Why hasn't CRISPR/Cas9 revolutionized our world yet?

Let's face it, without GM tech bans, it's only a matter of time before someone creates an anti-nigger virus.

We do not yet master the thing. Biology is hard.

is there any chance I could pay a few thousand bucks in the near future (5 years or so) so my children won't inherit myopia?
tfw
>tall
>smart
>somewhat good-looking
>degenerative myopia, I have 8.5 dioptries at age 28 and it's probably get worse as time goes by
I don't want my children to suffer that fate.

I'm a 6'2 manlet
can CRISPR make me 6'8 like I should always have been?

Shut up pleb I'm working on it.
Do work or fuck off

>so my children won't inherit myopia
you don't want your kids to be smart ?

Why do people hype things up long before it has proven potential?

Why don"t I take my pumped rocket and fly to the moon's dark side, where I punch Nahzeeys in their Klöten to convince fat dyed bitches of my masculinity?

What kind of DNA is that

lol no people have been using and publishing on it for years, and all those other methods are just variants of the same process.

they're incredibly useful for deleting genes so CRISPR has been the standard tech for knocking genes in plants out for years now. however, there are no good, consistently successful methods for inserting genes using homologous recombination in plants, so agrobacterium-mediated insertion of transgenes is still the standard method.

it already does have proven potential. it just seems like it doesn't because science takes a long time

Next 5 years? No. We would have to be seeing stage 1 studies relatively soon for that to be seen as safe long term and reach consumer levels. Next 10 to 15? I would say if we know genes responsible and the affected areas are easy to reach or in embryo then yes.

why not use agrobacterium elsewhere?

1) A "well" designed gRNA will still cleave +10 sites on the genome.
2) We still don't understand many areas of genetics very well like non-coding RNA & RNA editing.

Money always finds a way, over god and government. The prospects of gene editing are literally the entire future of mankind, and whatever ubermensch we evolve into. The first government to subsidize this stuff is going to command the future.

It is like graphene. Lots of big talk, but very little results. It is just mostly grant chasing hype.

>let's just edit the human genome without any awareness of what effects that could have for offspring

>i have never seen a single sci-fi movie

what are the chances that CRISPR will accidentally create some genetic anomaly that makes all of humanity go extinct?

Most disease is metabolic. This technology will be amazing for a very small percentage of the population.

*blocks your crispr scissors*

fool.com/investing/2018/01/08/uh-oh-gene-editing-stocks-may-be-worthless.aspx

psst,

nothing personal genelet

For many seriously ill people kids arent even an option if they wont live that long or wont have high enough QoL.

>Why hasn't CRISPR/Cas9 revolutionized our world yet?

Would it be theoretically possible to use this to replace the genes that constitute "race" within embryos?

Example: Would it be possible to create a CRISPR action that would allow a Japanese person to have a German child?

it only infects plants.

fuck crispr and fuck the scammers. i got pulled off of authorship and placed in the fucking acknowledgements on one of the meme papers

Oh, it's coming.
And when it does, you and everyone you know is going to die.

>tfw in the future i can choose to have human-fox hybrid babies

Because all it does is make targeting small segments of DNA very easy, we were able to manipulate DNA before Cas9 you know.

For one my classes (pharmacology fag here) I have to present on "Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos" by Hong Ma et al. Essentially what the results were:

>We can "fix" certain mutations in the genome of human embryos with a mediocre overall efficiency rate (I believe around 50% of those embryos that were affected by CRISPR were "fully" fixed)
>Unfortunately, there are side mutations to doing this, because of the repair system the body uses to fix the broken DNA strands (this was another 25% of embryos)
>However, if we use CRISPR at a specific point in embryo development, we reduce these side mutations, and get kinda neat results(100% of CRISPR affected embryos were fixed I believe, and 70% were "perfect")
>We also found there is a new way of DNA "repair" whereby the genome is copied using the template strand rather than our artificial strand
>We also tested them in induced stem cells, got meh results, and didn't go any further with this line of thinking

A few criticisms:
>although it looks promising for fixing monogenic diseases (a familial form of a cardio myopathy was the disease looked at this paper) other researchers have noted that the really good results were obtained in oocytes in the Meiosis II phase just as the sperm had been injected. here the sperm and egg chromosomes are not together yet, so correcting the sperm allele using the oocyte WT copy seems unlikely (their proposed new mechanism)
>You'll need to inject the sperm w/ CRISPR
>CRISPR can be immunogenic
>doesn't work with IPSCs

yes, but making it easy can have big ramifications
No because although my knowledge of haploytype grouping (which I presume look at SNPs?) is rusty, I far more suspect racial differences are caused by epigenetic dependent differential gene expression (unsure, haven't read into literature) so CRISPR won't help there)

Don't worry bro I'll father them for you

Inserts kind of randomly

Crispr is only like 95% accurate and will never be 100%. You’ll have to sacrifice some cells which in a fully grown adults probably means cancer or in eggs and embryos and lot of wasted ones. It’s good for reverse screens on organisms that you don’t care about though.

>I far more suspect racial differences are caused by epigenetic dependent differential gene expression
nope

...