Human Genome Editing Quotes

have no doubt, this technology will — someday, somewhere — be used to change the genome of our own species in ways that are heritable, forever altering the genetic composition of human kind.

Even if we have a reliable criterion for detecting design, and even if that criterion tells us that biological systems are designed, it seems that determining a biological system to be designed is akin to shrugging our shoulders and saying God did it. The fear is that admitting design as an explanation will stifle scientific inquiry, that scientists will stop investigating difficult problems because they have a sufficient explanation already. But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it. Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray’s Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system.

For his doctorate, he went to the University of Pennsylvania, where he figured out how non-coding regions of our genome, previously described as “junk DNA,” could play a role in disease progression.

Evolution has been working toward optimizing the human genome for 3.85 billion years,” says NIH director Francis Collins, who is not an atheist. “Do we really think that some small group of human genome tinkerers could do better without all sorts of unintended consequences?

Scientists were able to replicate this process—successfully replacing a viral sequence with other types of DNA and inserting that DNA in the target cell—making “genomic surgery” possible. CRISPR rapidly replaced older methods of genetic engineering, making gene editing cleaner, more accurate, and much faster.

The world has been changing even faster as people, devices and information are increasingly connected to each other. Computational power is growing and quantum computing is quickly being realised. This will revolutionise artificial intelligence with exponentially faster speeds. It will advance encryption. Quantum computers will change everything, even human biology. There is already one technique to edit DNA precisely, called CRISPR. The basis of this genome-editing technology is a bacterial defence system. It can accurately target and edit stretches of genetic code. The best intention of genetic manipulation is that modifying genes would allow scientists to treat genetic causes of disease by correcting gene mutations. There are, however, less noble possibilities for manipulating DNA. How far we can go with genetic engineering will become an increasingly urgent question. We can’t see the possibilities of curing motor neurone diseases—like my ALS—without also glimpsing its dangers. Intelligence is characterised as the ability to adapt to change. Human intelligence is the result of generations of natural selection of those with the ability to adapt to changed circumstances. We must not fear change. We need to make it work to our advantage. We all have a role to play in making sure that we, and the next generation, have not just the opportunity but the determination to engage fully with the study of science at an early level, so that we can go on to fulfil our potential and create a better world for the whole human race. We need to take learning beyond a theoretical discussion of how AI should be and to make sure we plan for how it can be. We all have the potential to push the boundaries of what is accepted, or expected, and to think big. We stand on the threshold of a brave new world. It is an exciting, if precarious, place to be, and we are the pioneers. When we invented fire, we messed up repeatedly, then invented the fire extinguisher. With more powerful technologies such as nuclear weapons, synthetic biology and strong artificial intelligence, we should instead plan ahead and aim to get things right the first time, because it may be the only chance we will get. Our future is a race between the growing power of our technology and the wisdom with which we use it. Let’s make sure that wisdom wins.

It is the impulse of science to try to understand nature, and the impulse of technology to try to manipulate it. Recombinant DNA had pushed genetics from the realm of science into the realm of technology. Genes were not abstractions anymore. They could be liberated from the genomes of organisms where they had been trapped for millennia, shuttled between species, amplified, purified, extended, shortened, altered, remixed, mutated, mixed, matched, cut, pasted, edited; they were infinitely malleable to human intervention. Genes were no longer just the subjects of study, but the instruments of study.

In this particular dream, a colleague approached me and asked if I would be willing to teach somebody how the gene-editing technology worked. I followed my colleague into a room to meet this person and was shocked to see Adolf Hitler, in the flesh, seated in front of me. He had a pig face (perhaps because I had spent so much time thinking about the humanized pig genome that was being rewritten with CRISPR around this time), and he was meticulously prepared for our meeting with pen and paper, ready to take notes. Fixing his eyes on me with keen interest, he said, “I want to understand the uses and implications of this amazing technology you’ve developed.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a Bible scholar to see the repercussions of tampering with genomes, editing DNA, and creating Artificial Intelligence (AI) atrocities that are thrusting us back to the days of Noah, threatening our very existence. This holocaust is fast approaching and if not thwarted, the disastrous implications for all people on earth could be irrevocable.

It’s not that I was categorically opposed to the idea of scientists and physicians using gene editing to introduce heritable changes into the human genome.

It is the impulse of science to understand nature, and the impulse of technology to try to manipulate it. Recombinant DNA had pushed genetics from the realm of science into the realm of technology. Genes were not abstractions anymore. They could be liberated from the genomes of organisms where they had been trapped for millennia, shuttled between species, amplified, purified, extended, shortened, altered, remixed, mutated, mixed, matched, cut, pasted, edited; they were infinitely malleable to human intervention. Genes were no longer just the subjects of study, but the instruments of study. There is an illuminated moment in the development of a child when she grasps the recursiveness of language: just as thoughts can be used to generate words, she realizes, words can be used to generate thoughts. Recombinant DNA had made the language of genetics recursive. Biologists had spent decades trying to interrogate the nature of the gene-but now it was the gene that could be used to interrogate biology. We had graduated, in short, from thinking about genes, to thinking in genes.

That’s where GLEtches comes from…GermLine Editing trace. You change the genome, edit it, at most stages in a person’s life, and it doesn’t get passed on to their offspring…The sticking point is if you do the editing to the embryo or at the very earliest stage in the fetus’s development. In that case, the alterations get passed on. That’s when you change what it means to be human.

The human touch is there, it has worked for long, sitting by the patient’s bedside and trying to lift their spirits. Although with the advances of human genomics, parts of the process have become automated, medical professionals cannot practice the way they used to, it is no longer the same human contact that we had before. Patients usually get interested in new technologies first; therefore there is a constant request that physicians start using them. Medical professionals don’t have to get detailed training about how magnetic resonance imaging works, they just need to know why it works.

About 99% of the DNA in a human cell is in the nucleus. Half of this is inherited from your mother and half from your father. But about 1% of the human genome is in 1,000 to 2,000 tiny subcellular structures called mitochondria.

In 2001 scientists finally had access to the entire genome sequence of humans, our complete 3 billion letters of genetic information.

Charpentier and Doudna had liberated this technology. It was no longer restricted to the world of bacteria. The two women were highly attuned to the implications of their findings, speculating in the Abstract of their paper that their finding ‘highlights the potential to exploit the system for … programmable genome editing’. But to be truly useful, the system would need to work inside cells. Just seven months later, a paper from the lab of Feng Zhang was published in the same journal, which demonstrated that this new approach did indeed work in cells, including human ones.11 The ability to hack the code of life had truly arrived.