What does Veeky Forums think will happen when new genetic technology like CRISPR replaces the old methods? Because now you will be able to make changes that are impossible to detect by analysis, which means that it will be practically impossible to regulate GM crops (since you won't have all the remnants from insertion left over in the genome of the new organism to point at, it'll just be direct nucleotide alterations much like a normal mutation).
Will we be entering into a new era?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
CRISPR will never happen, stop being a dumbass hopeless dreamer
>CRISPR will never happen
what
but we can do this shit today
There are already human clinical trials for CRISPR therapy.
I learned how to do this shit my first year of uni. You just need to know what sequence you're inserting.
>the old methods
Uh, "old methods" of what, user?
Of producing GMOs (although the correct term is genome edited now). Old GMO crops have unmistakable genetic sequences inside of them, such as plasmid replication sequences or whatever. Now we can just write whatever we want into the genome, with no trace elements. This means that it's impossible to determine if a crop has been genetically modified or not, which means you can't outlaw it. Or you can, but good luck enforcing it.
The problem isn't the nuclease specificity it's getting the nuclease to the necessary cell. Current retroviral systems are too crude to be able to edit somatic muscle tissue, for example. GM Bacteriophages are a promising step forward
He means ZFNs and TALENS but really he doesn't know what tf he's on about
But you can get them into all cells and have them activated in a cell type specific manner.
>biology
not science or math
>t. IQ poster
What about making it more accessible? Injecting to required sites, oral administration for gut editing etc.
>Oh hey look, there's an entire gene here that's identical to one found in bacteria that kills insects! Must be a normal mutation...
Come on, user.
>inserting entire genes when you don't have to insert entire genes to make profound changes
this is irrelevant to the subject matter. You're talking about CRISPR on living humans, I made this thread to talk about GMO regulation for crops and similar organisms, because very clean and accurate new technologies on the area mean you can't detect and therefore regulate it, which obviously will have an effect on what actually gets made and produced. That is, unless you want to outlaw all mutations.
So you're implying that a company utilizing a powerful technology like CRISPR to significantly boost crop yields would stealthily insert a bunch of seemingly advantageous SNP's or deletions/insertions into a plant's genome just to stealthily augment its genome and then claim the cultivar was just the result of normal breeding before patenting it and sell it as "organic" to stupid hippies?
Thanks for the idea user!!
pretty much, but I can guarantee you're not going to be first on the market with your little scheme
I made this thread because I've had lectures touch on the subject, and it's at least as interesting as any purely technological development in regards to what effect it will have on the world
I guess it would even be theoretically possible to engineer the fuck out of it until it's unrecognizable and just pretend you discovered it on a journey to the amazonas or something lol
>finds a bush in the middle of the jungle that produces hydrocodone berries that taste like orange starburst.
Um, we hypothesize that um... this plant has an adaptation for seed dispersal that um... selects for animals that eat only a little of it????
bump
A bunch of ebin cases on Veeky Forums where brainlets buy CRISPR kits to genemod themselves a bigger dick but they fuck up and end up getting a lobotomy.
fuck all and not much. Every time we develop a new technology people flip out about it. The same challenges still remain. Fuck we still can't get CRISPR to insert new genes into human embryos. We still don't have a good way to determine how to engineer traits that we desire on our own.
Take a wild fuckin' guess?
>The same challenges still remain.
How does the ability to selectively mutate and engineer organisms without any detectable trace leave the same sort of challenge in getting engineered organisms onto the market? The head of the gene technology council (works in EU and is staffed with a bunch of experts and parliament members) for my country agrees that these sorts of new technologies are basically impossible to regulate. Is every poster on this board a sci-fi reading retard who can't think of any way genetics tech can be used except to make space marines and immortals?
What do you mean? CRISPR-Cas9 has made GMOs a trillion times safer. It's a good thing.
Safer and potentially impossible to detect. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to gmos, but it might soon turn into the wild west, which can be both a good and a bad thing.
Before that happens I'm fairly certain genes in specific organisms will be patented, which means it will be detectable.
>genes will be patented
Oh fuck that noise, I'm all for FOSS food
What do you mean?
It will be described in the patent exactly what was done to make whatever profitable organism was made.
>>without any detectable trace
yeah no. We have ways to detect horizontal gene transfer.
en.wikipedia.org
>>engineered organisms onto the market
figuring out how to do the engineering in the first place. Sure, you can change DNA all you want, but figuring out what that DNA should be to do something useful is extremely challenging.
Not as challenging as breeding forth desirable traits over successive generations.
no user, far more challenging than breeding forth desirable traits over successive generations.
this yes
this no
People who actually work with this disagree.
youtu.be
So you mean that the companies will themselves come out with what they did or what? Or that someone will make a new organism, patent it, and then all the bureaucrats will just block everything with the new gene? The issue here is that you can still make new things, and I'm not sure how well you can patent a gene with just one or a few functional snps, but that's a legal question.
You don't need to do horizontal gene transfer, you can just do point mutations, which obviously can't be phylogenetically linked to anything. You don't need to make some sort of frankenstein where you insert entirely new genes to make heavy changes, you can just disrupt a gene slightly to disable it, which produces solid changes to the entire organism. They upgraded the cashmere yield of goats for example.
Remains to be seen. Monsanto still exists, right?
>>you can just disrupt a gene slightly to disable it, which produces solid changes to the entire organism.
so? What's wrong with that? You aren't gonna end up with stuff like wheat that produces lysergic acid that way
I never said it was wrong, that depends on what the precise change is. Personally I'm excited for this, not worried, but I made this thread to herald this possible gengineering market boom.
Real life furries
hot