219 replies to this topic

[mag1]

This thread was started during the first wave of mainstream publicity about CRISPR technology.

At that time caveats were expressed about safety and appeals were made for quiet deliberation.

 

This new research moves the game forward.

It definitely now feels as if we are racing towards a completely unknown future.

CRISPR technology would dramatically change the nature of human experience.

 

At what point might people reason that the potential benefits exceed the potential risks?

 

Natural human reproductive technology is hardly a 100% safe technology.

100% of humans develop Alzheimer pathology by age 90,

Cancer, and heart disease are nearly ubiquitous in aging populations.

 

CRISPR technology could eliminate all of these concerns.

 

[mag1]

Now this is interesting.

 

The international conference that was expected to announce a global  moratorium on human germline

CRISPering has not yet taken place.

 

It is due up in December. Way back in May it must have seemed the best strategy to kick this can down the road and hope everyone would

just move onto something else.

 

Well, it appears that we now have second generation CRISPR technology. This is not going away. The people have not forgotten.

This is going to be "A Whole World is Watching Moment".

Are we actually going to see a gross violation of human rights dressed up as precautionary science?

 

 

http://sites.nationa.../PGA/PGA_165766

 

The Chinese do not appear too dogmatic about fighting this.

http://www.nature.co...be-born-1.18542

 

We are quickly approaching the point where there will be real and immediate consequences surrounding CRISPR national policies.

 

Your nation fundamentally disapproves of editing of the human genome to improve human intelligence and human welfare?

OK, fine international financial markets fully respect your right of national sovereignty to make such a choice.

However, as a consequence of this choice your national currency and the value of your economy has now been assigned a value of US $0.

 

Any nation that implemented a universal CRISPR roll out would derive unimaginable prosperity nearly immediately.

 

It is going to be fascinating to watch how this upcoming international conference now unfolds.

What binding commitments will the attending nations make?

This conference which nation will lead the world in the 21st Century and which nations will cease having any relevance for human progress.

 

A global moratorium no longer seems a plausible policy stance.

Second generation CRISPR has already been shown to be vastly more precise than the original version.

A moratorium now would appear more like people running away from technology they do not want to think about, than actually protecting

people against a technology that is not yet ready.

 

Germline Human editing with CRISPR!

Wow!

 

A Genetic Singularity Event is now imminent!

We do not need a heads up announcement this time around.

Perhaps the announcement of a human born with full CRISPR editing is near.

 

A human engineered with full CRISPR technology would represent a leap of at least 100 million years of evolutionary time.

Fasten your seat belts everyone, life is about to become massively cool!

 

 

Which nation will be so unintelligent as to commit themselves to banning a technology which would give their citizens near unlimited wealth, health, intelligence and possibly immortality?  

 

Edited by mag1, 21 November 2015 - 09:55 PM.

[mag1]

Here's the reference for the claim that everyone develops Alzheimer's pathology by age 90.

http://taurx.com/upl...apter-hd[1].pdf    (Pages 5-10, especially page 10)

 

A single CRISPRing would stop the Alzheimer's pandemic.

http://www.nature.co...ature11283.html

[ceridwen]

I don't believe that everyone gets Alzheimer's by age 90. My Mother and uncle lived until their early 90s no sign of decline till their last week's and that was due to stokes and lack of oxygen.

[ceridwen]

Also CRISPER addresses those lucky people who haven't got Alzheimer's what about those of us who are unfortunate enough to have it and are desperately trying to stay alive?

[mag1]

Yes, this is quite true.

 

The article was referring more to 100% of 90 year olds having irreversibly progressed to the point where 

neural destruction was occurring. This does not imply they have clinical dementia. Such dementia might require many years

to manifest.

 

With CRISPR technology none of these afflictions need ever plague humans ever again.

Mice have been genetically engineered that never develop Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, or pretty much anything else.

Of course, mice have also been genetically engineered to be super intelligent, super mentally well, super long living, and pretty much everything else.

 

Suppose CRISPR will soon give humans some of these traits.

 

[ceridwen]

Well my neural destruction is getting to be a serious problem. Is there anything that could help people with early stage dementia coming along so people in my position can be helped?

[ceridwen]

I would be pleased to think that people would soon be able to put off mental decline indefinitely and be super intelligent. It would relieve much human suffering and be a wonderful new step in human evolution that should be welcomed by all. I just don't think that those already suffering should go without help and wonder if there is anything to help those ailing.

[mag1]

My family has watched a love one progress to severe dementia over decades and decades.

You always hear of yet another breakthrough, though year after year passes and nothing ever seems to happen.

Some promising treatments seem to disappear for about ten years, though they are still moving through the clinical trial process.

 

We should probably take this topic to the Alzheimer thread: that is where some dementia experts can do some due diligence for you.

On a first go round: I would suggest that you consider MCT oils, reduced methylene blue, low dose Keppra.

Keppra has recently reported back on a small clinical trial and was positive. They are going to a larger study with it.

Even with very severe dementia our loved one appears to have benefited from the Keppra, though it is almost impossible to really know for sure. 

 

Something else that has caught my attention lately is EEG technology.

As soon as our loved one lost the power of speech, everyone assumed that cognition had essentially stopped.

I did not believe this was true. I still do not believe this is true.

 

It would be so amazing if our loved one could be hooked up to the latest EEG technology and beat all those nay sayers at a video game.

I am not sure why the infotech community have not embraced this as a grand project.

It would create a whole bunch of good will for them.

The problem does not really seem that difficult.

 

[sthira]

I would be pleased to think that people would soon be able to put off mental decline indefinitely and be super intelligent. It would relieve much human suffering and be a wonderful new step in human evolution that should be welcomed by all. I just don't think that those already suffering should go without help and wonder if there is anything to help those ailing.

Although empathy isn't enough, you certainly have mine. I wish CRISPR/Cas9 tech would step along faster and up out of monkey studies to help the millions of suffering people without hope. Have you been keeping up with Liz Parrish's efforts? At least she's trying -- brava!

[mag1]

One of the implicit implications of CRISPR is that those afflicted by a variety of medical conditions would be provided with enhanced care.

The CRISPR generation will have essentially no medical concerns ever.

 

They will pay taxes and largely never need services.

In fact given that they might have essentially infinite intelligence, they might reasonably be expected to eventually pay enormous amounts of taxes.

 

And of course there is a substantial entrenched medical industry.

 

It would be so easy for a politician in such a scenario to promise superior care for people now with various medical problems.

Currently often politicians are essentially required to refuse requests even for severely ill children who could be effectively treated with the best standard of care.

Obviously the dementia pandemic will greatly intensify the struggle for scarce health care dollars.

 

CRISPR would seem to answer so many problems.

Not to mention that CRISPRed people would have overwhelming intellectual ability. It would not be unexpected that for such people might solve dementia.

Also, many opportunities would exist for CRISPR technology to help those now suffering from dementia.

 

 

 

[mag1]

All righty I am getting some push back on my referencing of the Alzheimer's claim.

OK, then. Page 3 of the below pdf further highlights the implications of the presence of Alzheimer neuropathology in 100% of 90 year olds.

In this figure it shows explicitly the presence of cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer's in 100% of 95 year olds.

As can be seen in this figure the genetic risk factors for AD epsilon 4, or Short/Long 523 only advance age of onset by typically 5 years.

Even the most fortunate people will experience cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer pathology by their mid-90s and will then be on an inevitable path

to eventually develop dementia.

 

I am not entirely sure whether this information has been fully appreciated by members of this forum calling for immortal life.

Extending life span by even a few years would almost certainly create a profound dementia crisis.

Such a crisis has already emerged in Japan.

It is expected to also soon arise in most other industrialized societies

 

Concentrating on addressing the nearer term problem of dementia might be a better focus for the forum.

Achieving immortality with some basic minimum of mental ability will almost certainly first require solving dementia.

 

http://www.alzheimer...(14)02470-4/pdf

Edited by mag1, 24 November 2015 - 02:26 AM.

[niner]

Any nation that implemented a universal CRISPR roll out would derive unimaginable prosperity nearly immediately.

No they wouldn't.

A Genetic Singularity Event is now imminent!
We do not need a heads up announcement this time around.
Perhaps the announcement of a human born with full CRISPR editing is near.

Maybe near in the quasi-geologic timescales of medical research, but not "near" in the conventional sense.

[sthira]

SNIP

And of course there is a substantial entrenched medical industry.

SNIP

CRISPR would seem to answer so many problems.

So do you think (given these two points I've highlighted in your writing) that CRISPR/Cas9 advances will occur primarily within the basements, garages and individual risks taken by people not being healed through the mainstream?

[niner]

Not to mention that CRISPRed people would have overwhelming intellectual ability.

We have no idea how to do that. We'll probably have a superintelligent AGI before we have superintelligent humans.

[sthira]

Not to mention that CRISPRed people would have overwhelming intellectual ability.

We have no idea how to do that. We'll probably have a superintelligent AGI before we have superintelligent humans.

Right. Mag1: while I appreciate your enthusiasm and hope for the future of this powerful tool, I think you may be getting a little ahead of the science. Why is it important to point that out? Because early enthusiasm and hope is usually crushed by reality, and this crushing sometimes may make us exponentially bitter. Is there anything worse than being teased over and over again that the cure for suffering is imminent when it's not imminent?

[mag1]

The NAS, not so long ago the champion of a global moratorium on this research, now appears oriented to reality.

(See the October 13, 2015 link).

 

http://sites.nationa.../PGA/PGA_165766

 

Of course that was before second generation CRISPR had even been announced.

I suppose third generation CRISPR is already in the pipe.

 

When this thread was started in May, commenters rightly pointed out that this technology could be years and years away from even technical feasibility.

I am no longer sure with the recent research announcement a half year later whether it reasonable to think of this technology as years away anymore. 

 

My suggestion a few months back that our thread should hold our own parallel conference to discuss what is after all about very personal and critically

important matters still stands. Now even more than then a prescripted international moratorium on CRISPR research seems out of touch with reality as it

currently exists. It will be very very interesting to see what legally binding commitments are now made by nations at this conference.

 

 

[mag1]

Yes, I always thought that biotech would lag far behind infotech.

I am no longer sure. 

 

If a company announced tomorrow that they had built a computer that could launch THE Singularity Event, the story might not even displace any of the endless stories

on celebrity gossip. There might not even be any particular political push back. Infotech almost always has this advantage. Was there ever any high consideration and

possibly an attempt to restrict the roll out of the computer revolution that has transformed our lives over the last 20 years? Don't think so. It was a fancy step and funky

dance in the endzone. I thought that infotech would also lead us into the Singularity. People likely would be mostly indifferent to the introduction of such a technology.

 

With biotech there is just so much regulation. Typically, regulators need 2 years to even think about contemplating rubber stamping anything. In May, they kicked

the CRISPR can down the road with the intention of imposing a global moratorium. This second generation technology looks impressive. Considering the overwhelming potential

to solve medical problems with CRISPR it does not seem unreasonable to move this forward. Notably the first hundred years of Alzheimer's disease was recently commemorated.

Yet, there is still no treatment that can prevent, slow the progression nor cure Alzheimer's dementia.

 

With CRISPR technology there would be a large range of targets outside of the brain that could substantially change the progression of amyloid dementia.

For example, a blood factor called eotaxin has recently been found to delay onset of early onset AD by 7 years.

It is also understood that there is an amyloid reservoir outside of the brain that interacts with the illness .. there is an immune component to Alzheimer's that could be genetically targeted with

CRISPR ... .

 

People currently suffering with Alzheimer's dementia or the large number of Columbian carriers of a genotype guaranteeing early onset among many many others with

various genetic illnesses must surely now be aware of the overwhelming potential of this technology. Many of these people would have nearly no reasonable hope

of current treatments ever helping them. How would it be ethical to place restrictions on a technology that potentially could cure any disease?

 

This is going to be a Whole World is Watching Moment at this upcoming conference.

It would now be an outrage if some sort of moratorium were attempted and largely symbolic.

 

Why would we presume that our Westrocentric philosophical perspective represents some sort of universal truth?

Sounds somewhat parochial, perhaps even racist.

 

[mag1]

In terms of the genetic of super intelligence, yes, this has been shown to be a much more difficult problem to crack

than had been originally contemplated. Considering the current roll out of near population scale full genome sequencing

this likely will not remain true for much longer.

 

What I was thinking of in particular with this comment was some of the report in the scientific literature of individuals with

essentially infinite learning ability. Apparently a rare few people have the ability to instantly remember everything forever.

Um, well yes that would certainly qualify for genius in my books. This is possibly only a single SNP. It is not entirely clear

whether such a person would actually be a high achiever, though given the correct environmental context it would seem highly

possible.

 

At the very least a CRISPRed individual would experience virtually none of the illnesses that become nearly 100% as people age

including dementia, cancer, heart disease, cerebrovascular inter alia. 

 

America is rapidly approaching the time when the Alzheimer's epidemic will cost the nation $ 1 trillion per year and have profound

sociopolitical consequences. I wonder whether the CRISPERing of a single base pair in the APP gene might become seen

as a way to avoid national bankruptcy.

 

[mag1]

I would tend to think that a national CRISPR policy would have immense prosperity implications.

 

International financial markets could give immediate feedback on the implications of these national policies.

We would not need to wait decades for this to unfold. Financial markets are based on rationally discounting

what is known now into the future. I would be very interested to see how markets would respond to CRISPR.

The implications should be fairly obvious once the details of a national CRISPR implementation were released.

 

It is already well understood in the medical community that there are a genetically identifiable subgroup in the

population that live long healthy lives without the need of expensive medical interventions. Such a future could

be predicted once CRISPR had rolled out. This would have profound implications for national finances.

 

Furthermore, longevity strategies using CRISPR should not be imagined to be technically unlikely. Developing

a generation of highly skilled healthy long living citizens could create experts with extraordinary depth of

understanding in virtually every field. This has largely never been possible up to this point. High level intellectual

accomplishment in our non-CRISPRed world has been severely limited by the near universal onset of cognitive

decline that for many begins in their 30s.

 

[mag1]

"Is there anything worse than being teased over and over again that the cure for suffering is imminent when it's not imminent?"

 

Actually, yes there is. We have found it to be far far worse to be teased over and over again with relatively safe treatments that were endlessly delayed by regulatory or other

obstructions. The methylene blue phase 3 trial in Alzheimer's should be ending in the next few days. We have waited almost ten years for this trial to finally end.

During that time we have watched our loved one progress from mild to moderate to severe and now to very severe dementia. 

 

This despite the fact that methylene blue is considered perhaps the oldest of modern medicines: it actually predates the FDA. Soldiers in the Second World War and Vietnam were 

given copious doses of it to prevent malaria. It was also used in the past as a practical joke in medical schools, as it turns people's urine blue. 

 

The millions of people who have watched neuro-degeneration erase their loved one's recognition of even their closest relations would surely have found this inexcusable delay of

a promising treatment to be much worse than any false hope. The Right to Try Laws that have almost achieved American wide bipartisan support verify the level of frustration that

many have felt with the current approach to delaying promising technology. Under current legislation, after a CRISPR phase 1 had been published patients could immediately

request access to this therapy.

 

[sthira]

Some things you write I understand, others things are flying high. But I'm sorry you had to watch the awful progression of dementia in your loved one. Did MB help in their case?

[mag1]

SNIP

And of course there is a substantial entrenched medical industry.

SNIP

CRISPR would seem to answer so many problems

 

 

 

What I was thinking with these quotes was that the natural pivot that the medical system could do once CRISPR were rolled out on a large scale

would be to intensify care for those now coping with illnesses. As it is now medicine at a certain point gives up on those with dementia and

probably many other illnesses. However, as we have seen with our loved one, with appropriate care, patients with dementing illness can have

truly prolonged life spans. Many days our loved one, even now, seems quite happy and contented. We have been repeatedly told this would

not be true within any professional care environment. 

 

If I were sitting in the big chair and had to make the financial allocation choice for my community, this is exactly what I would do: Roll out CRISPR

and give all the people needing medical care better care now. In the current context this is largely impossible. The financial reality is that without CRISPR

you can project forward an eternity of financial liabilities. Even severely ill children cannot break through this dismal economic reality.

 

I do not believe it will be necessary to move much closer to the Approaching Alzheimer Global bankruptcy moment to embrace CRISPR.

In caring for our family member it is quite startling to see the increasing desperation of our government to finance services for us.

Almost every week some new cutback is announced. We were quite shocked when we were asked to pay $25 in cash for a G-Tube

in order to do an at home procedure that would likely save the health care system considerable expense. It is very scary.

The Alzheimer's financial crisis is already underway. We do not even want to think what the standard of care will be even 2 or 3 years from

now. The pandemic is only getting started.   

[mag1]

sthira, yeah you're right I'm flying high on this one.

 

If it did not matter to me, I suppose I would be as clued out on this as most other people seem to be.

My role here is as an advocate for someone coping with severe dementia and the tens of millions of others in the same position with very uncertain prospects

for effective treatments in the future. It is not a far stretch to claim that CRISPR technology could cure any and all diseases. The ability to change genetics

changes everything. Any conference will now need to tread very cautiously on pronouncements of blanket moratoriums. Such a moratorium would be opposed

by every major disease activist group. It would be politically unreasonable.    

 

 

The recent CRISPR research is reporting a substantial improvement in safety. There could be many many dementia

patients who might now consider this technology to be safe enough. Who are we to say that people with a currently incurable illness should not be

allowed to make such a choice? This was the intention of the Right to Try Laws that have now swept the nation. Are we now not going to recognize

the rule of law nor the Will of the People? People have finally realized that government has vastly overstepped their constitutional authority in determining

how a free people can decide what treatments should be allowed them.

 

Your words of encouragement felt great: Thank you!

 

This topic of personal freedom has direct bearing on our loved one's treatment. When we told our doctor about our wish to receive methylene blue treatment

the doctor flat out refused. This despite a complete lack of knowledge of it. Our loved one's dementia doctor also considered such a treatment highly 

experiment and would not endorse this treatment. None of the other doctors that we have encountered have had any knowledge of it either.

 

At the same time, anti-psychotics were prescribed to our loved by some of these doctors even after these drugs were part of the largest medical settlement in American

legal history-- relating to the inappropriate and dangerous dosing of dementia patients with anti-psychotics.

 

 

[Steve H]

CRISPR is advancing nicely but we are still years even decades from anything close to something we can use in people. Regulations, stubborn ingrained belief that aging is natural and other nonsense are serious hurdles to overcome. Enthusiasm for emerging technology is great but we still have no idea what to edit in order to live significantly longer. Even if we can did edit various known longevity genes the accumulation of waste such as Glucosophane and other AGEs would still kill us as the body cannot remove them. Can CRISPR break aging crosslinks and accumulated amyloids?

[mag1]

A global moratorium on fertility now seems in order.

 

Global moratorium on CRISPR? Global moratorium on fertility: seems to naturally follow.

The end of humanity.

Empty playgrounds and schools could help alert people that something has fundamentally changed.

 

Giving time for us to contemplate Humanity 2.0 might not be a bad idea.

Also signal to those who think this could be indefinitely postponed that it wouldn't be.

 

 

CRISPR technology is a truly profound technology.

The latest research results showed perfect runs on 2 of 3 trials.

 

Wonder what the results would now be for human germline engineering?

When this experiment was published last April, the scientists did not believe the technology was ready.

What would their opinion be now?

 

The researchers that just published CRISPR 2.0 now want to treat millions of cells.

They think it is that safe.

There would be considerably fewer cells involved in an embryo.  

 

 

Edited by mag1, 25 November 2015 - 01:14 AM.

[niner]

Mag, we don't have a ratings button that says "lost touch with reality"...  But you kinda have.  Even given a pretty accurate genome editing technique, we just DO NOT KNOW HOW to make the kinds of changes in humans that you are talking about.  Even if we DID know, it would take years or decades to develop clinical methods for treating humans.  Anything involving a germline change will require IVF--  No making babies the old fashioned way.  Then it will take a couple decades for those children to mature to the point that they would have any impact on the economy.  For people who are already alive, you would need to figure out how to deliver the CRISPR gene mods to enough of the target tissue to provide the desired effect.   There are massive problems yet to be solved.  There are plenty of candidates for things that will change human society before CRISPR will.

[mag1]

Yes, my comment was largely in response to the proposed moratorium on CRISPR research.

Hard line positions have already been expressed against CRISPR technology.

Banning CRISPR apparently was not considered out of touch with reality, why not banning babies?

 

Creating some sort of organized social response to this proposed ban would send the message

that CRISPR is now a global priority. They can hold all the conferences, institute all the moratoriums, and

publish all the manifestos they like.

 

Empty playgrounds will speak louder than any theatrics.

 

After this latest round of research, do they really think that life has not fundamentally changed?

The People could speak clearly with empty baby carriages.

Those who want to retain their position in the hierarchy at the expense of all those who would profoundly

benefit from this technology can stay on board a sinking ship for as long as they like.

Delay would then mean they would lose and not those they seek to control through inaction.

 

Where is the leadership on this issue?

Why has a great project not already been launched?

We can do this! Why the silence?

 

This is a simple exercise in rational decision making.

 

Would you choose to bring a non-CRISPRed human life into the world?

Just as a reminder this would inevitably result in that life developing dementing illness among several other maladies.

 

If you were in a position to postpone such a birth in order to increase the likelihood that it could be CRISPRed, would you?

 

You do not want to be in the position of thinking this through after the fact.

We have seen the eternal dithering that can happen in the pharmaceutical regulatory process with our loved one.

Year after year, decade after decade nothing ever seems to have happened.

 

The power base in the community have already shown their hand, they intend to advance this technology in the fullness of time.

Perhaps decades from now.

 

Why not make them sweat?

How many years of empty playgrounds would it take?

 

They can set the rules all they want.

 

Empty swings.

End of humanity.

End of argument.

 

The problem so often in life is there are not reality checks.

There is no clear mechanism that would give me reality feedback on this issue (This thread, though, is helpful).

 

I would just love to have some sort of a financial market or a fertility statistic that I could point to in order

to have some sense of where others are on this issue.

 

Would people actually consider it rational to reproduce given this current development?

Stay tuned!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mag1, 25 November 2015 - 02:33 AM.

[sthira]

Have you considered dance?

For example this from Norman Doidge:

"Not all activities are equal in this regard. Those that involve genuine concentration—studying a musical instrument, playing board games, reading, and dancing—are associated with a lower risk for dementia. Dancing, which requires learning new moves, is both physically and mentally challenging and requires much concentration. Less intense activities, such as bowling, babysitting, and golfing, are not associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s."

[mag1]

Alzheimer`s dementia is an inevitable consequence of the shared human genetic blueprint.

 

[Top line page 10, "... the entire process is clearly embedded within the blueprint of general aging..."]

http://taurx.com/upl...apter-hd[1].pdf  

 

This is precisely why we need to change the blueprint with CRISPR.

 

Non-dementing aging would then become an "inevitable consequence of the shared human genetic blueprint".

Edited by mag1, 25 November 2015 - 02:55 PM.