You can't be that stupid you think the only scientific breakthrough is going to be for man's good sorry that's not going to happen never has happened and never will happen there's always going to be the money factor to make something bigger and better
This guy and his team (of STUDENTS!) should win the Nobel Prize for their efforts if they do, indeed, prove fruitful. If they don't, that would be a tragedy, indeed. Having said that, my hat is off to those brave individuals who continued to work through this obstacle despite mountainous odds.
Without crispr, this would be impossible. CRISPR is an important milstone in biology. If the downstream should be recognized, it would only be appropriate to award nobel price to CRISPR team. It opens the doors and is the true pioneer.
@@spiral9530 I'm moving to Germany for master's, and it's gonna still be a general molecular bio program at first before I specialize for the thesis work or PhD
Rejoy Panakkal we all know what it can achieve. Unfortunately we are years away though as a few individuals will need to work out how to make as much money from it as possible. Plus there are millions of do-gooders that stand in the way of progress too...
Wesley Thomas how bout this as a “Do Gooder,” might say.., what happens to the people who have been “bio-engineered” who are giants, maybe giants who are only big & strong but have little or no ability to think? How bout this scenario, various “categories” of humans, such as Servants, Nannies, Techies, Parents, Medical, etc.. People who do exactly what they are programmed to do, and nothing more. Once we have all medical illnesses cured, what’s to keep unethical scientists from playing with humanity’s genomes to “answer society’s needs”? so to speak. I think it’s fascinating to think of all genetic illnesses being destroyed, but man has never been satisfied, has he?
This removes suffering and hardship from the world, whether it’s improving food or healing humans with genetic diseases. Even modifying is so that we live longer, are more intelligent, stronger etc. Ethically speaking, if everyone has access to this treatment, and I think they will due to the massive savings on the health industry, this is a win win. Better humans means less suffering, more happiness, and success for our species. I’m ready
I remember when he came to our University as an assistant professor to present his research. At the time he was doing organic chemistry reactions on DNA complexes. It is nice to see how his work has developed.
Genetic scientists are terrific. I think in the near future more and more patients who suffer from various gene-related diseases can become healthy. It’s really an awesome presentation to make people know what gene engineering is likely to do. Thank you very much.
Our spectrum as mankind is very big. A human can produce work that is either the highest of the highs or the lowest of the lows, this man is another hero in the field imo. This was groundbreaking stuff
This is amazing and seems like a much more efficient method compared to the current Crispr method of cutting and pasting DNA. I hope this means that gene-editing will become much safer for human use in the near future.
Dude.i cuddnt re write it man when i relised i was like some ones gunna say something lol thanxs mr u made me happy in correcting me hahaha hope ur good tho my freind
We know virtually nothing about what genes should be (working variances) let alone what they could be. And besides even with this method like those before there is still many problems involved. One the construct is very large so much so I can't imagine it fitting into any viral vectors for easy transfection. Two being the problem with any gene therapy is it's diminishing expression. And three how do we transfect a large enough amount of cells for saturated persistence. So no worries plenty of work left to do.
I remember when I was in high school and our teacher put the movie “GATACA” for us to watch. And I always wondered...... will we reach a point where normal “non-altered” humans become illegal?
No, because who needs to make a disadvantage illegal? They'll just be unable to compete and die out over time as everybody opts to be genetically perfect demigods.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Boy howdy, I do love when I stumble into a rat's nest of stupid. But I'm not interested in delving into whether a credentialed theist can construct a computer simulation of genetic mutations that validates his pre-existing beliefs. I'm gonna limit my response to asking you whether you have ever designed, engineered, and constructed an internal combustion engine? Even if you have never built this complex system that you don't fully understand I'll bet you can figure out how to change a bad spark plug. That's what they are doing. Replacing bad spark plugs.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Hey don't think your stupid, but do think you have bias in your thinking. Humans have been around for over 100,000 years the evidence is there. Life on earth has been around for millions at least. You realize that DNA mutations and corrections both take place. Your argument only has one side of the equation. Somatic and Germ line mutations are different and have different outcomes for survivability. Hardly a simple accounting problem. Keep an open critical mind regardless of your belief system and that's not easy.
It will start being a great thing so I think now is the best time to be around for the start of this amazing tech. But as with all things humans make it will become a twisted mutated monster of its original self. As some one with Muscular dystrophy this means a cure is not that far off as they already started human trials of CrispR ( I think)
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist well, entropy affects the entire universe and will ultimately cause its destruction so it makes sense that over very long time frames it would also affect genes, however, this doesn't mean using gene editing is an intrinsically bad thing. The reason can be seen by taking the essence of your argument "believing they can alter and modify a system as severely complex as DNA which THEY NEVER MADE NOR KNOW HOW IT FULLY WORKS but only VERY LITTLE, therefore it is nonsense and won't work" (correct me if this is not your argument ) to its logical extreme. If we do this it argues for the END of medicine, Doctors, Hospital etc, since Like DNA the human body is EXTREMELY complex, we have never made such a thing nor do we know how it fully works, yet we still have been able to modify the human body with chemicals (medicine), implants etc . . through which we have cured and/or manage various illnesses, and as you know the human body is extremely susceptible to entropy which is literally what causes aging. Since this is the case why would this not also apply to DNA which carries the very info that builds the human body which we ALREADY modify to cure illnesses? And what I meant by this tech mutating into a monster was in reference to people abusing this technology not that it would mutate humans into monsters lol. you also lost many points by bringing supernatural nonsense into your argument. from a book that says there are talking snakes and that doesn't even know what stars are.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist yeah watched that vid and it was utter nonsense, first half talks about the genome couldn't have come from randomness, but new flash IT DIDNT. all i heard for the first half was "DNA is complex and we don't fully understand it, therefore it was designed"
The work of David R. Liu and their team is an incredible feat of determination and dedication. Towards the end, it was mentioned the importance of using this technology ethically. Gene editing has proved to be controversial and ethically questioned due to the potential for abuse and expansion beyond the original intentions. How would we maintain the true nature of this technology, using it only to treat debilitating diseases? I believe there is a fine line between what can ethically be manipulated and what crosses over that line into performance-based preference. As health care professionals, we lead the implementation of this technology into our work. I am both eager to help cure illness and yet worried about the potentially consequences we may face as a society for interfering.
Thank you so much. Am asad bashir, student of MPhil biotechnology from university of kotli azad kashmir. Your lecture helped me a lot to understand base editors.
Can this be done for schizophrenia ..... I feel like all efforts need to be focused on this sever mental disorder .....I hope we get there one day cure diseases .....
The research and innovation in biochemistry performed by this scientist is truly remarkable. The adversity this lab overcame is astounding. However, I think an important question remains. Instead of can we cure genetic disease, I wonder if we should be asking the question should we cure genetic disease by rewriting DNA. At least, this will be a question as science advances into the future. The technological advances in medicine over the last 20 years have been incredible, life-changing, and lifesaving. I think everyone deserves to live a happy healthy life if this is their choosing, but those with genetic mutations do not necessarily get the choice. I believe the advancements with regards to base editing of the human genome is a great step in that direction. Possible issues with such capabilities of rewriting DNA poses the possibility of alternative use of such technology compared to the original intentions. Alternative use may embody using this technology to edit stem cells to give our offspring characteristics, traits that are desired such as height, strength, personality, intellectual ability, or appearance. So how do we prevent the alternative use of such technology in the future? Should we prevent the alternative use of such technology? These are questions I cannot answer other than possibly legislation. Regardless of the way in which the use of this technology is performed, it is hard to argue with the fact that humans would be interrupting evolution. Is this ethical? I believe the use of this base editing technology is ethical if it is used with the intentions of giving individuals with severely life-threatening conditions the opportunity do you live a long, happy, healthy life. If this technology is used to give individuals an advantage over other individuals, then I believe the use of this technology becomes unethical because at this point there is a violation of a biomedical principle known as justice. Distributive justice describes fairness in what people receive. If this technology were to become commercially used to give our offspring desirable traits, which likely would be restricted based on financial means, then there would exist an inequity. As a future physician, I take issue with this concept of use of medical technology. EW
Well I was thinking the same thing to find the cure of genetic diseases.. i.e. rewriting dna, sending proteins which change the mutant sequence of proteins..
@@JohanKylander Actually this is exactly what we have now, if you didn't already notice. Everyone is too afrad to attack each other since they have the power to totally annihilate everything.
Wont be surprised if in the future a full therapy of such a drug cocktail sets you back about $1million. It will be priced as such because you literally save and realize and make possible the earning potential for a human being who will normally be productive in society for 60 years atleast.
Thank you so much! I just am in art school and passionate by this kind of topics. I can’t believe all my friends are just getting high and partying and I never met someone that is substancially cool and really transforming the world and enhancing human experience! I admire the students who set up this advanced technology so so much! Would love to meet bio-engineers, y’all really should be celebrated! I was watching a video of a guy with neurofibromasis, and when I understood that there was a gene specialized in stopping the body from producing tumors, that’s when I realized that instead of cutting people open to remove tumors we should take care of the gene responsible for that. Researching on this I discover that there’s already so much done about it, I am so excited for the future. I think the apocalypse should wait a little because humans are full of surprises and I curious to see more
Air travel is considered the safest option using transportation, it doesn’t mean they don’t crash, but still, it’s a benefit to mass population in this day and age. I don’t get why people like you always think of the worst rather then to appreciate and to keep an open mind.
also guess the next step will be about acquiring data. for year=1..n do for each h in humans do - store h.genome - store h.healthIssues done - cluster genomes by issues - extract majorily present sequence on individuals not showing specific issue done ---- application then: if found malevolent sequence -> replace by most commonly sequence not showing particular feature to cure ... and then, at some point benevolent data could be acquired and non-optimalities are being treated as issues. ... research funding for the next 100 years secured. I fear a significant loss of variety in the mid- to distant future though :(
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist and hasnt yet been built, as the researcher himself said. So that's why I said awesome RESEARCH. There is still work to be done. Are u so innocent that I need to explain this to you?
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist at least i must read first to chat with u after all these arguments. I thank u for The information and for not being disrespectfull as well.
Pick one: 1.Natural selection meaning survival to the fittest and let the weak die and the strong live. Or 2. Genetic engineering which give humans equal survivability. Have fun discussing your points 👇👇🙂
@@sarahbenzai5358 Correct. But I think it's safe to say that in the contex of biology it's a pretty common knowledge that when we say "strong" we really mean "adaptable". You know, kinda like in chemistry we use the term "mass" and "weight" interchangeably (even though we know it's technically different lol). Just wanna clear things up. Have a good day! 😁
Dear brain scientists a question to you: do you Think an adult brain would react/adapt to an update to the genome in neurons in the brain After trying to cure a polygenetic disorder like some intellectual disabilities or autism ? Would very much apreciate your opinion to this!
It's so awesome! But we need to think of the risks also this can involve. But also the wonderful things it can cure. So.. Can we cure cancer already with this or is there some more science that needs to be done before that?
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Hi. Well.. You copy stuff here that you don't really understand. You don't understand evolution. One book i recommend is: The greatest show on earth by Richard dawkins. ;) Read it! Evolution is a *fact* and we know we are the result of it. ;) We are made of star stuff because dying stars created the heavier elements in collapsing stars, and then we are now temporary carbon based life forms on this beautiful earth. So evolution rocks. ;) Be thankful and read about it. Peace out
Where are they getting the DNA segments to change a incorrect segment with the mystery correct segment? And would every DNA stran in the body have the exact same issue and need the editing? That's trillions correct?
Base editing does not require any DNA segment to perform the actual edit. However, the CRISPR system thats part of the base editor needs a snippet of RNA (approx. 20 bases) in order to find the target site in the genome. This RNA molecule can be readily constructed using de-novo DNA/RNA synthesis machines (basically machines that can construct any DNA molecule of interest by building it base by base). You are correct that both the actual base editor and the RNA snippet needs to be delivered to trillions of cells if you plan to perform this editing on an adult organism. In fact, adult delivery is one of the main bottlenecks in CRISPR research right now, which is why a lot of focus has been on germline editing instead. Nonetheless, there are ways to do this, with the most promising being to pack the base editor and the RNA snippet into a virus and have it infect the patient. Thereby delivering its contents to every cell it comes in contact with.
God bless those scientists and everryone wokring hard to make our lifes better and better,,,,,really thank you so so so so much....its truly inspire me to study harder and harder to make somthing useful to serve this huminity.....godbless you all.
I used to have sickle cell anemia nd it would cause so many problems. It's good to know that there are cures being made for it because it's one of the lesser known diseases
@@maximusthegreatest The person suffering from the disease is invested in a viable treatment now. Medical ethicists and others should be concerned about broader implications. In terms of pure research beyond preferred outcomes and practical applications of the findings should continue asking these questions.
@@seanwebb605 If those researchers determined that one day the gene that causes blindness will result in a mutation that will lead to increased IQ or something pro human would they then deny the blind person seeking treatment?
Very fascinating research and advancements into the field of genetics. It seems appropriate to use this technology to “fix” genetic mutations leading to diseases like he listed such as Progeria. This editing capability could lead to a tricky and convoluted path of knowing what type of genetic alterations are ethical or not. Is it ethical to decrease an individual's suffering? Is it ethical to enhance an individual's genome that will allow it to live a diseased free life? It is appropriate to reference the four ethical principles which are beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. Beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy are three of the medical ethical pillars that need to be addressed when discussing genetic alteration technology and advancements. Beneficence is the concept that physicians have a moral duty to provide care that is in the best interest of their patients. It could be argued that genetic alteration with the intent of alleviating disease is in the best interest of the patient. If gene editing is governed by an international ethical committee ensuring that the technology is used sparingly and only for the alleviation of disease, it does not violate the ethical pillar of beneficence. Non-maleficence is the obligation of a physician to do no harm. Genetic editing has the potential to disrupt normal embryologic development; thus, having hypothetical ability to harm a patient. If genetic alteration was conducted in a error-free way, then non-maleficence would not be violated. Lastly, autonomy is granting patient’s the right to make informed decisions about their medical care. On the first glance, one may think that autonomy is being violated in gene editing. The question is asked: how can one elect for genetic editing to occur if it is conducted during development and before birth? We must remember that minors do not have decision making capacity. The autonomy of a minor is limited due to their age. Is there difference in a parent electing for their infant to receive vaccinations and a parent electing for genetic editing to be performed? Genetic alteration is a field full of ethical considerations. It is imperative to consider the three concepts of beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy when pondering the ethical replications of genetic editing.
I completely agree with your thoughtful comment about the ethical considerations surrounding genetic editing. While it's exciting to consider the potential of this technology to cure genetic diseases and alleviate suffering, it's also important to consider the potential risks and unintended consequences. You make a great point about the three ethical principles that need to be considered when discussing genetic alteration technology: beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy. It's clear that the use of genetic editing technology must be governed by a framework that prioritizes the well-being of patients and considers the potential risks and benefits. I also appreciated your discussion of autonomy and the complex question of who has the right to make decisions about genetic editing. While minors may not have full decision-making capacity, their autonomy should still be respected to the extent possible, and decisions about genetic editing should be made in consultation with experts in medical ethics and genetics. Overall, I think your comment highlights the importance of having open and transparent discussions about the ethical implications of new technologies like genetic editing. We need to approach these advancements with caution and ensure that they are used in ways that are consistent with our values and principles.
How much the world is grossly overpopulated, impoverished and helpless? I think by the time our most ambitious medical and technological advancements are put into everyday practice, this might be the last place you want to be any longer than you have to.
You sound like a smart guy. I assume you are a Christian man... What you said made sense to me. It's a bit scary and foolish for person to share this technological discovery. God works in mysterious ways. 🙏 Thanks for your kind words.
