Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: genetics – Page 520

Just five months after scientists in China made history by modifying the germline of human embryos, a research team in the U.K. is requesting permission to do the same, but strictly for research into infertility. Given recent calls for a moratorium on such research, the decision is likely to set a precedent for future requests.

Scientists working at London’s Francis Crick Institute have submitted a formal request with the U.K.’s Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HEFA) to use a gene editing technique for research into human infertility. The researchers have no intention of bringing their genetically modified embryos to term, nor will they be implanted; the scientists are reassuring HEFA and the public that all embryos will be destroyed.

Should permission be granted, it will mark the first time that scientists in the UK—or anywhere in the world for that matter (China excepted)—will have the opportunity to conduct research of this nature, which many consider controversial.

Read more

Progress always seems to ride a slippery slope. Innovations generally bring a plethora of potential benefits and just as many dangers, the obvious and the hidden. Technologies that tamper with our biological constructs is well underway in the neuro- and biotech industries. Historically, innovations in medicine have usually been beneficial on the aggregate.

But these new breakthroughs go beyond preventing and healing pre-existing causes. Transhuman technologies hold the promise of enhancing who we are as individuals and potentially as an entire species, and the decisions surrounding these technologies are far from simple. Dr. Nayef Al-Rodhan, a philosopher, neuroscientist, and director of the Geneva Center for Security Policy, believes we should be acting now to prepare for the inevitable and the unpredictable ramifications.

Framing Human Motivation

Considering our mixed track record as a species in rolling out groundbreaking innovations, discussing and finding potential solutions to many of the hidden dangers, and obvious ones, seems more than reasonable. One of the more puzzling questions is, where do we begin to have a pragmatic conversation on the ethics of these technologies?

There are plenty of theories about what drive human decisions, not least because human morality is infinitely complex and our minds crave frames through which to make sense of chaos. Dr. Al-Rodhan has his own conception of what drives human motivations. He makes meaning using the lens of “5 P’s” – Power, Pride, Profit, Pleasure, and Permanence – which he posits drive human motivations. “This is my view, the foundation of my outlook…this perceived emotion of self interest drives our moral compass.”

Al-Rodhan’s view of human nature seems to make a lot of sense, bridging the rational with the emotional. Such a frame is particularly helpful when considering technology that undoubtedly taps into our deepest fears and hopes, and invokes rational (and irrational) debate. During a recent TechEmergence interview with Nayef, I asked for his thoughts on the concerns and considerations of this brand of technology in the coming decade.

The Near Business of Enhancement

Al-Rodhan believes that we will see cognitive enhancement primarily through neuropharmacology, or neuro- and psychostimulants. This concept of this technology is nothing new — the military and many other organization have used their stimulants of choice in the past, one of the most pervasive being alcohol. But this new wave of neuro- and psychostimulants will methodically target specific areas in the brain, giving way to the possibility for innovations like increased mood modulation and more cognitive ability within the confines of the brain’s neuronal population.

Neuromodulation has been used in the military, with some efforts to make soldiers less emotional and to require less sleep. The difficulties with side effects are often more pronounced when soldiers return from combat. “They are all messed up due to severe brutality, fear, and some of these agents they are given make them addicts to certain things,” says Nayef, acknowledging that this happens in most all militaries. “The point is that psychostimulants and neuromodulators will make us feel very good, but they are very dangerous because they require addictive behavior…and we need strict oversight mechanisms.”

Nayef says that technologies such as brain machine interface (BMI) are likely beyond the span of a decade, but that implantable microchips (whether bio or biotechnological) are as much of an immediate concern as the introduction of neurostimulants. “The FDA in the United States is entrusted with keeping us on the right path,” says Al-Rodhan.

Finding Common Regulatory Ground

Is it possible to put in place national or international structures for managing these new and emerging technologies? Al-Rodhan believes it is more than possible; however, the primary issue is that our regulation is way behind innovation. Regulatory frameworks are lacking for a number of reasons. The unpopularity in politics is a major obstacle to overcome. In elections, these types of contradictory frameworks are not politically on the front burner for most candidates, and the long-term outlook is limited.

Another area for concern is corporate pharmaceutical entities, which Nayef says are not as well regulated as some might think. Businesses are concerned about the bottom line above all else, which at times yields unfortunate outcomes for the whole of society. “This is part of their role as executive, they’re not too concerned about moral regulation,” says Nayef. As unappealing as it might sound to free market capitalists, the institution that traditionally steps into these frontiers to regulate is government.

A relevant and current example is the science and business of moderating genomes in China, which is already investing a lot of money in this industry. Some effects of this technology may not be so obvious at first, and it is possible that negative ramifications could occur without the correct bioethical oversight. Al-Rodhan asks “what happens if you get a piece of DNA that preludes the biosphere? Who knows what kind of mutation that may produce spontaneously or by merging with other DNA in an organism.” These are the types of questions that governments, academic institutions, corporations, and individual citizens need to be asking, considering the multiple perspectives that emerge from a framework like Al-Rodhan’s that applies across cultural boundaries.

Al-Rodhan describes the process of implementing such regulatory frameworks as a transnational effort, but says that such efforts start with countries like the U.S., Japan, and Europe, where accountable mechanisms already exist. Taking the lead doesn’t guarantee the same priorities will be given elsewhere, but it can provide an example — and ideally a positive one. “We have about a decade to get our act together,” says Al-Rodhan.

Dr Michael Fossel is a PhD and MD heading up telomerase research and therapy and has kindly written a blog article for Bioviva detailing the work both they and his company Telocyte are doing to fight back against Alzheimer’s.

How Alzheimer’s Can Be Prevented and Cured…

Michael Fossel, MD, PhD

As I said in my medical textbook on aging, “If age is a thief, then the greatest treasure we lose is ourselves.” We fear Alzheimer’s not simply because it takes away our health, but because it steals our souls.

Once, we thought it was simply “old age” that gradually killed the cells that carry information and memory. These are brain cells that make us who we are and define our consciousness.

Only in the past two decades, have we gradually come to realize that it’s not the neurons, which are merely the innocent bystanders in the tragedy,

but the microglial cells that cause the disease. It’s our microglia, not our neurons that steal our very souls.

Continue reading “Curing Alzheimer’s” | >

Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero grabbed the world’s attention this past winter when he announced his plans to perform the first human head transplant. Many doubted that such an outrageous procedure would ever see the light of day. Now, Canavero has a date on the books.

Thirty-year-old Russian computer scientist Valery Spiridonov is set to become the world’s first head transplant patient in December 2017. Spiridonov suffers from a rare genetic muscle-wasting condition known as Werdnig-Hoffmann disease. There’s currently no known treatment.

As you might not want to imagine, the procedure will be filled with challenges and uncertainties. There’s the hair-raising possibility that the head will reject the body or vice versa. The spinal cord might not fuse properly. Even if everything goes well, there’s no telling whether Spiridonov’s mental capacities or personality will remain the same. He’s embarking on totally uncharted medical territory.

Read more

In April 2015, a paper by Chinese scientists about their attempts to edit the DNA of a human embryo rocked the scientific world and set off a furious debate. Leading scientists warned that altering the human germ line without studying the consequences could have horrific consequences. Geneticists with good intentions could mistakenly engineer changes in DNA that generate dangerous mutations and cause painful deaths. Scientists — and countries — with less noble intentions could again try to build a race of superhumans.

Human DNA is, however, merely one of many commercial targets of ethical concern. The DNA of every single organism — every plant, every animal, every bacterium — is now fair game for genetic manipulation. We are entering an age of backyard synthetic biology that should worry everybody. And it is coming about because of CRISPRs: clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.

Discovered by scientists only a few years ago, CRISPRs are elements of an ancient system that protects bacteria and other single-celled organisms from viruses, acquiring immunity to them by incorporating genetic elements from the virus invaders. CRISPRs evolved over millions of years to trim pieces of genetic information from one genome and insert it into another. And this bacterial antiviral defense serves as an astonishingly cheap, simple, elegant way to quickly edit the DNA of any organism in the lab.

Until recently, editing DNA required sophisticated labs, years of experience, and many thousands of dollars. The use of CRISPRs has changed all that. CRISPRs work by using an enzyme — Cas9 — that homes in on a specific location in a strand of DNA. The process then edits the DNA to either remove unwanted sequences or insert payload sequences. CRISPRs use an RNA molecule as a guide to the DNA target. To set up a CRISPR editing capability, a lab only needs to order an RNA fragment (costing about $10) and purchase off-the-shelf chemicals and enzymes for $30 or less.

Read more

The human being — especially in so-called “advanced civilizations” — is the animal that molds itself into its own pet.

Peter Sloterdijk is Germany’s most controversial thinker and media theorist. He has dared to challenge long-established divisions in traditional philosophy of body and soul, subject and object, culture and nature. His 1999 lecture on “Regulations for the Human Park,” in which he argued that genetic engineering was a continuation of human striving for self-creation, stirred up a tempest in a country known for Nazi eugenics. At the same time, he himself has concluded that “the taming of man has failed” as civilization’s potential for barbarism has grown ever greater. His seminal books include “Critique of Cynical Reason” and his trilogy, “Spheres.”

At a recent Berggruen Center on Philosophy and Culture symposium on humans and technology at Cambridge University’s St. John’s School of Divinity, The WorldPost discussed with Sloterdijk the end of borders between humans and technology, the cloud, singularity and identity in the age of globalization.

For years now, you have been arguing that a new type of being was coming into existence, as the human species fuses with its technological prosthetics — “anthropo-technology.” In this new being, man and machine are becoming one integrated, operative system linked by information.

Read more

You may have heard of precision medicine in the news, but what actually is it, and what could it mean for the future of healthcare?

In the past, medicine was geared for the masses and was applied to large numbers of people, on the basis of average effectiveness. If a particular substance was ineffective on 10% of the population, it could still pass through and be prescribed anyway. Before genomics, it was tricky to understand or postulate why people had such varied responses to medication, but now we have the right tools — things are changing.

While all humans have extremely similar genes in percentage terms, there are distinct differences in each of us that create our particular vulnerabilities and characteristics. We also respond differently to many treatments; a cure for one might be mediocre for another. This is particularly true for cancer. With the Precision Medicine Initiative taking off, taking into account genetics, lifestyle and environment is beginning to give us an edge — making medicine more accurate and effective.

Read more

California researchers opened the world’s largest publicly available stem cell bank Tuesday, which will aid in the search for cures for genetic diseases such as Alzheimer’s, epilepsy and autism.

Universities from around the state will contribute adult skin samples to the bank, while the Buck Institute for Research in Novato will store the material.

The Stem Cell Bank is funded through a $32 million grant awarded in 2013 by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which itself was established in 2004 through voter approval of Proposition 71. That measure provided an initial $3 billion in state bonds to the institute.

Read more

A key mystery of the DNA replication process has been unraveled by researchers from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).

Before a bacterium can divide, it must make a copy of its genetic material, the circular DNA molecules that resemble bunched rubber bands, through a process called DNA replication. In this process, the two strands of DNA making up the circular DNA molecule unwind and separate to become templates for generating new strands.

To ensure the process is well regulated, the bacterium has set a number of “roadblocks,” or termination sites on the DNA, to ensure the permanent stoppage of replication forks, Y-shaped structures formed between the strands as the DNA molecule splits.

Read more