https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/south-africa-amended-its-research-guidelines-allow-heritable-human-genome-editing?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2qEgZTwQzSpnEait4nSIfZ7TCD8RWRMC4F8JEVNIoIvmuklIxie8beDxY_aem_VZhcZQRQGpUeZnpEjoEe9g

I have an interesting thought in mind about women having children without the intervention of a male. So the situation goes like this, Person A(f) and Person B(f). They both want to have a child of their own but without adopting or without the intervention of male sperm. A suggested pathway they can take will be parthenogenesis. For those who don't know what that is, "a natural process of asexual reproduction where an embryo develops from an unfertilized egg cell" (Google). But this can't happen in humans that simply but artificially it can. Parthenogenesis occurs through the fusion of a polar body with an egg, albeit there's no genetic diversity. So the couple decide to take that route of getting a child and to have some level of genetic diversity, the mitochondrial DNA and/or the polar body of person B is used while person A contributes the egg. The real question is, how feasible is my idea? What type of potential genetic mutations that can occur if things go awry? Would it be possible for the baby to be healthy and even if it wasn't healthy, would the child be able to live a complete human life?

https://preview.redd.it/cgsh2st1y8cc1.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4834c6229b74405c0347360f2487d3ec9326198

Hi Everyone,

I'm Carsten Charlesworth, a PhD candidate at Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine. My journey into genetic engineering, particularly my fascination with CRISPR, led me to address a vital challenge: the need for practical, efficient, and affordable ways to apply this groundbreaking technology to rewrite our own genomes

Together with my colleagues, we’ve developed "Secreted Particle Information Transfer (SPIT)," a novel new cellular platform for in vivo genetic engineering. By turning human cells into nanomachines, SPIT offers a more straightforward and accessible path to genetic engineering. This approach could revolutionize the application of CRISPR and similar technologies, marking a significant leap for biohackers, those passionate about longevity, and anyone interested in the field of genetic engineering.

I'm eager to discuss SPIT and its implications with you. Additionally, I invite you to my virtual thesis defense this Tuesday, where we'll delve deeper into the potential of this exciting new approach.

For more information, read our paper here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.11.575257v1

Thesis Defense Details:

Date: Tuesday, 16th of January

Time: 11am-12pm

Location: James H. Clark Center S360

Zoom Link: https://stanford.zoom.us/j/92554552712?pwd=bVNwK01GWE9qR05PTHo3ODZMbk00QT09

Password: 270476

Looking forward to an engaging discussion!

im looking for a reputiable biological supply company that sells plant dna

im trying to create drought proof plants

then once safty tests are complete i plan to send them to places experiencing severe drought and famine

im looking for these plants dna ( snakeskin agave , solanum lycopersicum)

Hi, I'm a high school student and I wanted to know if a hypothetical situation that I've come up with is possible or not.

Let's say there's a person 'A' (female) and a person 'B'(female).

A and B want to have kids, so can we take an egg from A and extract the genetic material from the egg of B? We then get a donor sperm, remove its genetic material, and insert the genetic material from B into the sperm. Then we fertilize the egg from A and the donor sperm with genetic material from B.

Will this work? More importantly, is this possible?

Greetings and Salutations,

I found a few interesting studies that could be stapled together from the Goo-Goo, hoping there are people out there that understand this better than I do, as well as those that find the research concerning.

Combining Q9UHB6 with F1LR10, the resulting amalgamation effects the cytoskeleton proteins, inhibits actin depolymerization. My understanding is that this could be used to make a anti-cholesterol medication that also inhibits the way the body interacts with morphine and morphine related beverages (medications).

So my slightly left of center thought was: Could this be used in a similar way as the research program in Clockwork Orange. I hope I am not coming off as a little touched in my critical processing. . . I have a good reason for researching this. . . I swear . . . Ish.

Today I learned some wild facts from The Thought Emporium TTE Live Dna code writing:

But it sent me down a rabbit hole or 10, The topical one here is Repressinators! I felt like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHPUa4sztuE in particular deserved more traffic or thumbs. Surprised after 3 years it only had hundreds of views. To me it seems like an incredible step!

I'm in the analog computer world, so I don't really have context here, but it sees like getting an oscillator going is the first step in practical biological processors. I can think of many directions tho not sure they are practical or realistic? TTE seems to suggest similar mechanisms could be used as detectors, but I'm thinking they could be flow control mechanism if chained properly similar to a goto statement based on concentration of chemical concentration.

What are your thoughts? Does it show promise or is just another experiment with not much practical application?

Ezra Pound wrote that artists are the antennae of a civilization. Judging by the volume of post-apocalyptic art being created right now, across all mediums, it’s not hard to ascertain artists’ collective premonition.

It seems likely that our civilization will soon collapse, from war, climate change, or plague, or a combination of factors. And if humans in their current form are the ones who start the next iteration of civilization, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that led to our current predicament. It’s possible that our civilization will not collapse, but in either case, humans in their current form are not well-suited for the next stages of our advancement and growth into an interplanetary species. This is not a fringe viewpoint. From UN panels to prominent scientists to futurists, many agree that we are in a mass extinction and that we ourselves are very likely to be one of the species that goes extinct. As a case in point, I have watched the environmental movement evolve over the last forty years, and the last five years are striking. Our thinking has evolved from “We must act soon to save the planet” to “It may already be too late, but we must do what we can starting today” to, just in the last few year: “This planet will be better off once we’re gone”.

It’s obvious to me that the only way of increasing our (L) in the Drake equation, the length of time we’re able to continue as a high-technology species capable of communicating at interstellar distances, is to turn the power of genetic engineering onto ourselves. As fraught with difficulties as this course of action is, the alternative, inaction, would very likely lead to our extinction.

Evolution led to our existence, and we ended up as a frightfully clever and adaptable species, but the traits we developed which brought us to where we find ourselves today are now threatening our very existence. It is therefore essential that we use the tools of genetic engineering to take over from natural evolution.

But how should we change ourselves, exactly? Genes and the way they interact are incredibly complex, and it will still take many years to understand all of the ways that different genes interact and express themselves in one individual. Fortunately, there already exists among us less violent, less power-hungry, more social and wiser version of our species. They’re called women. I myself am a man, not a radical feminist, but it’s very clear that men are the main source of the problems in our species. Women have higher emotional intelligence, are less aggressive, more social — in short, much better suited for this and future stages of our advancement as a species. Does anyone doubt that if every human was female in temperament that there would be less war, more cooperation, fewer murders, and more compassionate thinking about how to shape the future? The huge majority of rapists, mass shooters, serial killers and military dictators are men, as a few easy examples. Women political leaders did demonstrably better during the pandemic than their male counterparts, as another.

Most people in the environmental movement and the scientific community are frustrated and hopeless, and for good reason: we the people, homo sapiens version 1.0, are simply incapable of making the right decisions, on the whole, to save the world, to put it very simply. We are wired to outcompete and outsmart other species and other groups of our own species, but we are not capable of making the necessary long-term, wholistic decisions necessary at this critical point in history, to save ourselves and the ecosystems on which we depend for our existence. Realizing this, there is no more reason to be frustrated with humans than there is to be frustrated with a toddler for having a tantrum — it’s beyond their capacity to do anything else. But, it makes changing our wiring critically important, and it must be done very soon.

Time is very short, for several reasons. First is that, again, this civilization may collapse within decades, if not within years, and the means to change the entire species will disappear for many years, perhaps forever if we become extinct before we create another very advanced civilization. The second reason is even more disturbing: the black-hat genetic engineers. Does anyone doubt that there are already states and institutions in the world with similar intentions, but with much darker goals? What totalitarian state wouldn’t jump at the chance to make humans more obedient to authority, more fearful, more compliant? The impulses that have led to genocides, slavery and world war are still alive and well in our genes, as very recent has proven yet again. As the powers of our civilization to destroy as well as create increase exponentially with time, it is inevitable that, unchecked, these impulses will eventually lead, if not to our outright extinction, then to a complete collapse of civilization and a near-extinction event. Needless to say, the affects that we’re already having on our own ecosystem are further evidence to support this argument.

Time is also short because of the coming Singularity. We can argue about exactly what’s coming and when, but it’s clear to everyone that we are rapidly approaching an inflection point in human history, indeed in the history of all life on this planet, and again it seems clear that a homo sapiens 2.0 would be much better suited to meeting the challenges of that inflection point than the rather brutish and short-sighted version of ourselves that we are currently saddled with. Post-Singularity AI will be more likely to allow the altered version of humanity to survive, I think. Joking/not joking.

Therefore, it is necessary that the white-hat genetic engineers act very soon to fundamentally alter the genetic code of our entire species. Here, the perfect will definitely be the enemy of the good. We unfortunately do not have time to convene panels, reach a consensus, and put a plan into effect. For one thing, the very idea of hacking our genome is so controversial that most white-hat genetic hackers can’t even say publicly that they’re in favor of this course of action. I’m sure it gets talked about behind closed doors at conferences, and hopefully at the highest levels of the democracies around the world, but actually doing it? No, it’s inconceivable. And that is why, most likely, we are doomed to extinction. Here our better impulses are actually working against us, and meanwhile the black-hat genetic hackers have none of the same moral or institutional constraints. The world passes laws against the use of chemical weapons, and the states that don’t care about the rules use them anyway. A similar outcome is very likely here. While the democracies and white hats are debating about how to proceed, the autocracies and black hats will proceed and win the race.

So what am I proposing? As strange as it sounds, I’m proposing that a small group or even an individual do it themselves, without asking for permission from anyone. As stated above, there simply isn’t time to do it the 100% ethically and morally correct way. The thing is, once we start the process, we will have time to improve on it later. First we have to correct some of the most obvious problems in our genome, then we can fine-tune it when time permits. First we must make the changes that will cure our terminal illness as a species, and then figure out how to make us the best possible version of ourselves when we have the luxury of more time to consider the intricate details. If the first iteration makes the dictators and their black-hat minions lose their desire to rule the world, and for us to denuclearize our militaries, for example, then we will have the breathing room to have those panels and reach the consensus about how best to proceed. We’re up against an existential crisis, so first we do triage and only later the microsurgery. If all the triage accomplishes is a 90% reduction in testosterone, can anyone argue with a straight face that this world wouldn’t be safer for us and for future generations? It’s hard to imagine any terrible unintended consequences of such a change. Reduced sperm count and sex drive would only help to reduce the population, which would be a benefit. The benefits of this change massively outweigh any objections.

I don’t pretend to understand the necessary mechanisms for how to make this happen on the practical level, but I know that if it’s not actually possible now, it will be within a very few years. Even now you can order gene hacking kits online, and the common cold is one possible vector for spreading a desired mutation. Given these two facts alone, getting a set of desired mutations spread to every corner of the globe must be possible now or will be extremely soon, in the blink of an eye in evolutionary time.

The morality of the situation is easily misunderstood. This is not eugenics, where we would be trying to make one portion of the species superior to all others. No, our species is terminally ill, burdened with a number of fatal flaws that actually began their lives as massive advantages. Our big brains and what could be charitably called a kind of selective, tribal morality served us extremely well when our ancestors were fighting for survival during the last Ice Age or competing in the literally cutthroat intertribal environment on any continent you choose to look at five thousand years ago. But in the post-industrial, post-nuclear Information Age that we now find ourselves in, these advantages are now proving themselves to be extremely double-edged to the point that they will eventually bring about our own extinction. Imagine the terror of handing Attila the Hun or Julius Caesar nuclear weapons, and this is essentially the world that we live in, with dictators with nuclear arsenals sufficient to destroy the world many times over, who have, for all intents and purposes, worldviews no more refined than those of Dark Age chieftains. Similarly, the fact that this would be done without asking for permission seems morally ambiguous to say the least, until you realize that we don’t ask for permission from the criminally insane to punish or rehabilitate them. So, just as we chemically castrate sex offenders, it is not immoral to similarly use the technology at our disposal to alter ourselves so that we are no longer a threat to ourselves or our environment. (Indeed, who would resist such a treatment? If you’re offered a pill that will permanently prevent you from being a homicidal maniac, who but a homicidal maniac would say no?) And again, when we have the tools at our disposal, inaction is actually a much more difficult choice to defend. If a patient is terminally ill, it is against the oath of the physician to stand by and let her die, if the physician is in possession of the medicine necessary to treat the disease. My argument is that genetic engineers are now in this situation — the illness is clear, they possess the “medicine” to treat it, so to stand by and do nothing is immoral.

Imagine that an alien species came to Earth and was doing the amount of destruction that homo sapiens is doing to its own home. How motivated would we be to do everything in our power to stop this species, by whatever means necessary? We must be equally motivated to act when we are clearly our own worst enemy, and we cannot be squeamish about using the tools at our disposal to do so. We should count ourselves extremely lucky that CRISPR/Cas9 has progressed to the level that it has at this critical juncture in our evolutionary history. Now a few, or even one, of you white hat genetic engineers must have the courage to use it, before it’s too late and we join the dinosaurs in the dustbin of history. I understand that any genetic changes made in this way will only affect the current generation and not their children, but again, this is triage, not microsurgery. In a few short decades I have no doubt that the power of genetic engineering will increase exponentially. Which is itself an argument for this triage now — don’t we want a wiser, less bloodthirsty version of ourselves wielding the power of unlimited genetic engineering? As the very near future ripens into science fiction at a dizzying pace, what would have sounded like a science fiction solution even twenty years ago is now within our grasp as a species, and our survival depends on us taking it.

The purpose of this letter is to hopefully get some of you genetic engineers to realize your proper role, given the gravity of the challenges we face. We no longer have the luxury of time for endless debates among ethicists and the normally laudable academic scrutiny that we put any large decisions to before moving forward. Down this careful road we either become extinct outright or give a head-start to black hat scientists with few, if any, moral roadblocks. A few or even one of you must find the moral strength to move forward very quickly, to save us from ourselves.

Hi, I am a student at LASA high school and working on a research paper regarding genetic engineering. Would anyone with physical experience or opinions about the ethical concerns please respond to the following questions? Please give your name and if you want to be credited.

1. What are the potential implications of genetic engineering and how do think their acceptance will change in the future?
2. What exactly is the difference between organic and GMO crops? Is one safer than the other, and as environmental conditions continue to worsen due to climate change, how do you think it will affect the GMO's acceptance?
3. In the future do you expect a wider acceptance and integration of GMO crops as opposed to organic? And what do you think it will take for people to feel comfortable about GMO food?
4. CRISPR can cure a number of genetic diseases but could this technology we have now be safe to use on humans to create "designer babies"? What about perfect plants that can survive in any environmental conditions, or other animals?
5. What are the possible dangers or concerns regarding genetic modification and genome splicing? Why are there concerns/what evidence supports them?
6. Where do we draw the line on genetically modified organisms, can embryos consent, can we reduce the risk to embryos, and how will the line shift in the future?
7. Anything else you can tell me regarding genetic engineering/modification/genome splicing would be very helpful. Thanks!

In terms of long term sustainability, it's hard to argue that smaller people would be more sustainable, just as it's hard to argue that a large population would allow greater diversity and specialization for culture and skill sets. Other scifi has explored this, but I've never been able to find any actual discussion of it outside of pure entertainment. Has anyone else? How small could a brain be made and still have human-level intelligence? I know our brains have supposedly decreased in size over the last few thousand years even as they've increased in efficiency and complexity. I know there are a number of animals with relatively small but complex brains and high (for animals) intelligence. Wondering about this taken to the extreme. If computer processors can be reduced in size by the factor of a million they have been over the last seventy years, how small then could an organic human brain be made?

Tell me what kinda things you want from gene editing.

what i understand about gene editing is not all edits that are for physical attribute will have a physical change (such as gender). So we also need to perfect cloning and mind transference as well as gene editing. So a clone body can be made and while its growing, the genes can be edited to match your own specs (With a blank mind of course), then when its fully grown to the wanted age (rapid growth till wanted age) your mind is transfered into the new body. Leaving your old body to be recycled.

Don't know if people in this subreddit have genetic engineering knowledge. I'm wondering if genes that give use physical attributes are edited to be different would are attributes change. For example, if my hair colour gene (brown) is change to a different one (ginger) would my hair colour start changing to my new hair colour.

Another example, if a person with XY or XX genes have them changed to XX or XY. What would there physical changes be. Would a biological female start changing to have male attributes (such as developed a penis). Would a biological male start changing to have female attributes (develop breasts, shrinkage of penis).

What are your thoughts on GM for physical attractiveness?

Obviously, like any GM, if only the rich can afford it, it will cause backleash in society and extreme privilege for the rich. Studies prove more attractive people get more money. Rich children getting GM for looks would only make them even richer.. And given how flawless you could make someone look with GM they might make the rest of us look pretty ugly and ordinary people will look more unattractive in comparison. A moderately attractive person won’t look so attractive anymore and slightly unattractive people become hideous.. Only people who win the genetic lottery could keep up.

If we give everyone scientifically ‘flawless’ looks - by that I mean perfect symmetry, radiant and flawless skin, perfect teeth, fast metabolism, and perfect or near perfect proportions (certain ratios), a full head of hair,…

What would happen?

Would we lose the concept of physical beauty and being beautiful is like having hands - nothing to point out? A granted thing? Will we focus more on other things and will this be intelligence, wit, charm, money, status, talents?

Or should we merely remove ‘defects’. By that I mean a genetic tendency to become obese, get acne, suffer from premature battern baldness, facial symmetries, lazy eyes, any abnormal traits. Tubular breasts or mustaches on women being another one.. Unibrows..

What happens if we do that? Won’t standards just increase? With no more 1’s and 2’s around because no one is deformed, don’t the 3’s and 4’s become the new 1’s and 2’s?

What are your thoughts?

View Poll

Any help is appreciated

View Poll

I’m about to graduate as electrical engineer, do you guys think there would be any company to give me a job in the bioengineering/biomedical engineering field. I’m down to have trainings, and if they offer me a master’s on it I would love it. I lead a research working with DNA through lab-on-a-chip; any chance for a company to take me and pay me for a master’s?

View Poll