First off let me say I'm 100% for this tech because IMO there's no way to stop progress. You can't control 7+ billion people.<p>That said, the first thing that came to my mind when they mentioned putting the CRISPR engine in new cells so they make more of the same and spread kind of like a virus... They mentioned they tried it and it worked first time. So, unless I'm missing something, it's only a short matter of time before some disgruntled person could try to destroy the world's food supply or cause many other large scale issues.<p>Maybe that's harder than it sounds but it just seemed like a crazy amount of power for any one person with access to the tech to have. And, unlike nukes there's really no way to prevent this power from getting stronger, easier, and more accessible. Nukes you need the fuel. This you mostly just need the knowledge.<p>Sorry I'm not suggesting any course of action. It's just I believe we won't make it past The Great Filter because as tech progresses it gets easier and easier for a single person to destroy the world. Embedding the CRISPR engine so it spreads seemed like a step in that direction.
This podcast mentions that only testing against non-viable embryos has been done. It's worth noting that just the other day, the results of the first testing against viable human embryos was released [0].<p>Also, I thought it was interesting when they talked about "who would turn down the ability to remove diseases for $x?" My answer would be people who simply don't have that kind of money.<p>This makes things complicated.<p>I'm not even close to an expert in this area, but I don't think it's too far a stretch to consider that having technology like this where you can theoretically pick and choose "add ons" for set prices would lead to class divides that are clearly visible when these add ons stop being just internal changes and start including exterior traits.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released" rel="nofollow">https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-o...</a>
Fantastic piece. This makes me wonder if we today are technically the "backup". The (potential) last non-CRISPR gene-driven generation that someone in the future may have to revert to.
Re: Gene Drive<p>The emergence of gene drive resistance in modified mosquitoes might help relieve some of the fear expressed in this thread: <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence-of-resistant-organisms-1.21397?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence...</a>
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive</a> is one of the most frightening developments I've heard of in genetic engineering.
A little unusual, this post. I don't remember seeing podcasts posted to HN. In any case, it's a good episode, which includes the original it updates. Highly recommended.
Here is the original podcast they reference at the beginning:<p><a href="http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/" rel="nofollow">http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/</a>
I'm surprised these reviews don't include the recent history of science funded by the wealthy - eugenics, asylums, lobotomies, thalidomide, and now kids taking psychotropics. That doesn't mean the same will be true of CRISPR but why create test subjects just because you can afford it?