User:KalebSkye/sandbox

Society and culture[edit | edit source] (Possibly Change to Societal Barriers to Widespread Commercialization)

Human germline modification[edit | edit source]

At least four labs in the US, labs in China and the UK, and a US biotechnology company called Ovascience announced plans or ongoing research to apply CRISPR to human embryos.^[178] Scientists, including a CRISPR co-inventor, urged a worldwide moratorium on applying CRISPR to the human germline, especially for clinical use. They said "scientists should avoid even attempting, in lax jurisdictions, germline genome modification for clinical application in humans" until the full implications "are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations".^[53][179] These scientists support basic research on CRISPR and do not see CRISPR as developed enough for any clinical use in making heritable changes to people.^[180]

In April 2015, Chinese scientists reported results of an attempt to alter the DNA of non-viable human embryosusing CRISPR to correct a mutation that causes beta thalassemia, a lethal heritable disorder.^[181][182] The study had previously been rejected by both Nature and Science in part because of ethical concerns; the journals had no comment.^[183] The experiments resulted in changing only some genes, and had off-target effects on other genes. The researchers stated that CRISPR is not ready for clinical application in reproductive medicine.^[183] In April 2016 Chinese scientists were reported to have made a second unsuccessful attempt to alter the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR - this time to alter the CCR5 gene to make the embryo HIV resistant.^[184]

In December 2015, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing took place in Washington under the guidance of David Baltimore. Members of national scientific academies of America, Britain and China discussed the ethics of germline modification. They agreed to support basic and clinical research under appropriate legal and ethical guidelines. A specific distinction was made between clinical use in somatic cells, where the effects of edits are limited to a single individual, versus germline cells, where genome changes could be inherited by future generations. Heritable modifications could have unintended and far-reaching consequences for human evolution, genetically (e.g. gene/environment interactions) and culturally (e.g. Social Darwinism). Altering of gametocytesand embryos to generate inheritable changes in humans was thus claimed irresponsible. In addition, they agreed to initiate an international forum to address such concerns and harmonize regulations countries.^[185]

Policy Barriers to Genetic Engineering with CRISPR

Policy Regulations for the CRISPR/cas9 system vary around the globe. In February 2016, British scientists were given permission by regulators to genetically modify human embryos by using CRISPR-Cas9 and related techniques. However, researchers were forbidden from implanting the embryos into a woman and the embryos were to be destroyed after seven days.^[186][187]

The USA has an elaborate, interdepartmental regulatory system to evaluate new genetically modified foods and crops. For example, the Plant Protection Act of 2000 gives the USDA the authority to oversee the detection, control, eradication, suppression, prevention, or retardation of the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds to protect the agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States. The Act regulates any genetically modified organism that utilizes the genome of a predefined 'plant pest' or any plant not previously categorized. In 2015, Dr. Yang successfully deactivated 16 specific genes in the white button mushroom. Since he had not added any foreign DNA to his organism, the mushroom could not be regulated under by the USDA under Section 340.2. Dr. Yang's white button mushroom was the first organism genetically modified with the Crispr/cas9 protein system to pass US regulation. This year in 2016, the USDA sponsored a committee to consider future regulatory policy for upcoming genetic modification techniques. With the help of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, special interests groups met on April 15th to contemplate the possible advancements in genetic engineering within the next 5 years and potential policy regulations that would need to come into play.

Recognition[edit | edit source]

In 2012 and 2013, CRISPR was a runner-up in Science Magazine's Breakthrough of the Year award. In 2015, it was the winner of that award.^[144] CRISPR was named as one of MIT Technology Review's 10 breakthroughs technologies in 2014 and 2016.^[188][189]

Remarks[edit | edit source]

In 2013, scientists declared the CRISPR System to be the most extraordinary, simple and effective technique for cell genome modification.^[190]

In December 2015, Mia Farrow said “Everything is possible with CRISPR. I’m not kidding.”^[191]