←back to thread

Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

(www.nytimes.com)
1168 points jbredeche | 10 comments | 15 May 25 18:06 UTC | HN request time: 1.465s | source | bottom
Show context
MrZander ◴[15 May 25 19:30 UTC] No.43998447[source]▶
> To accomplish that feat, the treatment is wrapped in fatty lipid molecules to protect it from degradation in the blood on its way to the liver, where the edit will be made. Inside the lipids are instructions that command the cells to produce an enzyme that edits the gene. They also carry a molecular GPS — CRISPR — which was altered to crawl along a person’s DNA until it finds the exact DNA letter that needs to be changed.

That is one of the most incredible things I have ever read.

replies(20): >>43998602 #>>43999018 #>>43999182 #>>43999228 #>>43999351 #>>43999647 #>>43999883 #>>44000363 #>>44000383 #>>44000524 #>>44000545 #>>44000725 #>>44001330 #>>44002188 #>>44002243 #>>44002289 #>>44002568 #>>44003457 #>>44008340 #>>44011060 #
Balgair ◴[15 May 25 20:31 UTC] No.43999018[source]▶
One other fun part of gene editing in vivo is that we don't actually use GACU (T in DNA). It turns out that if you use Pseudouridine (Ψ) instead of uridine (U) then the body's immune system doesn't nearly alarm as much, as it doesn't really see that mRNA as quite so dangerous. But, the RNA -> Protein equipment will just make protiens it without any problems.

Which, yeah, that's a miraculous discovery. And it was well worth the 2023 Nobel in Medicine.

Like, the whole system for gene editing in vivo that we've developed is just crazy little discovery after crazy little discovery. It's all sooooo freakin' cool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudouridine

replies(6): >>43999139 #>>43999243 #>>44000029 #>>44000573 #>>44003053 #>>44012302 #
Teever ◴[15 May 25 20:42 UTC] No.43999139[source]▶
I suppose a downside (depending on your perspective) of this is that it will make people who are genetically modified in this fashion trivial to detect.

That's good if your goals are to detect genetic modification which may be considered cheating in competitive sports.

That's bad if your goals are to detect genetically modified people and discriminate against them.

I see a near future where the kind of people who loathe things like vaccines and genuinely believe that vaccines can spread illness to the non-vaccinated feel the same way about other things like genetic modification and use legal mechanisms to discriminate and persecute people who are genetically modified.

replies(7): >>43999181 #>>43999367 #>>43999741 #>>43999953 #>>44000330 #>>44002063 #>>44003071 #
jillyboel ◴[15 May 25 23:18 UTC] No.44000330[source]▶
Don't be silly, the rich will want their babies to be perfect so gene editing will be legal and considered OK.
replies(1): >>44001460 #
1. _bin_ ◴[16 May 25 03:02 UTC] No.44001460[source]▶
Can you explain why this is a bad thing, or is it just “”the rich” bad”?
replies(2): >>44001749 #>>44004348 #
2. jhickok ◴[16 May 25 04:07 UTC] No.44001749[source]▶
Not OP, but presumably it's because it could cement a permanent divide between classes. We still have quite a bit of upward mobility in the US, but health is a tremendous predictor of future outcomes, so gating that to the rich is dangerous to the stability of society in that way.
replies(2): >>44001933 #>>44002772 #
3. _bin_ ◴[16 May 25 04:49 UTC] No.44001933[source]▶
This seems like more of an issue with accessibility of the treatment than the treatment itself

If we could make most children smart, productive, ambitious, courteous, civil, conscientious, honorable, strong... the value to society is probably high enough to justify covering it for almost anyone.

replies(2): >>44002510 #>>44004792 #
4. ◴[16 May 25 06:58 UTC] No.44002510{3}[source]▶
5. concordDance ◴[16 May 25 07:44 UTC] No.44002772[source]▶
This is already true to a great extent. A family with lots of genetic health conditions are probably going to remain poor.
6. jillyboel ◴[16 May 25 11:59 UTC] No.44004348[source]▶
I'm explaining that gene modification will not be considered illegal or bad because the rich will have a vested interest in it being legal. This is a reply to GP saying:

> use legal mechanisms to discriminate and persecute people who are genetically modified

I believe there is no way this will happen, because legal mechanisms are driven by the whims of the rich, and they will want gene editing to be legal. So there will beno legal mechanisms to discriminate against those who have been edited.

7. boroboro4 ◴[16 May 25 12:45 UTC] No.44004792{3}[source]▶
The society already can invest a lot (through public education) to “make most children smart, productive, ambitious …”.

Somehow society (or indeed parts of it) decided to use it as a tool of further segregation rather than overall prosperity. I’m afraid same might apply to this.

replies(1): >>44006609 #
8. _bin_ ◴[16 May 25 15:24 UTC] No.44006609{4}[source]▶
We "invest" more than almost anyone. 38% higher than the OECD average. I don't find discussions about throwing more money at the problem to be constructive so much as a way to ignore other issues at play.

I don't really see how this affects e.g. what I do for my children. I will absolutely be turning them into the closest to superhuman the current state of treatments lets me, traveling internationally if I need to. If someone else decides to segregate access to treatment, that is a separate, wrong act that will not hold me back from giving my children every advantage possible.

(Yes, I understand this is a positional arms race, but 1. that doesn't change the individually-optimal outcome, and 2. that doesn't change that society net benefits from it.)

replies(1): >>44010009 #
9. boroboro4 ◴[16 May 25 21:40 UTC] No.44010009{5}[source]▶
I don't mean to invest as to spend more money, rather to spend money better and in a more equal way. While USA spends a lot of money on education I don't think it translates in better education on average. Even if this was beneficial for the society in general.

I am, afraid, that this kind of genome modification will further increase divide in a society and turn social lifts off even more. I.e. it's not gonna be your kid to get "improve" brain genes first, and later your kid wouldn't get a chance to get it ever again for their children.

Just to be clear I'm not against of the progress, this thing is fascinating and really shows how awesome humans are. And I get why you'll get it if possible for your kid. I'm just not sure its benefits for the society mean it's gonna be anyhow affordable for regular people.

replies(1): >>44011183 #
10. _bin_ ◴[17 May 25 00:54 UTC] No.44011183{6}[source]▶
You will have a really hard time convincing Americans to keep paying high taxes while funding is pulled from their children’s schools and redistributed to inner cities and ruralia. My observations suggest the problem for the latter isn’t financial.