> The small study, which has been funded by ex-Facebook president Sean Parker, will augment T cells – potentially a way to treat cancer – but will be used to see whether Crispr is safe in humans, rather than being used as an actual treatment.<p>This is misleading, right? Yes, it's true that Stage I trials are designed (and in particular, <i>statistically powered</i>) to test safety rather than effectiveness. But that doesn't mean they are making gene edits with no therapeutic purpose. That would be highly unethical. The gene edits are definitely intended to be an "actual treatment". It's just that the number of subjects is so low there isn't any hope of measuring the effect.
I know the people in this trial probably have nothing to lose, but I do wish there was a way to recognize them (and others like them in similar trials). There are times when human testing must happen. With civilization-altering possibilities like this, these people are pioneers whether it works or helps us figure out why it doesn't and move the needle forward.
Since T cells do not reproduce by themselves, I presume the effects of modified T cells will only last until the cells exist in the body. This reminds me of a question I was wondering about since I heard about Crispr: can we use this method to make permanent changes in the DNA of grown up humans, and if so, do we have clear understanding of how to do it?<p>The thing that puzzles me most is that if we do it by creating some cells and injecting them, how do we guarantee that these cells replace their existing unmodified counterparts?