Human Genetic Engineering

[devils_reject]

We already engineer ourselves when we go to school to take specific courses. Anything we like we pretty much shape our environments and mind towards it. Hence I say there is no reason why biomedical white coats should not engineer humans as long as there is a parental consent. I mean why are we buying the best sports equipment, buying medicine from the pharmacists, and seeking happiness altogether. I support this idea. Interesting. Of cause you will always have the fundamentalists and morals to defy the idea.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Gene Therapy ... In future we will have gene therapy pills that will target one and only the simptom we have - no side effects at all. It'll declime drasticly or diminish surgeries. Surgeries will look like butcherous way of curing in the past. Diseases like AIDS will look insignificant like a flu - thanks to gene therapy.

Surgery? Infections? :bugeye:

I'm wondering, do you actually know what gene therapy is, and what it is supposed to treat, and how? Perhaps you could tell us in a paragraph what you think "gene therapy" is.....?<P>

 

[cyber_indian]

Gene therapy is the insertion of genes into an individual's cells and tissues to treat a disease, and hereditary diseases in particular. Gene therapy typically aims to supplement a defective mutant allele with a functional one. Although the technology is still in its infancy, it has been used with some success.

Source: www.wikipedia.org

What did you think it is ?

P.S. It can be used not only as "insertion of genes", but also as "insertion of mRNA - proteins" - temporary boost or insert of proteins in certain type of cells ...
BTW "Vectors" are not Infections ...

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Although the technology is still in its infancy, it has been used with some success.

Hmmm, “some” being the operative word here.

As far as I am aware gene therapy has been a tremendous failure for over a decade now and has in no way lived up to its hype. There have been only a tiny handful of successful cases and at least one death (that I know of) as a result of attempted gene therapy.

The reason for its failure to live up to all the hype is, of course, that there are very few efficient and specific delivery mechanisms. Modified viruses have been the delivery vector of choice, but aside from viruses that infect the respiratory tract epithelial/mucosal cells there are little or no good candidates. So the only two types of genetic disease that are treatable with current technology are cystic fibrosis and bone marrow diseases (because haematopoietic stem cells are relatively easy to extract, culture, transfect and re-insert into the marrow).

So this is what prompted me to question you because I am wondering how you are proposing that an ingested tablet will deliver DNA to specific cells somewhere in the body.

And then you mention surgery. I would suggest that most surgeries have nothing to do with heritable genetic disease. How do you propose that gene therapy is going to greatly impact surgery?

And then you mention AIDS. HIV is an environmentally acquired infection, nothing to do with heritable genetic disease. How do you propose that gene therapy is going to greatly impact HIV treatments or other infections?

(You may potentially be thinking of RNAi-based treatments when it comes to things like HIV and other pathologies, but potential RNAi treatments suffer from exactly the same delivery problems as gene therapy.)<P>

 

[cyber_indian]

http://www.thebody.com/treat/genether.html
Protease inhibitors bind to the active site of the HIV protease and prevent the enzyme from attaching to its substrate and cleaving HIV polyproteins into functional proteins. As a result, HIV can not mature and noninfectious viruses are produced.

Don't forget the operative word "still in its infancy".

So this is what prompted me to question you because I am wondering how you are proposing that an ingested tablet will deliver DNA to specific cells somewhere in the body.

The same way HIV does it. But with cut out "Reverse Transcriptase" and everything extra.
Viruses target only the type of cells that have the needed receptors, this way they work as a delivery mechanisms - Vectors.

And then you mention surgery. I would suggest that most surgeries have nothing to do with heritable genetic disease. How do you propose that gene therapy is going to greatly impact surgery?

Imagine delivering boosting mRNA to a failing organ or delivering mRNA to vein and arteries that will produce protein that can dissolve blood clogs. Do you need more examples ?

 

[DaleSpam]

I put "Yes, no restrictions whatsoever", what I would really want to answer is "Yes, provided ethical standards are strictly followed". I think that developing a proper ethical framework for genetic engineering is a critical job for the scientific community.

The restriction to medical purposes only does not remove any ethical problems. For example, let's say genetic engineering allows cloning. I have a heart condition, so I clone myself, kill my clone, and take the heart. This is for a legitimate medical purpose, but would obviously be unethical.

In summary, once the ethical framework is established, then I see no reason to restrict it to medical purposes; until the framework is established then even medical purposes don't suffice.

-Dale

 

[cyber_indian]

If with Gene therapy we succeed to heal organs on cell level, you would not need to clone yourself.

 

[JFS321]

I believe engineering for medical purposes is okay...to eradicate a disease or to help an afflicted person. However, unrestricted changes could result in unwanted genotypes/phenotypes and besides...who are we to change the way nature operates???

 

[DaleSpam]

If with Gene therapy we succeed to heal organs on cell level, you would not need to clone yourself.

True, but it supports my point. My point is that it is the method that defines the ethicality, not the purpose. Say this cell-level healing method also had industrial applications like self-healing bioreactors for the chemical industry. Although that is not a medical purpose it is still ethical. Killing a clone would be unethical regardless of wether it is a medical or industrial purpose, while cell therapy would be ethical regardless of wether it is a medical or industrial purpose.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

who are we to change the way nature operates???

You have to be joking, right? I suppose that the monitor on which you are reading this text was just found growing on a monitor-tree? And surely you don't live in a heated house, but rather just a drafty cave you stumbled on. Personally, I don't think that unnatural == bad.

-Dale

 

[cyber_indian]

JFS321: I mostly talking about outside nucleus treatment - instead needed mRNA caming form the nucleus, it gets delivered form the outside (because chromosome doesn't have the needed perscription) - no DNA chages are made. The broken gene scenario is an exception in which we supply second working copy of the needed gene - I wouldn't say that there is any chage made in this scenario.
In spite of, Gene therapy can't yet deliver fullproof method of delivering working gene without damaging others by placing itself in the middle of existing ones. I believe a little modification of "sticky ends" method and marking the needed gene at the both ends would be the solution of the problem. But anyway this one is out of the subject.

DaleSpam: Cloning is a differnt thing, in Gene therapy you deliver DNA or RNA to existing subject (that's what viruses do, but nobody ask themself why they realy do it) and in Cloning you extract a whole genome and restart it's live cycle. Everybody knows that killing a person is against unethical. And making cDNA is also cloning, the indutry for instance clone human insuling gene (cDNA) in orther to produce insulin outside our bodies and later deliver it when needed - is this unethical too ? Yes it's not a tissue, but it's a part of us. And yes it's for medical or industrial purpose.

 

[DaleSpam]

Cloning is a differnt thing, in Gene therapy you deliver DNA or RNA to existing subject.

The thread is about human genetic engineering in general. Both cloning and gene therapy fall under that category. There is nothing inherently unethical about gene therapy, cloning, or any other human genetic engineering technology proposed. There are unethical uses of genetic engineering and unethical approaches to genetic engineering research.

The scientific community needs to establish ethical standards for conducting genetic research immediately. Essentially, it will need to combine the highest ethical standards of both human and animal research. If we do not do that quickly then we are inviting the uninformed public to do it for us. In order to avoid such oversight from an uninformed public the research standards must be very conservative, clearly argued, well publicized, and strongly enforced.

-Dale

 

[cyber_indian]

If you ask me the answer is YES - because it's the ultimate remedy to all diseases.
But there is NO to any non-medical purposes.

 

[Clockwood]

So you would also ban all cosmetic surgery while you are at it?

 

[DaleSpam]

If you ask me the answer is YES - because it's the ultimate remedy to all diseases.
But there is NO to any non-medical purposes.

I disagree with you on both counts. First, it is not going to be the remedy to all diseases since not all diseases are genetic. I don't think that anyone doing actual scientific research in the field would make that claim.

Second, what makes medical purposes so sanctifying? I personally feel that the ends never justify the means. Either the means are inherently ethical on their own or they are not. If they are not, then "medical purposes" is not some catecism that you can repeat over-and-over to absolve yourself of wrongdoing. If the means are ethical, then why not do the most good possible and open it up beyond just medical applications?

The purpose of establishing standards as I have suggested is to ensure that the research techniques themselves are ethical, regardless of the specific scientific question being addressed. Once that is established then the potential benefits can be obtained without opposition from anything other than irrational fringe groups.

-Dale

 

[Clockwood]

Would giving someone who wants it an extra eyeball be ethical? Would it be unethical?
Personally, I figure that 99.9% of the things you could do with genetic engineering would be ethically neutral in and of themselves. Things of fancy, neither a significant thing of help or harm to anyone. As such, they should be allowed for the same reason we would let you slap yourself with fish in your frontyard.

 

[cyber_indian]

Maybe I sould paraphrase like this - Use Genetic Engineering only for cures and bann it for everything else except if a specialised (international - if possible) committee for "Genetic Engineering" grants your petition. And every petition is a public record. The same way is with drugs - you have FDA. Except that FDA wants to have hand on everything even Vitamins.

 

[cyber_indian]

When we are treating inside nuleus I don't thing treating or patching broken genes is unethical.

Don't forget we are made of DNA and DNA is the ultimate solution if we are smart enough to kwow how to use it.

 

[DaleSpam]

As such, they should be allowed for the same reason we would let you slap yourself with fish in your frontyard.

Agreed. That is why I do not like the "medical purposes only" bit. Establish the standards (what you can and can't do with clones, fetuses, stem-cells, etc.), anything that meets the standards is fine. It's none of my business if my neighbor wants to be the first on the block with that 3rd eye or second ... well, anyway.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

Maybe I sould paraphrase like this - Use Genetic Engineering only for cures and bann it for everything else except if a specialised (international - if possible) committee for "Genetic Engineering" grants your petition. And every petition is a public record. The same way is with drugs - you have FDA. Except that FDA wants to have hand on everything even Vitamins.

That is just what the world needs. Yet another international bureaucracy intruding into everyone's lives and banning stuff just because they feel like it. I really dislike that kind of pushy, intrusive, "holier than thou", "I know what's good for you better than you do", internationalism.

FDA is completely different. Their only job is to verify safety and efficacy. They are only around to stop "snake oil" peddlers and poison pushers. They approve all sorts of cosmetic (plastic surgery implants) and recreational (Viagra) medicines and devices. They are not even interested in prohibiting industrial applications.

Your proposed group is nothing like the FDA.

-Dale