I agree that scientists do not know enough and that there is an inherent bias in scientists who do this research as often the push is to keep funding or make money for a company. There is a very powerful interview with Caius Romans who worked as a head researcher in genetic engineering for Monsanto and JR. Simplot (for 26 years) until he had a change of heart. This is what he says in a recent interview with Sustainable Pulse: It is amazing that the USDA and FDA approved the GM potatoes by only evaluating our own data. How can the regulatory agencies assume there is no bias? When I was at J.R. Simplot, I truly believed that my GM potatoes were perfect, just like a parent believes his or her children are perfect. I was biased and all genetic engineers are biased. It is not just an emotional bias. We need the GM crops to be approved. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to succeed, to justify our existence by developing modifications that create hundreds of millions of dollars in value. We test our GM crops to confirm their safety, not to question their safety. "
Im doing an academic research on SynBio right now, and im a BioChem major at UND, the only way to ensure SynBio's potentials is to engage the people we think might use SynBio to create deadly creatures, just like the US fed gov't asks IT hackers to register with them and eventually bringing them into the circle.
Well presented. When I propose this to my students regarding the elimination of those mosquitos that transmit human malaria, they are all for it. Then I tell them how many species of juvenile fish, aquatic insects, turtles etc. absolutely depend on mosquito larvae for their food. Or how many plants are pollinated by both male and female mosquitos. As you point out, we can only make sound decisions if we have many diverse voices contributing to the discussion.
The particular insight on mosquitos in this video I found more ethically acceptable, genetically modifying the mosquito to become resistant to the malaria carrying parasite (Plasmodium), previous talk with gene-drives were talking about ending the existence of mosquitos completely, and other species that were considered pests. Something I feel could eventually compromise the environment and our biosphere and ecosystems around the world, we are so far from knowing how organisms interact, or even how micro-organisms could interact on each other in their native environment, some could be vital to other forms of life or even evolution itself. Man indeed has harnessed the power to wipe all life from the earth, and not just with nuclear technology, but also with CRISPR gene editing. But man also has the power to do good with this technology take nuclear fusion reactors for example cleaner energy (not 100% clean), sadly nuclear bombs were the precursor to reactors, being used in 1945. Yet I am hopeful that the path we will take, will be one that cures deadly disease, genetic or otherwise including cancer, making it a thing of the past. But using it to wipe a species from the face of the earth, I feel would be a step too far. Unless of course that species was introduced to an alien environment and is causing damage to that particular environment and its species, destroying its natural ecosystem. The Alien environment I am particularly concerned with is the Austr-alien (forgive the play on words), The deadly cane toad for example, poisoning and killing a lot of Australia's natural wild inhabitants, to the point of extinction. Rather than destroy the invasive and deadly species of toad that is not native to Australia, maybe it could be genetically modified by CRISPR gene drives to lose it's parotid glands, effectively making it harmless to other species, like the endangered King Brown Snake and other species that feed on toads. CRISPR has much to offer the future of medicine, let us hope its for the benefit of the planet and all its creatures and not just for those who can afford it. facebook.com/HistoryInPictures/photos/a.1417075835221721/3155888264673794/ - This is indeed the most dangerous animal in the world.
Good points, all. The main problem with all of this, ethically, morally, even spiritually, is that someone somewhere could, should, (or should not), but always will (or will not), absolutely find a defensible - possibly even noble - rationale for either eradicating any organism or class of organisms entirely, or for modifying it for a beneficial or malicious purpose. And that person’s or organization’s objective outcome sought is corrupted from the moment the Gene Drive thought experiment begins. Everything humankind does is corrupted, and not just by striving for common good or common evil for ourselves individually, our kin, our tribe, nation, or species. The worst case is not even that which may occur by a psychopath’s or sociopath’s completely personal/selfish desire. Humankind is corrupted by its inherent ignorance and inherent lack of foresight. And this problem is unsolvable by humankind. This is because time is observed linearly and in experienced by humankind in only the current moment. Everything else about our experience of time is either projection or recollection. As such, humankind cannot and does not have the ability to fully comprehend the breadth or number of potential impacts that an action, word, or thought has on the future. We can only project (mathematically model) the potential impacts of outcomes that we consider - and the fact that we don’t consider all possible impacts/outcomes, and therefore cannot model them, further corrupts the projections that we do make.
@@michaelfoxbrass I agree, ignorance, and corruption is everywhere, and almost every advancement that humankind has made, can come with great cost, since the invention of the wheel, the discovery of gunpowder, the Write brothers taking to the skies, and nuclear technology, humankind has used all these discoveries and more, normally in the name of science and advancement, not just to benefit mankind, but also to wreak havoc, and to wage war, to destroy and kill, vast numbers of people wiped out with a single bomb. How would this technology differ? How long before it gets perverted and is used to wipe out a particular race of human, who has a specific skin pigmentation, or eye colour, what if it was so well guarded that it never fell into the hands of a megalomaniac, but instead was used it to wipe out a particular species with good intentions, maybe a certain bacteria of virus, but the specific genome targeted happened to be shared, buried deep within 30% of human DNA, or what if the gene drive mutated, became a virus and damaged or even wiped out humans. I was watching Unnatural Selection on Netflix, when this technology was discovered, Bio-hackers were buying and sometimes distributing DIY DNA Editing kits online, globally, why was this allowed to happen? For all the amazing things this technology can do, and some of it is absolutely beneficial to mankind, like the boy in the aforementioned program, who's inherited blindness caused by a gene he inherited off both parents, was cured using CRISPR, but for all the good it can do, you have a equal amount of harm that can come from it, if they intend to continue the gene drive development, then stringent safeguards, safety measures and thought needs to go at the forefront of its advancement. They need to consider all options both good and bad, to a point that before anything is tested, they can be sure its done in a safe environment, and any changes they make, or mistakes that may occur, can be repaired or reverse engineered to become safe and inert. I am all for curing sickness, disease, or genetic abnormalities, and would love to see genetic afflictions wiped out, so that the sufferers have a chance at a normal life, a better quality of life. At the same time, imagine if this technology existed some 20 years before WW2, D-IX methamphetamine based drug would not have been the only thing tested on Hittler's troops, or on those born 20 years before the war, genetically enhanced humans may have been commonplace today. We has humans have trouble knowing when or even where to draw the line, yes you could extend life, live to 150-200 years, engineer the body to last and be productive during a 150-200 year lifespan, turn on and off the ability to procreate, keeping human levels at a stable and sustainable rate, ensuring a better quality of life for those that have to share the finite amount of resources, you could increase crops, engineered to last longer, grow bigger, resist pests and make sure every single person on the planet is fed. You could bring back a species from the edge of extinction, or even some that have already perished, you could correct the mistakes we have made by introducing species to our environments, and like I said engineer a deadly frog so that it loses its poison glands and is no longer a danger to indigenous wildlife. You could redesign a planet with humans working together, to discover what lies beneath the depths of the deepest oceans, or discover new ways to travel into the darkest regions of space. Doubling the life span, and I mean with a good quality of life, you could double the potential of the human species. With more technological advancement we could evolve into planet hopping civilisation, able to terraform and colonise a galaxy, ensuring survival of the human race, and even other lifeforms that develop here on earth. I would rather live in a world like that, than go galloping into a future in which sustainability and greed could end up being our downfall, and in its wake a world left permanently broken, unable to recover from the burden we have placed upon it. That being said, one mistake, one sociopath, one megalomaniac, one psychopath, and the world could just go pop anyway, and us with it.
This science has the potential to save countless lives. It is also capable of ending just as many. I believe the best approach to this technology is controlled environments and careful development. In the future it may be likened to nuclear power, dangerous if mishandled, but beneficial beyong their inherent danger.
The problem is that who wil l_make the balance ? The scientists. So they wil take the Power in our sociéties. The more complex they will be the more we will ask them to do anything for us. At the beginning they will act not so well. And in the lon time, they will succed. Then we will have given them our freedom against a comfort. I prefer freedom.
But what if I dont want you to safe my life and you force people into this like covid vaccines and over time there are massive flaws and instead of saving lifes you condem lives of millon to suffering because of the unintended consequences from not doing proper testing .
I believe the people that are doing research about this are only planning to implement this in mosquito species that are vectors for disease, not all populations of mosquitoes, but I too feel concerned about ecological impacts and want to know more.
They do not intend to crash the population and they are only targeting mosquito species that host malarian parasites. gene drives can be used to suppress populations and you can reverse the effect by introducing reverse drives. you can also get back to the wild type genome.
@@jarrodyuki7081 What do you think of yourselves? You say you can reshape nature to how you see it fit...you are delusional!! You don't understand basic things about life, but you want to reshape it. You are considering yourselves perfect, but you are more idiot than the simplest men from Earth.
@@samzteh This is theory! In practice we will see what happens! You know a few things about life, but you consider yourselves perfect. You know 5% of life itself, and how it really work. Mad scientists will destroy Earth by their ego...
I live my life by one philosophy, just because you can does not mean you should. Think long and hard about long term effects. It might be many generations later before side-effect is triggered. Recessive / Dominant Genes.
I understand that at the molecular level a CRISPR mediated gene drive works by copying the altered gene (and the drive containing CAS enzyme, and guide RNA) into the other chromosome containing the wild type allele through homology directed repair...In case of a suppressive drive that is designed to render the offsprings infertile or die before reproduction .. In a typical suppression drive, Where is this copying and homology directed repair happening. In the somatic cells of one of the “parents”, or the germline cells of the parents during gametogenesis? If the drive and altered gene is copied in the somatic cells of the organism that was inserted in, then wouldn't the organism perish/or not be able to reproduce, thus unable to pass on the drive/altered gene? Or is this copying happening in the Zygote off the offspring (thus all its somatic cells), or the germline of the offspring? What happens when a organism containing wild type allele mates with an organism containing the drive? If the copying is occurring in the Zygote stage, all somatic cells of the offspring will contain two copies of the altered gene and will be Homozygous recessive for the altered deleterious gene. Then how will the offspring be able to mate and SPREAD the drive before perishing (or not being able to reproduce). Or is the copying of the altered deleterious gene happening in the Germline of the offspring? How is it ensured that drive copying only occurs during gametogenesis and does not alter the somatic cells in either parent or offspring? Because if somatic cells were rendered homozygous drive would extinguish itself before being able to spread because in engineered gene drives the organism has to be homozygous with respect to the altered gene for it to have a deleterious effect....
The generation time of the mosquito that hosts Malaria parasites is 4 weeks and the point of using gene drives is to cheat mendelian inheritance. They can live long enough to reproduce and take in exponential growth into consideration.
You all realize the viruses are a delivery system for bio hackers right ?? Covid is just a modified sars virus using Crispr ! Crispr has become corpo tech
@@dustmite31able Yes, you are right! But these are stupid people, that think about themselves to much! They think they know it all, when they know about 5% about life in general, and what drives life! They are really evil!
@@dustmite31able Though gene editting is still at its infancy, i can agree that there should be a regulation whether someone should carry tools that might be used for bioweapons, this is the same with Uraniums so hopefully they'll think of something
I'm a molecular biologist and I'm all for non-scientists having a say in this sort of technology but they have to educate themselves a bit. I've had some awful awful conversations with people who are against all technologies playing with DNA and these people knew nothing about cells or living systems and were just throwing words around in a manner that made no sense.
Is there an option to live with the risk of Malaria and mitigate the potential threat without gene or DNA modification and the Pandora’s box that comes with it? Don’t act like you’re new here... life has it’s inherent risks, it always will no matter what happens. Maybe an independent council can be formed to determine what constitutes a good time to begin CRISPR experimentation in the open environment. Until then maybe can we focus on creating a safe, sustainable energy source.
Do Gene Drives only work for “animals” that reproduce by “sexual intercourse” as stated in the video, or does it also work for organisms which reproduce by being pollenated, by distributing spores, or asexually?
Gene drives, as they are described here, would work for plants that reproduce sexually through pollination. Some plants have a complex life cycle that includes pollination as well as spores; gene drive could indeed work in these plants. Plants that reproduce entirely asexually would pass each pass on their genetic information to their clonal offspring, but the modified gene would not be likely to spread because the unmodified plants would reproduce independently, not interacting with the modified plants. Considering generation time/life cycle and the ability to fertilize widely would be important.
No gene-drive please. Find other ways to control malaria and other communicable diseases. I do not like the idea of ‘getting rid’ of mosquito. Can a country vote on it?
What do you think of yourselves? You say you can reshape nature to how you see it fit...you are delusional!! You don't understand basic things about life, but you want to reshape it. You are considering yourselves perfect, but you are more idiot than the simplest men from Earth.
What dou you think of yourselves, that you are a kind of God?? You don't understand the basic things about life, but you want to control it, create and terminate life. That would require a great deal of spiritual intelligence, and to know ever force that drives life on Earth!! But you know only 5%. You are all mad!!
@@noemim2964 nope the powers of the gods are in our grasp its time for humanity to take complete control of nature and evolve into higher entities. some immortal.
Fully agree Marc, the more efficient Gene Editing gets the more we must organize precaution. It is simply not done by comparing the ages-old EU- and Cartagena Regulations (which urgently needs enhancement(^) and declare that some gene editing methods fall out of the paragraphs and therefore they need not to be regulated, especially with the rather naive argument of naturalness of the new methods. Gene drive efficiency demands from researchers and regulators to intensify the public debate and also do a better job with risk assessment for food, feed and field. But this should not prevent us to be enthusiastic about the new elegance of breeding methods, it should encourage us to do a better job. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern, Switzerland, klaus.ammann@ips.unibe.ch
How can we get it right before it's too late, or if it's already too late to put the genie back in the bottle then what, or, in other words, besides not getting it wrong in the first place, what can we do? Gene drive and genetic engineering is just one of a slew of risks to our global civilization because we've let one global marketplace displace a world in which every community necessarily had it's own marketplace for provision of essential goods and services. Lets get that right again, with a global marketplace AND local marketplaces everywhere, so we maximize resilience against a collapse and have everyone ready if and when it's too late: reconomy at www.reconomy.net
Hats off to the man who had to draw all those mosquitos! Well explained, thank you!
A really clear brief on gene drivers, well worth five minutes of anyone's time!
+Marc Saner Thanks Marc!
New diseases emerge as technology advances but not to worry, technology will cure your wellness.
Great vid!
That's a really clever insult for a 6 minute video.
Had to watch it twice! once just for the illustrations and the 2nd time to actually understand the concept! great work💯👍
I agree that scientists do not know enough and that there is an inherent bias in scientists who do this research as often the push is to keep funding or make money for a company. There is a very powerful interview with Caius Romans who worked as a head researcher in genetic engineering for Monsanto and JR. Simplot (for 26 years) until he had a change of heart. This is what he says in a recent interview with Sustainable Pulse:
It is amazing that the USDA and FDA approved the GM potatoes by only evaluating our own data. How can the regulatory agencies assume there is no bias? When I was at J.R. Simplot, I truly believed that my GM potatoes were perfect, just like a parent believes his or her children are perfect. I was biased and all genetic engineers are biased. It is not just an emotional bias. We need the GM crops to be approved. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to succeed, to justify our existence by developing modifications that create hundreds of millions of dollars in value. We test our GM crops to confirm their safety, not to question their safety. "
Im doing an academic research on SynBio right now, and im a BioChem major at UND, the only way to ensure SynBio's potentials is to engage the people we think might use SynBio to create deadly creatures, just like the US fed gov't asks IT hackers to register with them and eventually bringing them into the circle.
Criminally Underrated
Well presented.
When I propose this to my students regarding the elimination of those mosquitos that transmit human malaria, they are all for it.
Then I tell them how many species of juvenile fish, aquatic insects, turtles etc. absolutely depend on mosquito larvae for their food.
Or how many plants are pollinated by both male and female mosquitos.
As you point out, we can only make sound decisions if we have many diverse voices contributing to the discussion.
Bye. Nice knowing you all
U have masteres the art of drawing mosquitoes!
Kind of awkward to ask, but I really want to know what's the name of the background music?
Me too :)
Nicely explained, very comprehensive. ❤
The particular insight on mosquitos in this video I found more ethically acceptable, genetically modifying the mosquito to become resistant to the malaria carrying parasite (Plasmodium), previous talk with gene-drives were talking about ending the existence of mosquitos completely, and other species that were considered pests. Something I feel could eventually compromise the environment and our biosphere and ecosystems around the world, we are so far from knowing how organisms interact, or even how micro-organisms could interact on each other in their native environment, some could be vital to other forms of life or even evolution itself.
Man indeed has harnessed the power to wipe all life from the earth, and not just with nuclear technology, but also with CRISPR gene editing.
But man also has the power to do good with this technology take nuclear fusion reactors for example cleaner energy (not 100% clean), sadly nuclear bombs were the precursor to reactors, being used in 1945. Yet I am hopeful that the path we will take, will be one that cures deadly disease, genetic or otherwise including cancer, making it a thing of the past. But using it to wipe a species from the face of the earth, I feel would be a step too far. Unless of course that species was introduced to an alien environment and is causing damage to that particular environment and its species, destroying its natural ecosystem. The Alien environment I am particularly concerned with is the Austr-alien (forgive the play on words), The deadly cane toad for example, poisoning and killing a lot of Australia's natural wild inhabitants, to the point of extinction. Rather than destroy the invasive and deadly species of toad that is not native to Australia, maybe it could be genetically modified by CRISPR gene drives to lose it's parotid glands, effectively making it harmless to other species, like the endangered King Brown Snake and other species that feed on toads.
CRISPR has much to offer the future of medicine, let us hope its for the benefit of the planet and all its creatures and not just for those who can afford it.
facebook.com/HistoryInPictures/photos/a.1417075835221721/3155888264673794/ - This is indeed the most dangerous animal in the world.
Good points, all.
The main problem with all of this, ethically, morally, even spiritually, is that someone somewhere could, should, (or should not), but always will (or will not), absolutely find a defensible - possibly even noble - rationale for either eradicating any organism or class of organisms entirely, or for modifying it for a beneficial or malicious purpose.
And that person’s or organization’s objective outcome sought is corrupted from the moment the Gene Drive thought experiment begins. Everything humankind does is corrupted, and not just by striving for common good or common evil for ourselves individually, our kin, our tribe, nation, or species. The worst case is not even that which may occur by a psychopath’s or sociopath’s completely personal/selfish desire.
Humankind is corrupted by its inherent ignorance and inherent lack of foresight. And this problem is unsolvable by humankind.
This is because time is observed linearly and in experienced by humankind in only the current moment. Everything else about our experience of time is either projection or recollection.
As such, humankind cannot and does not have the ability to fully comprehend the breadth or number of potential impacts that an action, word, or thought has on the future. We can only project (mathematically model) the potential impacts of outcomes that we consider - and the fact that we don’t consider all possible impacts/outcomes, and therefore cannot model them, further corrupts the projections that we do make.
@@michaelfoxbrass I agree, ignorance, and corruption is everywhere, and almost every advancement that humankind has made, can come with great cost, since the invention of the wheel, the discovery of gunpowder, the Write brothers taking to the skies, and nuclear technology, humankind has used all these discoveries and more, normally in the name of science and advancement, not just to benefit mankind, but also to wreak havoc, and to wage war, to destroy and kill, vast numbers of people wiped out with a single bomb.
How would this technology differ? How long before it gets perverted and is used to wipe out a particular race of human, who has a specific skin pigmentation, or eye colour, what if it was so well guarded that it never fell into the hands of a megalomaniac, but instead was used it to wipe out a particular species with good intentions, maybe a certain bacteria of virus, but the specific genome targeted happened to be shared, buried deep within 30% of human DNA, or what if the gene drive mutated, became a virus and damaged or even wiped out humans. I was watching Unnatural Selection on Netflix, when this technology was discovered, Bio-hackers were buying and sometimes distributing DIY DNA Editing kits online, globally, why was this allowed to happen?
For all the amazing things this technology can do, and some of it is absolutely beneficial to mankind, like the boy in the aforementioned program, who's inherited blindness caused by a gene he inherited off both parents, was cured using CRISPR, but for all the good it can do, you have a equal amount of harm that can come from it, if they intend to continue the gene drive development, then stringent safeguards, safety measures and thought needs to go at the forefront of its advancement.
They need to consider all options both good and bad, to a point that before anything is tested, they can be sure its done in a safe environment, and any changes they make, or mistakes that may occur, can be repaired or reverse engineered to become safe and inert. I am all for curing sickness, disease, or genetic abnormalities, and would love to see genetic afflictions wiped out, so that the sufferers have a chance at a normal life, a better quality of life.
At the same time, imagine if this technology existed some 20 years before WW2, D-IX methamphetamine based drug would not have been the only thing tested on Hittler's troops, or on those born 20 years before the war, genetically enhanced humans may have been commonplace today.
We has humans have trouble knowing when or even where to draw the line, yes you could extend life, live to 150-200 years, engineer the body to last and be productive during a 150-200 year lifespan, turn on and off the ability to procreate, keeping human levels at a stable and sustainable rate, ensuring a better quality of life for those that have to share the finite amount of resources, you could increase crops, engineered to last longer, grow bigger, resist pests and make sure every single person on the planet is fed. You could bring back a species from the edge of extinction, or even some that have already perished, you could correct the mistakes we have made by introducing species to our environments, and like I said engineer a deadly frog so that it loses its poison glands and is no longer a danger to indigenous wildlife. You could redesign a planet with humans working together, to discover what lies beneath the depths of the deepest oceans, or discover new ways to travel into the darkest regions of space. Doubling the life span, and I mean with a good quality of life, you could double the potential of the human species. With more technological advancement we could evolve into planet hopping civilisation, able to terraform and colonise a galaxy, ensuring survival of the human race, and even other lifeforms that develop here on earth. I would rather live in a world like that, than go galloping into a future in which sustainability and greed could end up being our downfall, and in its wake a world left permanently broken, unable to recover from the burden we have placed upon it.
That being said, one mistake, one sociopath, one megalomaniac, one psychopath, and the world could just go pop anyway, and us with it.
What could go wrong
This science has the potential to save countless lives. It is also capable of ending just as many. I believe the best approach to this technology is controlled environments and careful development. In the future it may be likened to nuclear power, dangerous if mishandled, but beneficial beyong their inherent danger.
The problem is that who wil l_make the balance ? The scientists. So they wil take the Power in our sociéties. The more complex they will be the more we will ask them to do anything for us. At the beginning they will act not so well. And in the lon time, they will succed. Then we will have given them our freedom against a comfort. I prefer freedom.
But what if I dont want you to safe my life and you force people into this like covid vaccines and over time there are massive flaws and instead of saving lifes you condem lives of millon to suffering because of the unintended consequences from not doing proper testing .
imbecile white man i dont wan your nuclear plants either
@@RM360CR I did say "controlled environments and careful development" not expedited human tests to counteract a global pandemic
If you crash the mosquito population, what happens to the bats? What bug will take advantage of the hole in the food chain?
I believe the people that are doing research about this are only planning to implement this in mosquito species that are vectors for disease, not all populations of mosquitoes, but I too feel concerned about ecological impacts and want to know more.
They do not intend to crash the population and they are only targeting mosquito species that host malarian parasites. gene drives can be used to suppress populations and you can reverse the effect by introducing reverse drives. you can also get back to the wild type genome.
dont worry we can reshape nature to how we see fit.
@@jarrodyuki7081 What do you think of yourselves? You say you can reshape nature to how you see it fit...you are delusional!! You don't understand basic things about life, but you want to reshape it. You are considering yourselves perfect, but you are more idiot than the simplest men from Earth.
@@samzteh This is theory! In practice we will see what happens! You know a few things about life, but you consider yourselves perfect. You know 5% of life itself, and how it really work. Mad scientists will destroy Earth by their ego...
Make a video teaching your drawing techniques. They make any class very effective!
Stay safe!
I live my life by one philosophy, just because you can does not mean you should. Think long and hard about long term effects. It might be many generations later before side-effect is triggered. Recessive / Dominant Genes.
Doomsday for mankind.
Absolutely great video thank you for this
I understand that at the molecular level a CRISPR mediated gene drive works by copying the altered gene (and the drive containing CAS enzyme, and guide RNA) into the other chromosome containing the wild type allele through homology directed repair...In case of a suppressive drive that is designed to render the offsprings infertile or die before reproduction .. In a typical suppression drive, Where is this copying and homology directed repair happening. In the somatic cells of one of the “parents”, or the germline cells of the parents during gametogenesis? If the drive and altered gene is copied in the somatic cells of the organism that was inserted in, then wouldn't the organism perish/or not be able to reproduce, thus unable to pass on the drive/altered gene? Or is this copying happening in the Zygote off the offspring (thus all its somatic cells), or the germline of the offspring? What happens when a organism containing wild type allele mates with an organism containing the drive? If the copying is occurring in the Zygote stage, all somatic cells of the offspring will contain two copies of the altered gene and will be Homozygous recessive for the altered deleterious gene. Then how will the offspring be able to mate and SPREAD the drive before perishing (or not being able to reproduce). Or is the copying of the altered deleterious gene happening in the Germline of the offspring? How is it ensured that drive copying only occurs during gametogenesis and does not alter the somatic cells in either parent or offspring? Because if somatic cells were rendered homozygous drive would extinguish itself before being able to spread because in engineered gene drives the organism has to be homozygous with respect to the altered gene for it to have a deleterious effect....
This is assuming that the genetically engineered mosquitoes live long enough to reproduce in the wild.
The generation time of the mosquito that hosts Malaria parasites is 4 weeks and the point of using gene drives is to cheat mendelian inheritance. They can live long enough to reproduce and take in exponential growth into consideration.
You all realize the viruses are a delivery system for bio hackers right ?? Covid is just a modified sars virus using Crispr ! Crispr has become corpo tech
@@dustmite31able Yes, you are right! But these are stupid people, that think about themselves to much! They think they know it all, when they know about 5% about life in general, and what drives life! They are really evil!
i can't believe flat earthers exists
@@dustmite31able Though gene editting is still at its infancy, i can agree that there should be a regulation whether someone should carry tools that might be used for bioweapons, this is the same with Uraniums so hopefully they'll think of something
this is such an interessting topic!!! awesome
I love this! Will definitely use in my classes...
thx mate
I'm a molecular biologist and I'm all for non-scientists having a say in this sort of technology but they have to educate themselves a bit. I've had some awful awful conversations with people who are against all technologies playing with DNA and these people knew nothing about cells or living systems and were just throwing words around in a manner that made no sense.
Is there an option to live with the risk of Malaria and mitigate the potential threat without gene or DNA modification and the Pandora’s box that comes with it?
Don’t act like you’re new here... life has it’s inherent risks, it always will no matter what happens. Maybe an independent council can be formed to determine what constitutes a good time to begin CRISPR experimentation in the open environment. Until then maybe can we focus on creating a safe, sustainable energy source.
Do Gene Drives only work for “animals” that reproduce by “sexual intercourse” as stated in the video, or does it also work for organisms which reproduce by being pollenated, by distributing spores, or asexually?
Gene drives, as they are described here, would work for plants that reproduce sexually through pollination. Some plants have a complex life cycle that includes pollination as well as spores; gene drive could indeed work in these plants. Plants that reproduce entirely asexually would pass each pass on their genetic information to their clonal offspring, but the modified gene would not be likely to spread because the unmodified plants would reproduce independently, not interacting with the modified plants. Considering generation time/life cycle and the ability to fertilize widely would be important.
very interesting!
here from prof richards phil145
3
No gene-drive please. Find other ways to control malaria and other communicable diseases. I do not like the idea of ‘getting rid’ of mosquito. Can a country vote on it?
Gonna get a CRISPR kit online and make long living pet rats, brb.
we can now control create and terminate life. ai or living creatures. with our gift of foresight and hindsight.
What do you think of yourselves? You say you can reshape nature to how you see it fit...you are delusional!! You don't understand basic things about life, but you want to reshape it. You are considering yourselves perfect, but you are more idiot than the simplest men from Earth.
What dou you think of yourselves, that you are a kind of God?? You don't understand the basic things about life, but you want to control it, create and terminate life. That would require a great deal of spiritual intelligence, and to know ever force that drives life on Earth!! But you know only 5%. You are all mad!!
@@noemim2964 nope the powers of the gods are in our grasp its time for humanity to take complete control of nature and evolve into higher entities. some immortal.
@@noemim2964 stfu antivaxxer
I want to use genetic therapy to make cool design in our body.
giant cancer cell discovered.
Fully agree Marc, the more efficient Gene Editing gets the more we must organize precaution. It is simply not done by comparing the ages-old EU- and Cartagena Regulations (which urgently needs enhancement(^) and declare that some gene editing methods fall out of the paragraphs and therefore they need not to be regulated, especially with the rather naive argument of naturalness of the new methods. Gene drive efficiency demands from researchers and regulators to intensify the public debate and also do a better job with risk assessment for food, feed and field. But this should not prevent us to be enthusiastic about the new elegance of breeding methods, it should encourage us to do a better job. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern, Switzerland, klaus.ammann@ips.unibe.ch
How can we get it right before it's too late, or if it's already too
late to put the genie back in the bottle then what, or, in other words,
besides not getting it wrong in the first place, what can we do? Gene
drive and genetic engineering is just one of a slew of risks to our
global civilization because we've let one global marketplace displace a
world in which every community necessarily had it's own marketplace for
provision of essential goods and services. Lets get that right again,
with a global marketplace AND local marketplaces everywhere, so we
maximize resilience against a collapse and have everyone ready if and
when it's too late: reconomy at www.reconomy.net
Nazis have also done similar things in the past and now it's OK 🤔🤬