editing for serious diseases? We are in the midst of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/us-health-care-reform-40185" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">widespread debate</a> about health care, access and cost. If it becomes established and safe, should this technique be part of a basic package of health care services when used to help create a child who does not suffer from a specific genetic problem? What about editing for non-health issues or less serious problems &ndash; are there fairness concerns if only people with sufficient wealth can access?
</figcaption>
</figure>

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81732/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />So far the promise of genetic engineering for disease eradication has not lived up to its hype. Nor have many other milestones, like the 1996 <a href="https://theconversation.com/20-years-after-dolly-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-the-cloned-sheep-and-what-came-next-72655">cloning of Dolly the sheep</a>, resulted in the feared apocalypse. The announcement of the Oregon study is only the next step in a long line of research. Nonetheless, it is sure to bring many of the issues about embryos, stem cell research, genetic engineering and reproductive technologies back into the spotlight. Now is the time to figure out how we want to see this gene-editing path unfold.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/editing-human-embryos-with-crispr-is-moving-ahead-nows-the-time-to-work-out-the-ethics-81732">original article</a>.

&nbsp;

Editing human embryos with CRISPR is moving ahead ? now's the time to work out the ethics.

The announcement by researchers in Portland, Oregon that they’ve successfully modified the genetic material of a human embryo took some people by surprise. With headlines referring to “groundbreaking” research and “designer babies,” you might wonder what the scientists actually accomplished. This was a big step forward, but hardly unexpected. As this kind of work proceeds, it continues to raise questions about ethical issues and how we should we react. What did researchers actually do? For a number of years now we have had the ability to alter genetic material in a cell, using a technique called CRISPR. The DNA that makes up our genome comprises long sequences of base pairs, each base indicated by one of four letters. These letters form a genetic alphabet, and the “words” or “sentences” created from a particular order of letters are the genes that determine our characteristics. Sometimes words can be “misspelt” or sentences slightly garbled, resulting in a disease or disorder. Genetic engineering is designed to correct those mistakes. CRISPR is a tool that enables scientists to target a specific area of a gene, working like the search-and-replace function in Microsoft Word, to remove a section and insert the “correct” sequence. In the last decade, CRISPR has been the primary tool for those seeking to modify genes – human and otherwise. Among other things, it has been used in experiments to make mosquitoes resistant to malaria, genetically modify plants to be resistant to disease, explore the possibility of engineered pets and livestock, and potentially treat some human diseases (including HIV, hemophilia and leukemia). Up until recently, the focus in humans has been on changing the cells of a single individual, and not changing eggs, sperm and early embryos – what are called the “germline” cells that pass traits along to offspring. The theory is that focusing on non-germline cells would limit any unexpected long-term impact of genetic changes on descendants. At the same time, this limitation means that we would have to use the technique in every generation, which affects its potential therapeutic benefit. Earlier this year, an international committee convened by the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that, while highlighting the concerns with human germline genetic engineering, laid out a series of safeguards and recommended oversight. The report was widely regarded as opening the door to embryo-editing research. That is exactly what happened in Oregon. Although this is the first study reported in the United States, similar research has been conducted in China. This new study, however, apparently avoided previous errors we’ve seen with CRISPR – such as changes in other, untargeted parts of the genome, or the desired change not occurring in all cells. Both of these problems had made scientists wary of using CRISPR to make changes in embryos that might eventually be used in a human pregnancy. Evidence of more successful (and thus safer) CRISPR use may lead to additional studies involving human embryos. We have ways to go before ordering up desired traits in a future baby. What didn’t happen in Oregon? First, this study did not entail the creation of “designer babies,” despite some news headlines. The research involved only early stage embryos, outside the womb, none of which was allowed to develop beyond a few days. In fact, there are a number of existing limits – both policy-based and scientific – that will create barriers to implanting an edited embryo to achieve the birth of a child. There is a federal ban on funding gene editing research in embryos; in some states, there are also total bans on embryo research, regardless of how funded. In addition, the implantation of edited human embryos would be regulated under the federal human research regulations, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and potentially the federal rules regarding clinical laboratory testing. Beyond the regulatory barriers, we are a long way from having the scientific knowledge necessary to design our children. While the Oregon experiment focused on a single gene correction to inherited diseases, there are few human traits that are controlled by one gene. Anything that involves multiple genes or a gene/environment interaction will be less amenable to this type of engineering. Most characteristics we might be interested in designing – such as intelligence, personality, athletic or artistic or musical ability – are much more complex. Second, while this is a significant step forward in the science regarding the use of the CRISPR technique, it is only one step. There is a long way to go between this and a cure for various disease and disorders. This is not to say that there aren’t concerns. But we have some time to consider the issues before the use of the technique becomes a mainstream medical practice. So what should we be concerned about? Taking into account the cautions above, we do need to decide when and how we should use this technique. Should there be limits on the types of things you can edit in an embryo? If so, what should they entail? These questions also involve deciding who gets to set the limits and control access to the technology. We may also be concerned about who gets to control the subsequent research using this technology. Should there be state or federal oversight? Keep in mind that we cannot control what happens in other countries. Even in this country, it can be difficult to craft guidelines that restrict only the research someone finds objectionable while allowing other important research to continue. Additionally, the use of assisted reproductive technologies (IVF, for example) is largely unregulated in the U.S., and the decision to put in place restrictions will certainly raise objections from both potential parents and IVF providers. Who should be able to use this technology? And who should decide? Moreover, there are important questions about cost and access. Right now most assisted reproductive technologies are available only to higher-income individuals. A handful of states mandate infertility treatment coverage, but it is very limited. How should we regulate access to embryo editing for serious diseases? We are in the midst of a widespread debate about health care, access and cost. If it becomes established and safe, should this technique be part of a basic package of health care services when used to help create a child who does not suffer from a specific genetic problem? What about editing for non-health issues or less serious problems – are there fairness concerns if only people with sufficient wealth can access? So far the promise of genetic engineering for disease eradication has not lived up to its hype. Nor have many other milestones, like the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep, resulted in the feared apocalypse. The announcement of the Oregon study is only the next step in a long line of research. Nonetheless, it is sure to bring many of the issues about embryos, stem cell research, genetic engineering and reproductive technologies back into the spotlight. Now is the time to figure out how we want to see this gene-editing path unfold. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Should scientists edit a human embryo?

crispr

Crispr, News on Crispr, stories on Crispr, articles on Crispr, Crispr stories at Wion, Crispr news, Crispr latest news