Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

For the first time, scientists from the Oregon Health and Science University in the United States have successfully created genetically modified human embryos. Led by embryologist, Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov a researcher at the university the team used the gene-editing technique CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) to introduce gene-editing chemicals to single-cell embryos.

The aim of the experiment was to target a gene associated with a significant human disease and see if the gene was modified.

This is the kind of research that is essential if we are to know if its possible to safely and precisely make corrections in embryos DNA to repair disease-causing genes, shares Alta Charo, a legal scholar and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin.

Thus far, such experiments have only been conducted in China as scientists, religious organisations, civil society groups and even many biotechnology companies in America have been vehemently opposed to them.

However, the team was able to move forward with their experiment because of a report by the US National Academy of Sciences in February this year. The report agreed to laboratory research on germline modification as it argued, may one day be a way for parents with severe genetic disorders to have healthy, biological children.

But we anticipated that there would need to be a lot of research to see if you could make these changes without any unintentional effects, remarks Charo, who co-chaired the Academies committee.

The team chose to inject the CRISPR into eggs at the same time as they were fertilised by sperm. It was conducted in this way in order to avoid the pitfalls faced by the Chinese researchers. One pitfall was mosaicism, in which the desired DNA changes are taken up by only some of the cells in the embryo, not all; and the second are off-target effects, in which genes that were not meant to be edited, are.

It is proof of principle that it can work. They have significantly reduced mosaicism. I dont think its the start of clinical trials yet, but it does take it further than anyone has before, comments a scientist familiar with the project.

This is important as much of the criticism against germline engineering has been the concern that errors such as mosaicism and off-target editing make CRISPR an unsafe way to create human beings.

Although none of the embryos were permitted to develop for more than a few days and the team had no intention of implanting the embryos into a womb news of the experiment has brought to the forefront again, conversation around designer babies. An example situation would be in China, where more and more parents are opting for genetic testing in order to uncover their childs talents.

Genome editing to enhance traits or abilities beyond ordinary health, raises concerns about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people, explains Charo.

Additionally, because changes that are made to the embryos cells will also be found in the eggs or sperm that will be produced if the embryo is allowed to develop into an adult human, any children the person has will also inherit the changes.

This ability to change human evolution has triggered fears. However, Stanford University law professor and bioethicist Hank Greely responds that the key point is that the team did not implant any edited embryos. He argues that research embryos that are not to be transferred for possible implantation are not a big deal.

In America, parliamentary government has prohibited using edited IVF embryos to make people and the Department of Health and Human Services has forbidden the technology to do so from reaching clinical trials.

While there will be time for the public to decide if they want to get rid of regulatory obstacles to these studies, I do not find them inherently unethical, expresses Charo.

Indeed, for now, small, correctly-performed experiments such as Mitalipovs does beg the question: whether Charlies Gards situation would have been different had his parents had access to CRISPR technology. MIMS

Read more:What does the artificial womb mean for the future of fertility and neonatal care?Worlds first human-pig hybrid: Medical breakthrough or ethical dilemma?Male infertility boosts financial equity of the reproductive health industry in ChinaSources:https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/26/human-embryos-edited/http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/first-us-team-gene-edit-human-embryos-revealed

More:
American scientists use CRISPR to modify human embryos - MIMS General News (Hong Kong) (registration) (blog)

Some of the most powerful technologies ever invented whichcan literally change human life at the DNAlevel aremoving forward with very little societal discussion or sufficient regulatory oversight. Technology Review is now reporting an attempt in the US to use CRISPR to genetically modify a human embryo. From the story:

The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon,Technology Reviewhas learned.

The effort, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, involved changing the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos with the gene-editing technique CRISPR, according to people familiar with the scientific results

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.

Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few daysand there was never any intention of implanting them into a wombthe experiments are a milestone on what may prove to be an inevitable journey toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.

It may begin with curing disease. But it wont stay there. Many are drooling to engage in eugenic genetic enhancements.

So, are we going to just watch, slack-jawed, the double-time marchto Brave New World unfoldbefore our eyes?

Or are we going to engage democratic deliberation to determine if this should be done, and if so, what the parameters are?

Considering recent history, I fear I know the answer.

And NO: I dont trust the scientists to regulate themselves.

Mr. President: We need a presidential bioethics/biotechnology commission now!

More here:
Human Genetic Engineering Begins! - National Review

Theres still a way to go from editing single-cell embryos to a full-term designer baby. Credit: ZEISS Microscopy, CC BY-SA

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 "misspelled" 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.

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 an 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.

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 nonhealth 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.

Explore further: In US first, scientists edit genes of human embryos (Update)

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

See original here:
Editing human embryos with CRISPR is moving ahead now's the time to work out the ethics - Phys.Org

The Supreme Court is hearing the case concerning GMMustard Monday, even as the Centre told the court that GMcrops has no harmful effects on other crops and historically has proven safe for human consumption.

The environment ministry said that it has not made any decision regarding the commercial release of GMMustard, which could become the first genetically modified food crop allowed in India.

The Supreme Court could pass an injunction on the commercial release of the crop, even as it decides on a petition filed Aruna Rodrigues seeking a moratorium on the release of GMMustard.

The variety was cleared by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, Indias apex biosafety regulator that functions under the environment ministry, on May 11 and has since spurred a an avalanche of protests from environmental activists and farmer groups, who fear it would increase their dependency on multinational companies that develop these technologies.

In this case,one of the governments biggest claims is that it is developed indigenously at the University of Delhi, under the guidance of Prof Deepak Pental, a geneticist.However, groups like those led byVandana Shiva, disagree saying that the base patents for the new variety are owned by BayerAG, an agro major that is in the process of merging with Monsanto, another agro giant, which would further skew the agricultural technology market.

The Anti-GMlobby has approached Prime Minister Modi to obtain a moratorium on the release. The last time, a food crop went to this extent, was in the case of BTBrinjal, which also received the approval of GEAC but its release was stayed indefinitely by then environment minister, JairamRamesh.

The GM-Free India coalition points to the farcical conditional approval in the case of Bt cotton. This is all the more unacceptable in the case of GM mustard since this GM is completely unneeded in the first instance... We write to urge you to ensure that this GM mustard application is rejected in toto, the coalition said in a letter to the prime minister.

GEAC chairman, Amita Prasad, told the HindustanTimes that the approval granted by the committee was conditional not absolute and subject to certain conditions regarding area cropped, submission of regular reports.

With PTI inputs

Read the original post:
Govt says GM Mustard safe for humans, activists disagree - Hindustan Times

OXFORD, England When Charles Darwin published his landmark theory of evolution by natural selection in the 19th century, religious leaders were confronted with a powerful challenge to some of their oldest beliefs about the origins of life.

Then evolutionary theory was expanded with the insights of genetics, which gave further support for a scientific and secular view of how humans evolved.

Faith and tradition were forced further onto the defensive.

Now, exciting progress in biology in recent decades may be building up a third new phase in the scientific explanation of life, according to thinkers gathered at a University of Oxford conference last week (July 19-22).

Although this 21st-century wave has no single discovery to mark its arrival, new insights into developing technologies such as genetic engineering and human enhancement may end up giving another important boost to the belief that science has (or eventually will have) the answers to lifes mysteries.

Some scientists, theologians and philosophers see in this ever deeper knowledge of how genes work a possible alternative to the more reductive approach to evolution one that brings in a broader view that also considers the influence of the environment.

Dr. Donovan Schaefer. (Credit: Photo courtesy of University of Oxford.)

Unlike the earlier views, which seemed to lead toward either agnosticism or atheism, the theologians see this new biology or holistic biology as more compatible with religious belief.

Weve added definition to the picture of evolution that has deepened and enriched our understanding of biological processes, Donovan Schaefer, an Oxford lecturer in science and religion who co-organized the conference, told the opening session of the July 19-22 meeting.

But he added: It would be naive to imagine that the grander questions about biology, religion, the humanities and evolutionary theory generally have been put to death.

The achievements on their list include new fields like epigenetics, the science of how genes are turned on or off to influence our bodies, and advances in cognitive and social sciences that yield ever more detailed empirical research into how we behave.

Waiting in the wings are new technologies such as genome editing, which can modify human genes to repair, enhance or customize human beings. Scientists in China are believed to have already genetically modified human embryos and the first known attemptto do so in the United States was reported this week (July 26).

Schaefer compared todays deeper understanding of biology to the higher resolution that photographers enjoy now that photography has advanced from film to digital images.

Genes once thought to be fairly mechanical in influencing human development leading to the my genes made me do it kind of thinking have been found to be part of complex systems that can act in response to a persons environment.

The Radcliffe Camera, a reading room of the nearby Bodleian Library, at University of Oxford on July 22, 2017. The unique building originally housed the Radcliffe Science Library. All Souls College is in the background. (Credit: RNS photo by Tom Heneghan.)

Since scientists succeeded in sequencing the genome in the late 1990s, they have found that epigenetic markers that regulate patterns of gene expression can reflect outside influences on a body.

Even simpler living objects such as plants contain a complex internal genetic system that governs their growth according to information they receive from outside.

To theologians who see a new biology emerging, this knowledge points to a more holistic system than scientists have traditionally seen, one more open to some divine inspiration for life.

In this view, the fact that epigenetic markers can bring outside pressures to bear on the genome deep inside a human means genetics is not a closed system, but part of the wider sweep of nature in which they, as religious thinkers, also see Gods hand.

Professor Alister McGrath, director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion. (Credit: Photo courtesy of University of Oxford.)

Nature is so complex and rich and that prompts questions about why on earth is this the case? If youre an atheist, how do you explain a universe that seems to have the capacity to produce these things in the first place? asked Alister McGrath, an Oxford theologian who is director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion that hosted the conference.

This in turn opened a space for theologians to augment the discussion about the new biology, he said.

Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at New Yorks City College with doctorates in genetics and evolutionary biology, also said scientism the idea that science can answer all lifes important questions was too limited.

Science informs and grounds certain philosophical positions; it doesnt determine them, he said. But the data cant settle ethical questions.

Pigliucci agrees with the trend to use the evolutionary paradigm to analyze fields outside of biology, including topics such as ethics and morality.

The life sciences tell us that the building blocks of what we call morality are actually found presumably they were selected for in nonhuman social primates, he said. Science gives you an account of what otherwise looks like magic: Why do we have a moral sense to begin with? How did we develop it?

Not all present agreed that science could explain religion.

Some suspect that biology has triggered some kind of devotion and there are too many people who practice this cult, said Lluis Oviedo, a theologian at the Pontifical University Antonianum in Rome.

His own research has found at least 75 books and academic articles trying to explain religion through evolution and he knew of about 20 more on the way, he said.

Although he thinks, the time of explaining through radical reduction is over, he admitted few biologists seemed ready to accept the more holistic new biology.

Even some scientists at the conference, while ready to engage with the philosophers and theologians, showed less interest in discussions about whether a new biology was emerging.

A dawn fog on Christ Church Meadow obscures the view of the historic University of Oxord in England. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Creative Commons/Tejvan Pettinger.)

Im pragmatic, explained Ottoline Leyser of the University of Cambridge, whose lecture on plant genetics was one of the conferences highlights.

Theologians in the decades long science and religion debate, which argues the two disciplines complement each other, have also become more pragmatic as their dialogue proceeds.

Oxfords McGrath said the theologians had become more modest in the claims they made about what religion could contribute to this debate. Unlike some more doctrinaire scientists, he said, they did not think they had all the answers.

They dont say These observations in nature prove or disprove God, he said. Our religious way of thinking gives you a framework which allows you to look at the scientific approach to the world and understand why it makes sense, but at the same time also to understand its limits.

Those things need to be in the picture if were going to lead meaningful lives.

Continued here:
Scientists, theologians ponder if biology and religion go together - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

(for more about Power Words, clickhere)

applicationA particular use or function of something.

base (in genetics) A shortened version of the term nucleobase. These bases are building blocks of DNA and RNA molecules.

biologyThe study of living things. The scientists who study them are known as biologists.

Cas9An enzyme that geneticists are now using to help edit genes. It can cut through DNA, allowing it to fix broken genes, splice in new ones or disable certain genes. Cas9 is shepherded to the place it is supposed to make cuts by CRISPRs, a type of genetic guides. The Cas9 enzyme came from bacteria. When viruses invade a bacterium, this enzyme can chop up the germs DNA, making it harmless.

cellThe smallest structural and functional unit of an organism. Typically too small to see with the naked eye, it consists of watery fluid surrounded by a membrane or wall. Animals are made of anywhere from thousands to trillions of cells, depending on their size. Some organisms, such as yeasts, molds, bacteria and some algae, are composed of only one cell.

chemicalA substance formed from two or more atoms that unite (become bonded together) in a fixed proportion and structure. For example, water is a chemical made of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom. Its chemical symbol is H2O.

CRISPRAn abbreviation pronounced crisper for the term clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. These are pieces of RNA, an information-carrying molecule. They are copied from the genetic material of viruses that infect bacteria. When a bacterium encounters a virus that it was previously exposed to, it produces an RNA copy of the CRISPR that contains that virus genetic information. The RNA then guides an enzyme, called Cas9, to cut up the virus and make it harmless. Scientists are now building their own versions of CRISPR RNAs. These lab-made RNAs guide the enzyme to cut specific genes in other organisms. Scientists use them, like a genetic scissors, to edit or alter specific genes so that they can then study how the gene works, repair damage to broken genes, insert new genes or disable harmful ones.

developmental(in biology) An adjective that refers to the changes an organism undergoes from conception through adulthood. Those changes often involve chemistry, size and sometimes even shape.

DNA(short for deoxyribonucleic acid) A long, double-stranded and spiral-shaped molecule inside most living cells that carries genetic instructions. It is built on a backbone of phosphorus, oxygen, and carbon atoms. In all living things, from plants and animals to microbes, these instructions tell cells which molecules to make.

engineeringThe field of research that uses math and science to solve practical problems.

fieldAn area of study, as in: Her field of research was biology. Also a term to describe a real-world environment in which some research is conducted, such as at sea, in a forest, on a mountaintop or on a city street. It is the opposite of an artificial setting, such as a research laboratory.

fluorescentCapable of absorbing and reemitting light. That reemitted light is known as a fluorescence.

gene(adj. genetic) A segment of DNA that codes, or holds instructions, for producing a protein. Offspring inherit genes from their parents. Genes influence how an organism looks and behaves.

genomeThe complete set of genes or genetic material in a cell or an organism. The study of this genetic inheritance housed within cells is known as genomics.

muscleA type of tissue used to produce movement by contracting its cells, known as muscle fibers. Muscle is rich in a protein, which is why predatory species seek prey containing lots of this tissue.

mutation(v. mutate) Some change that occurs to a gene in an organisms DNA. Some mutations occur naturally. Others can be triggered by outside factors, such as pollution, radiation, medicines or something in the diet. A gene with this change is referred to as a mutant.

nucleusPlural is nuclei. (in biology) A dense structure present in many cells. Typically a single rounded structure encased within a membrane, the nucleus contains the genetic information.

organ(in biology) Various parts of an organism that perform one or more particular functions. For instance, an ovary is an organ that makes eggs, the brain is an organ that interprets nerve signals and a plants roots are organs that take in nutrients and moisture.

palindrome (adj. palindromic) A word, a name or a phrase that has the same ordering of letters when read forwards or backwards. For instance, dad and mom are both palindromes.

proteinCompoundmade from one or more long chains of amino acids. Proteins are an essential part of all living organisms. They form the basis of living cells, muscle and tissues; they also do the work inside of cells. The hemoglobin in blood and the antibodies that attempt to fight infections are among the better-known, stand-alone proteins. Medicines frequently work by latching onto proteins.

RNAA molecule that helps read the genetic information contained in DNA. A cells molecular machinery reads DNA to create RNA, and then reads RNA to create proteins.

tag(in biology) To attach some rugged band or package of instruments onto an animal. Sometimes the tag is used to give each individual a unique identification number. Once attached to the leg, ear or other part of the body of a critter, it can effectively become the animals name. In some instances, a tag can collect information from the environment around the animal as well. This helps scientists understand both the environment and the animals role within it.

Read the original here:
Explainer: How CRISPR works - Science News for Students