[DIYbio] Re: Human Gene Editing - Considerations

I consider it a crime against humanity if you know that your child has a disease mutation and you are forbidden to correct it. Everybody should have the right to be born healthy. *

*assuming that nickase crispr is safe enough to not introduce secondary mutations. But even if it does - nature makes mutation all the time. If you sit in a plane, your sperm is altered by radiation. Off-targtet effects of crispr are no worse or better - are they?? 
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/10561
Chad White: "When an egg and a sperm get together, there are over 74 trillion different chromosomal combinations. This is the main reason why siblings from the same two parents can be so different."



Anyways, there will be people who DIY, and why not. If they use non-viral vectors and it cannot spread to other people, it is their right to modify their bodies (as sport, tattos, drugs, etc do)


Tricky question. Yes, there should be regulations. Obviously. But lawmakers will make them anyways, and probably much too strong restrictions.







On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:01:19 PM UTC+2, Philipp Boeing wrote:

Hi everyone, 

We have been asked to talk about human gene editing (in particular triggered by CRISPR) in front of a science and ethics committee. Ideally we'd like to include some responses from the community, in particular we are interested in social perspectives by different stakeholders in the DIYbio community, so:

- what is your perspective and vision for ethical, legal, social issues and openness of human gene editing

- what kind of potential futures do you imagine for human gene editing and DIYbio?

- how do you think human gene editing should be used? 

- should there be restrictions, and what should they be?

- do you consider human gene editing a right and or a risk? 

Please feel free to brainstorm!

Many thanks,

Philipp