I commonly use a yeast that has been CRISPR'd when making beers and wines. Most yeast create phenolics and esters, usually more phenolics when it is cooler, and more esters when it is warmer. The phenolic flavors are more spicy, think clove or pepper, and esters are more fruity. This company called Omega Yeast used CRISPR to remove the ability to make phenols at all, so you only get those fruity ester notes, and can dial in the intensity based on the temperature during fermentation. Pretty neat stuff!
@@dfitzger that makes me wonder what kind of flavors and effects could come from cannabis with that tech. But mine is good enough so I don't think I'd want to grow GMO buds.
It's not that simple. First, blame the capitalists. I've been reading about the golden rice rich in Vitamin A, to end vitamin A deficiency in children. It's essentially genetically modified grain with CRISPR, but pharmacies are stopping that even though it's been proven to be perfectly safe because they're looking at how they can cover the profit loss from people not buying vitamin A meds anymore. There are still too many burocratic problems, and scientists are pushing by doing more research and trying to fill the doubts about gene editing.
I'm surprised you didn't mention anything about the recently FDA approved sickle cell anemia treatment! I don't have sickle cell anemia, but I do have another genetic condition, Peutz-Jeghars Syndrome, that I hope CRISPR can treat. This gives all of us with certain genetic conditions hope.
I'm guessing they mean endogenous retroviruses. Ancient viruses whose DNA got incorporated into the host's DNA (which there is a miniscule chance of happening during infection) which then got passed down hereditarily. Most of it is junk DNA that doesn't do anything since its original context is gone, but I'd imagine even the junk DNA would be enough to make the immune system recognize "hey that's not our junk dna" and start attacking
A zombie virus is when a retrovirus injects its code into an organisms genome and some part of it sticks in the right cells long enough to be passed on to the next generation. Usually its cut out but very rarely they stick and over time they build up as normally junk dna or in some cases functioning genes that make important proteins. Evolution is weird
What's more likely is that you'll get the treatment, your insurance will flat out scam you then you're on the hook for a huge payment you can't afford, in which you'll negotiate with the hospital and end up paying more like a couple thousand. Insurance non-payments have become so common that hospitals have a contingency in place for them.
GMOs and other custom gene edits are awesome IF the resulting organisms are not privately owned and controlled at all, IMO. Oh wait, that basically applies to everything... :)
it would be cool to see the addition of the genes from the giant slimy maize from south america that does its own nitrogen fixation through the air. the air has a lot of nitrogen in it, it'd be great if we could just get crops to do their own nitrogen fixing instead of having to treat the soil. oh, also protecting our banana monoculture from that virus or fungus or whatever thats threatening it.
There are a lot of plants that do that pretty well without gene editing, just with the aid of some tiny geniuses nitrogen-fixing bacteria who lives in symbiosis in their roots_ beans, for example. That's why once we practiced the rotation of the crops, from grains to beans to grains.
The problem is that trait is not just one gene but many many more and identifying them would be extremely difficult, and making them coordinate successfully in another plant would require a huge effort as well
So you wanna remain awake through the night? Or just have weird kinks? Because this is of no use to anyone. Just stick some led strips in your Lawn and satisfy your urges.
I have a coworker who needs a liver, but can't get on a waitlist due to other conditions. Reducing the organ shortage will help people who aren't even on waitlists right now.
And it's even better for the future. I'm planning on doing research in regenerative medicines, and since the genome is responsible for all the cells in our body, heart cells/brain cells which develop and don't grow again(potentially due to genes turning off), CRISPR could find a way to lead to organ regeneration.
the main issue with gene editing isn't a scientific one nor an ethical one, but a legal one, as most countries currently allow IP'ing genes, which could be disasterous. we're already seeing small farmers being sued out of existence.
@@dido_daNot really, men being creeps is more a product of how they're raised, so less legal and more cultural. But that also means you have a role to play. Like Kratos said to Thor we must be better if not for ourselves than for our children.
I so, so, so much needed to hear some good news about our futures (can't wait to discuss with my son, the cell biologist). Thank you so much Niba (great presentation style too!).
This is all very cool stuff and CRISPR is awesome, and I get that it's a short video meant to show the promise and diversity of these techniques, but a lottttt seems to have been glossed over on aspects of the example applications that go beyond the gene editing technology. Bioethanol won't ever become a dominant fuel (as long as its production is based on agricultural sugars) because growing enough corn etc. would require comparable amounts of farmland to what we use for food - which is already vastly too much on its own, and pushing ecosystems to the breaking point. CRISPR'ing the wrong part of your body by accident while trying to target a tumor sounds terrifying, and isn't something we can just gloss over. And turning off the thing that regulates muscle growth could have horrific impacts on the animal - they're not machines. There were other things too - feels very out of character for SciShow, which is always concise but usually feels better researched and more well-rounded than this. Anyway, love your stuff SciShow! Was just bothered a little by this one. It would be really cool to hear about these kinds of tech developments with (slightly!) more context!
@@kernfel aint no different than the invention of TNT, the explosive to end all wars. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Like with nukes.
Indeed, there are still a lot of off target effects possible. I would never say crispr is very accurate, because it isn’t yet. And the more we learn about dna and interactions that happen outside the genes, like TADs and other localised effects makes things so much more complicated. What if you change a gene, that then happened to turned out to also have an effect on another promotor or such. There are so much possible unknown effects
Guys don't seem to understand that channels like this one are NOT science channel. These are communication mediums to promote certain industries or companies. The stuff they promote are ALWAYS "safe", "accurate" and "precise", "game changers"! They never present errors and diseases that can result from unforeseen effects of genes editing.
I think it's important to mention that even though CRISPR is much more precise than any other form of gene editing, depending on the type of therapy, you can have off-target edits in even higher than 50% of "patients" ("patients" is in quotation marks because human trials haven't been approved for the edits that result in such a high off-target rate, so we're talking about mice, rats, etc.). However, there have been CRISPR success stories where treatment results in a less than 5% chance of off-target edits. So while there's still a long way to go, there's a lot of hope. The off-target edits aren't as much of a problem when it comes to things like agriculture, because if you use CRISPR on 100 plants, even if 98 of them have off-target edits, you can take the 2 plants that were edited perfectly and clone them or breed them.
I know this video was about identifying potential positive uses of CRISPR, and I appreciate the discussion of regulation and GMO foods, but I hope SciShow will have just a robust video on the concerns/issues with gene editing. After years of using CRISPR, there are still no binding ethics rules on it's use, and there are concerns about the risks of 'speeding up' the process of selection and unintended consequences. He Jiankui's poorly overseen experiments gene-editing children should have been a wakeup call, and I hope that SciShow covers these concerns as well as they covered the potential positive outcomes from CRISPR. Also, great video @NotesbyNiba! Wonderful presentation, I'll be hunting down more of your content, and hope to see more of you here!
Making heat-tolerant bacteria seems like a dangerous idea. Even for bacteria that are neutral or even beneficial to humans, it only takes a mutation or two to turn it into a pathogen. And if they're heat-resistant, they're that much harder to kill/cure.
How exactly do you imagine we treat bacterial infections? By putting the patient in the oven? What you're saying doesn't really make that much sense, also because thermophillic bacteria are not pathogenic. There are so many bacteria in the world that cannot live inside a human, because they live at temperatures over 60°C. Those can't become pathogenic.
@@cicianamumu We might not kill them in the body with heat but outside of the body we kill the majority of dangerous pathogens with heat, if cooking didn't kill salmonella or e. coli you would not be able to eat most meats, and milk would only last for a day or two since pasteurization would become useless.
@@cicianamumu Do you know how most bacterial infections are handled? Letting the body take care of it itself. Do you know what one of its major mechanisms for doing that is? Fever. Raising the body temp a few degrees. Do you know what that would be worthless against? Heat tolerant bacteria. Do you know how doctors sterilize their instruments? Heat/steam. Do you know how water is made safe from bacteria? Boiling. Do you know how food is made safe From bacteria? Heat. Cooking, boiling, pasteurization. You know what becomes a problem? F***ing heat tolerant bacteria.
@@cicianamumu RUclips deleted my first long reply. So I'll just ask you a few questions. What is the point of a fever? How do doctors sterilize their instruments? Why do we cook food? What is pasteurization? Why do we boil untreated water for drinking?
@@wavion2 A fever helps the immune system be more active against a disease. The sterilization process kills off all bacteria that can live at the temperature of the human body. We actually use a type of thermophillic bacteria to check whether the sterilization process actually reached the necessary temperature. We cook food for the same reason mentioned above. Pasteurization tricks bacteria spores (yes, some bacteria have a state called a spore, where it is much more resistant to everything) that live at the temp of the human body to turn back into normal bacteria, so that the high temperature may kill all the bacteria and spores. We boil water for the same reason mentioned at cooking food. None of these questions prove that thermophillic bacteria, which live at temperatures between 50-122°C, could somehow tick one or two mutations and suddenly infect humans.
Wow!! You must seriously be an absolute genius coz no one else on the planet has a time machine. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t heard anything about anyone preventing climate change. And you never will! Seriously, WTF??🤪😂
The targeted ending of myostatin and folistatin specifically have very serious negative effects on the animal's quality of life which I am somewhat ethically hesitant about. And it does so in a way that isn't directly comparable to selective breeding. And selective breeding you might be looking to enhance certain muscle groups specifically or muscles overall, but you're also considering the overall quality and health of the animal. And at minimum I have not yet seen any studies that show how extreme examples of selective breeding for reductions in inhibition of muscle growth achieve acceptable animal well-being. Mechanistically, my understanding is that it's a very significant challenge as The more down-regulated myostatin is the more inhibited tendon and ligament growth becomes. If anyone has more information on this topic in genetically modified animals, I would genuinely love to hear about it. I'm not fundamentally opposed to them. I just have serious questions about the animal husbandry of genetically modified creatures
Why can't they get on fixing my scoliosis. Half my days are spent on the floor. I am reading the papers. I am offering myself for study. Someone put a cure in me!!!
1) off target effects. But we always try to optimize both gRNA and Cas protein to lower off-target effects without sacrificing efficiency. Also, normally, target sites are chosen to not have any similar sites in other importent genes that you don't want to effect
2) CRISPR itself is pretty useless. You need HDR to happen after you cut DNA. And efficiency of this step is pretty low. Anyway, if you cut DNA it is a huge stress for you reparation system. It normally can handle it, but when it doesn't it may lead to cell death or cancer
Another major area where CRISPR can help is making the cattle industry curb their CO2 emissions, either by supplying cattle feed that reduces cattle burps or by engineering cattle that burps less. IIRC there's already a seaweed additive that reduces CO2 emissions but it's not widely implemented yet.
The cattle industry has no problem with CO2 emissions, they burp methane! Which incidentally, is about 4x worse for the environment, compared to an equal amount of CO2.
@@1702951thatll only happen since crispr can give the mutation to digest cellulose so we can get proteins from plants, but still animal meat is tasty, so maybe we just need lab made meat
Airborne rabies. The unintended consequences is weaponization. Luckily Gene editing also provides the means to provide cures to such diseases. What should easily be available is editing technology. What should not be is sequencing technology nor corresponding sequences to known pathogens.
@@shinypaintf588 actually it is possible to modify the genetics of a living organism with a modified virus to spread a certain gene, but that's risky, wouldn't affect every gene, and the results are uncertain, it's preferable for minor changes, for now
Unfortunately, CRISPR therapy wasn't able to help my husband with a blood disorder. They use a vector virus which you can catch and get an allergy to with no knowledge of, this will prevent the use of the therapy :(
Perfection isn’t about perfect functionality, but rather the ratio of amazing functions to horrible dysfunctions, which creates beauty. That being said, striving for better functionality is amazing, for the dysfunctions of life will always be inevitable. Also, our individual ideas of what is “better” will always be incomplete without taking into account everyone’s view of better ❤🙏🏼
Wish I had $1 for every time something was going to "change everything" according to a YT title - 7 videos (not counting shorts) within an hour of my comment!
@@General12thCRISPR, and next-generation gene editing tools derived from it, will almost certainly be as revolutionary as the invention of the steam engine or the discovery of antibiotics. I give it 60 years until every single person on earth is using products that were manufactured using CRISPR at some stage of production, or themselves has been treated using a CRISPR-derived therapy.
Golly gee, I sure can't wait until we have something akin to the Star Trek Eugenics Wars. With how our society is solely focused on personal gain and profit at the expense of everyone's wellbeing, that outcome seems like more of an inevitability than a simple possibility.
Sleep schedule: Maybe, very low priority/long term though Bank balance: Wellllll if you're American, using it to fix anything will actually do the opposite
My only problem with this is HOW do you keep companies like Monsanto from screwing around and monopolizing the seed or creating damage to other seeds and plants due to their unmitigated greed? They're already doing it!
I love love love that it can help disabled people!! (I could've possibly lived w much less pain with this treatment so it's personal) but with this amount of power, it needs to be said that big companies with eugenics in mind are dangerous here. It's about helping, not hurting. ♡
I took a vacation to London 25 years ago. It seemed like every time I put on the news, there was a story about protests over "Frankenfoods." There were also headlines in several tabloid newspapers about Frankenfoods. Those stories left me with the impression that there was a bit of resistance to genetically modified foods in England. More recently (though still some time ago), I read an article that talked about genetically modified seeds that should have been a boon to African farmers but that those farmers were unable to plant because if they planted any of the modified crops, they would not be able to sell any of their crops to Europe. They wouldn't even be able to sell crops that weren't modified because European regulators would worry some modified crops might be accidentally mixed in with their "natural" crops. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence that GMO crops are safe, there will be people who refuse to consider that evidence because they'd rather protest. I am guessing that the Venn diagram of people who refer to GMOs as Frankenfood has a lot of overlap with the diagram of people who refuse to consider building nuclear power plants as a source of emission-free electricity.
I'm curious why they wouldn't feed their own people with the crops, seeing as they're starving?? We're over here collecting money to help them survive.. Also I'm one of the people who think Crispr is awesome and also do not want fission in my house. "Emission free electricity" I guess you could put it that way, but you're obviously being dishonest.
@@98Zai " also do not want fission in my house." Darn, I thought your living room would be an excellent location for a new nuclear power plant. I promise I wasn't being intentionally dishonest. By emission-free, I was referring to the fact that nuclear power plants do not create any greenhouse gasses. Until we are at the point where we can put solar panels in orbit and then transmit that electricity back to Earth, solar power will not be as consistently reliable as nuclear power. Windmills only produce electricity when the wind blows, but when the blades are turning, they have a distressing tendency to kill birds. Why was calling nuclear power emission-free dishonest? Do you mean because of radioactive releases during accidents like 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl? As I understand it, modern plant designs are much safer than the 3 Mile Island plant. Even 3M Island was a much much safer design than Chernobyl. Or are there emissions from nuclear power plants that I am not aware of?
@@michaelmcchesney6645 It's definitely emission-free, but instead of emissions it's producing something a lot more directly dangerous. The simple solution to intermittent power production is power storage, while it's a problem we need to solve- it's not really a big enough problem to have to resort to building multi billion dollar plants that need to operate for 70 years and stifling innovation for that entire time. And then I'm not even addressing the huge issue of basically forever poison as a byproduct OR putting a very dangerous WEAPON in a dynamic world that threatens to collapse once a decade. Fission is great for space travel- and colonization though.
A GMO food is no different than the ones changed through selective breeding, the changes are just much faster. I don't understand why people hate them so much.
CRISPR reminds me of how in Unix, we would use the SED stream editor and global regular expressions to insert patches into code that could be a few versions off from the code that your patch was developed for. However, just as with SED, how selective CRISPR really is is dependent on how specific and unique the palindrome markers specified actually were. There is a significant chance of editing sequences that you don't want changed in both the genome and epigenome is still there, while having the false confidence that you're not doing so. CRISPR may be more precise than previous techniques but really that's not saying much and could lead to the false assumption that it is only making the change that you wanted. In the Unix community, it was wise to use grep and wc to count the number of times the patch was applied in the code to see if something other than the intended target was modified and though many people didn't bother doing this, with biology, I think such precautions are more warranted for.
I'm reasonably certain that they can't approve a medication without it going through real-world testing first to ensure safety on a group basis. Since a human genome is capable of being stored in a laptop computer's memory, I'd think it should be possible to actually do the regex match and see what it changes before using anything on a patient.
@@goodfortunetoyou Except that the Bush administration passed a law that exempted GMO foods from testing on the basis of the genetically modified product consisting of the same components as the natural products. The lease from Monsanto for the use of the GMO seed also specifically prohibits the use of the produce for testing. There's an awful lot of loopholes for safety testing of genetically modified products...
@@johnwang9914 You're suggesting that modifying a tomato might make it poisonous, and no regulations exist which the government could use to regulate this. I'm confident the FDA is going to do it's job well, and will prevent a company from selling poisonous GMOs.
@@goodfortunetoyou Except that Tomatoes like all plants in the Nightshade family, does contain the Genes to produce alkaline toxins and those genes are active for poisoning the leaves and other parts of the plants. It wouldn't take much of a genetic change to trigger those toxins to be in the fruit in deadly concentration but by the laws from the Bush administration they would still be considered safe as they would have the same constituent components as a natural tomato. Tomatoes and potatoes was the worst possible choices for your denial of GMO risks.
I’m so excited to see, once this technology is perfected, how expensive and inaccessible all these CRISPR based functions are to the mass of people dying daily. I’m glad researchers are finding new treatments for disease and new uses of CRISPR to help humankind, but what’s the point of these technologies will only ever be accessible to the supremely wealthy? It can’t cure cancer if the people with cancer can’t afford it. It can’t improve crops if farmers can’t afford it. It’s so far out of reach, and it’s devastating to think about.
It's likely to become cheaper once it's well-established technology, especially once there's competition. On the technology side, look at the price of DNA sequencing over time. On the competition side: when a new medication is introduced, the company that introduced it has a temporary monopoly until the patent expires, and they can charge very high prices. Eventually (often after 20 years), the patent expires and other companies can sell generic versions at a much lower price. We don't have "generic" gene therapy yet, but maybe it will come, especially if we also find simpler methods for the gene therapy itself.
there are already people in their homes using CRISPR to jerry-rig gene therapies for things like lactose intolerance. i dont think accessibility will be a major drawback.
Why does *any* technological advancement spread throughout the whole population? If the elites were the only ones who could hoard the fancy toys, we'd all be subsistence serfs serving a tiny ultratech god class. Imagine how much money the first person to bring cancer-fighting CRISPR to the masses will be. Is there a reason to think it's technologically impossible, or that literally every single rich person in the world will conspire to suppress it for the rest of time?
The cost for the first CRISPR based therapy is currently 2.2 million dollars. Though that will probably go down considerably with time and and further research.
@@dane1382 Do they work? The few FDA-approved gene therapies are more involved than just injecting yourself with some CRISPR. For instance, Casgevy, a gene therapy for sickle cell disease, involves extracting stem cells, modifying them with CRISPR, then killing off the patient's remaining red blood cells with chemotherapy (because they still have the gene for sickle cell disease) and infusing back the modified cells. If you just injected CRISPR, the patient would still have abnormal cells and would not be cured.
If she didnt authorize the lot of tale the car, they shouldnt be allowed to charge for "storage", especially since it was left out in the elements, where it deteriorated in the sun and rain
Here's a better solution...rejuvenate the pancreas and other organs. Then, you can eat whatever nonsense you want without fear of excess fat gain, insulin resistance, or other damage.
Adapting crops to climate change is good, but it leaves out pretty much all of the other plants and animals on the planet. Also let me know when CRISPR can cure male pattern baldness. Whoever masters that function will be printing money.
That's what I'm waiting for but it will probably come as an enhancement it hair plugs first. They could take out a few follicles, CRISPR them to stop them from turning off and causing baldness, clone then, then implant them as hair plugs. Most people will still just get hair moved from other parts of their head but it could work well for people with too much thinning for that to work well.
"Forget curing disease, think bigger, like.....pie in the sky: plastic and ethanol!" The fact that bio-plastic and bio-ethanol is above human health...that doesn't sound right to me...
It will change everything though. Especially if we are talking like, humanities future. The ability for parents to “design” their kids seems very possible from what I’ve seen(not right now but in the future possibly far future), and this will be something you could classify as “change everything”.
@@lionelmessisburner7393 Ehhhh... I hope it doesn't come to that. There's some very major ethical issues with the idea. You ever heard of eugenics? Fortunately we are not at that stage yet, and by the time we are, I hope it will be regulated.
@@cawareyoudoin7379 well that tech definitely seems to be possible. And yes I have heard of eugenics. At first it will have a lot of regulations, but eventually I think it will be freed to society. It’s a dangerous technology though I agree.
For organ transplants growing new organs with the patients' own DNA using stem cells seems like the holy grail. I imagine crispr will be a part of that. Curious how they edit the entire pig organ. I think it's time for a deep dive.
One. Can crispr be used to copy the genetic sequence entirely on to another genetic object? In other words, when doing an organ transplant, can they scan the genetics of the person that needs the organ and make the organ genetically the same? 2. Using crispr, can they replace the byproduct of the bacterial? So instead of pha, can they make the bacteria produce something else that's more beneficial? Such as, can they make the bacteria produce gold or helium or hydrogen or any compounds that would be more beneficial to us
@@NateBro dang well I tried lol Umm there’s something else I bet u have going for ya man don’t feel down just gotta be proud of what u got even if ain’t much. :)
@@TheReal_ist thanks dude. I really do appreciate your positivity. Losing my hair has been the first sign that I’m aging and it’s hard to see happen. Hopefully they do actually develop more treatments in the future ✌️
@@NateBro no problem man :)) Life can always get pretty depressing but just being alive in this moment in history is IMO good enough to combat the constant depression the world spits out. While u may not grow your hair back now in the coming decades we definently will cure it. It’s a trivial problem really just about getting the costs down due to genetic engineering being a requirement.
I heared something similar for a long time, without real results. If taken seriously, however, it sounds like a multitude of disasters waiting to happen.
what about the nutriants from the modified plants? would them normaly needing rich soil now able to grow in poor soil effect and change the nutrient content of the plants?
I like the idea of gmo, I just don't trust the companies pushing it. They have done some horrible things to the farmers who used their seeds. I wouldn't trust them to not screw it up big time and them wash their hands of the problems they caused.
I commonly use a yeast that has been CRISPR'd when making beers and wines. Most yeast create phenolics and esters, usually more phenolics when it is cooler, and more esters when it is warmer. The phenolic flavors are more spicy, think clove or pepper, and esters are more fruity. This company called Omega Yeast used CRISPR to remove the ability to make phenols at all, so you only get those fruity ester notes, and can dial in the intensity based on the temperature during fermentation. Pretty neat stuff!
I use pounds of bread yeast for my moonshine. Appalachia is a different place.
@@rags15061yeah of alcoholics clearly
@@rags15061 then you have a very inefficient system.
@@dfitzger that makes me wonder what kind of flavors and effects could come from cannabis with that tech. But mine is good enough so I don't think I'd want to grow GMO buds.
I got some “defective” beer at our local brew and it was that spice tone you spoke of. Didn’t know this, but is it weird I loved it?
I've been hearing that CRISPR is about to change everything for 20 years now
Yeah same here 😂 still waiting for engineered de-aging lads!
UNIRONICALLY
I doubt that because CRISPR was first described in 2012
The first CRISPR paper was published 22 years ago so that tracks.
It's not that simple. First, blame the capitalists. I've been reading about the golden rice rich in Vitamin A, to end vitamin A deficiency in children. It's essentially genetically modified grain with CRISPR, but pharmacies are stopping that even though it's been proven to be perfectly safe because they're looking at how they can cover the profit loss from people not buying vitamin A meds anymore. There are still too many burocratic problems, and scientists are pushing by doing more research and trying to fill the doubts about gene editing.
"Pig zombie virus..." Steve, get your diamond pickaxe ready; I think your origin story is here.
Yeah, I was like zombie what now
lololollol
yeah she just casually threw that in there
Hope you all keep Niba around; she communicates science enthusiastically and has a great cadenence during delivery.
+ nice to look at
She's great!
Love her makeup too
It's honestly crazy how good she is.
I am glad I don't know what you are talking about. Cadence! WTF!!!
@@shieldmcshieldy5750yeah she's nice!
I'm surprised you didn't mention anything about the recently FDA approved sickle cell anemia treatment!
I don't have sickle cell anemia, but I do have another genetic condition, Peutz-Jeghars Syndrome, that I hope CRISPR can treat. This gives all of us with certain genetic conditions hope.
A lil hope can take you a long way!! I hope for the best for you 😁
She did. You just missed it. You missed that 1 second. Maybe that half of a second :)
I'm also sure they mentioned it in an earlier video
Already did a full video on it
mentioned by noting 'blood disorder treatments' at the start
This lady was born to be a presenter. Not counting Hank, Scishow hasn’t has a presenter this good since Michael Aranda.
I wonder why he stopped doing Scishow videos, he was awesome
CRISPR is basically the "Find & Replace" functionality for Genetics.
OFF TARGET RISKS WERE YOU EVEN LISTENING hai
More like "replace all!"
Ctrl+H @@svetlanagayares4307
@@shieldmcshieldy5750 stop with the all caps, and off target means you need more precisely defined modifications. it's not doomsday.
Science doesn't understand the genome, so it is more accurate to say that it could help with simple specific genetic issues.
Could you repeat that real quick, what was that about the "zombie pig viruses"?
I'm guessing they mean endogenous retroviruses. Ancient viruses whose DNA got incorporated into the host's DNA (which there is a miniscule chance of happening during infection) which then got passed down hereditarily. Most of it is junk DNA that doesn't do anything since its original context is gone, but I'd imagine even the junk DNA would be enough to make the immune system recognize "hey that's not our junk dna" and start attacking
A zombie virus is when a retrovirus injects its code into an organisms genome and some part of it sticks in the right cells long enough to be passed on to the next generation. Usually its cut out but very rarely they stick and over time they build up as normally junk dna or in some cases functioning genes that make important proteins. Evolution is weird
Sush!
That was my reaction! What the hell 😂😂😂
Search for Soldados O Zombies, a TV series. Zombie infestation starts with an infected pig.
I can’t wait to not be able to pay for any of these treatments if I ever need them.
What's more likely is that you'll get the treatment, your insurance will flat out scam you then you're on the hook for a huge payment you can't afford, in which you'll negotiate with the hospital and end up paying more like a couple thousand.
Insurance non-payments have become so common that hospitals have a contingency in place for them.
In America a lot of times your insurance has to approve it before they’ll give you the treatment
Then become a researcher and change it.
@@abel3557 yes how wonderful life is that you have to become a dr just to not be screwed over by one
Then pull yourself up by the bootstraps and become a billionaire. Easy. Glad I could help.
GMOs and other custom gene edits are awesome IF the resulting organisms are not privately owned and controlled at all, IMO.
Oh wait, that basically applies to everything... :)
yaaaay society... 😩
@@98Zai Financially Modified Organisms to the rescue!! No, no wait, that won't work either...back to crying, everyone!
And if they don't make them inedible.
CRISPR for food warfare
I had not seen this presenter before. Great tone of voice that was both relaxed, soothing and engaging. Plus, crispr is so cool.
I very much thought the same too! Lovely voice 😊
it would be cool to see the addition of the genes from the giant slimy maize from south america that does its own nitrogen fixation through the air. the air has a lot of nitrogen in it, it'd be great if we could just get crops to do their own nitrogen fixing instead of having to treat the soil. oh, also protecting our banana monoculture from that virus or fungus or whatever thats threatening it.
There are a lot of plants that do that pretty well without gene editing, just with the aid of some tiny geniuses nitrogen-fixing bacteria who lives in symbiosis in their roots_ beans, for example. That's why once we practiced the rotation of the crops, from grains to beans to grains.
@@Laurelin70Yeah he’s meaning having the plants do it themselves, not with the help of bacteria. The plants do none of the nitrogen-fixing as of now
Corn smut?
@robertacomstock3655 this is different, it's a gel on the stalk and roots that fixes nitrogen rather than a fungus on the cob
The problem is that trait is not just one gene but many many more and identifying them would be extremely difficult, and making them coordinate successfully in another plant would require a huge effort as well
I want my lawn to glow in the dark. Make my dreams come true.😂
They've made glow in the dark fish. And there are bio-luminescent seaweeds and algae so the idea of a glow in the dark lawn is quite plausible. 😃
Who needs streetlights when we can just use bioluminescent trees
@@zwiebeldogs i want the grass to glow 🤣
Might kill your lawn due to lack of or too many insects? Wishful thinking is that it will make more glowing insects if most urban plants glow.
So you wanna remain awake through the night? Or just have weird kinks? Because this is of no use to anyone. Just stick some led strips in your Lawn and satisfy your urges.
I have a coworker who needs a liver, but can't get on a waitlist due to other conditions. Reducing the organ shortage will help people who aren't even on waitlists right now.
And it's even better for the future. I'm planning on doing research in regenerative medicines, and since the genome is responsible for all the cells in our body, heart cells/brain cells which develop and don't grow again(potentially due to genes turning off), CRISPR could find a way to lead to organ regeneration.
Or...if your coworker is really adventurous they can start to reduce the wait-list on their own... 😏
How can there be an organ shortage? Oh, because nobody wants to pay for it. That’s not a shortage of organs.
as a non-native speaker, i would listen to her forever. she's so chill yet articulate and the pitch of her voice is like warm milk and honey 💖🌻
As a native speaker, ditto.
that's awesome how someone can actually talk about promoting mass extinction and yet look and sound so angelic. Astonishing.
@@BresciGaetano Come again? Promoting mass extinction??
She's not beautiful at all. So it is easy to listen to her if you replay the video a couple of times.
@@BresciGaetanoI’d be more concerned about your terminal brain rot than a mass extinction
the main issue with gene editing isn't a scientific one nor an ethical one, but a legal one, as most countries currently allow IP'ing genes, which could be disasterous. we're already seeing small farmers being sued out of existence.
Whatever happens happens. There is no purpose to anything so any outcome is a just one.
@VitaSineLibertatenih So true 🔥🔥 That’s what I say when people tell me to stop oppressing women and minorities 👍
@@dido_daNot really, men being creeps is more a product of how they're raised, so less legal and more cultural. But that also means you have a role to play. Like Kratos said to Thor we must be better if not for ourselves than for our children.
@@lordship1543 then*
Productivity is main for evolution. Why somebody should pay extra to let another live better then he (she)?
I so, so, so much needed to hear some good news about our futures (can't wait to discuss with my son, the cell biologist). Thank you so much Niba (great presentation style too!).
My new favorite host. Great job, Niba!
This is all very cool stuff and CRISPR is awesome, and I get that it's a short video meant to show the promise and diversity of these techniques, but a lottttt seems to have been glossed over on aspects of the example applications that go beyond the gene editing technology. Bioethanol won't ever become a dominant fuel (as long as its production is based on agricultural sugars) because growing enough corn etc. would require comparable amounts of farmland to what we use for food - which is already vastly too much on its own, and pushing ecosystems to the breaking point. CRISPR'ing the wrong part of your body by accident while trying to target a tumor sounds terrifying, and isn't something we can just gloss over. And turning off the thing that regulates muscle growth could have horrific impacts on the animal - they're not machines. There were other things too - feels very out of character for SciShow, which is always concise but usually feels better researched and more well-rounded than this.
Anyway, love your stuff SciShow! Was just bothered a little by this one. It would be really cool to hear about these kinds of tech developments with (slightly!) more context!
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
@@kernfel aint no different than the invention of TNT, the explosive to end all wars.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Like with nukes.
Indeed, there are still a lot of off target effects possible. I would never say crispr is very accurate, because it isn’t yet. And the more we learn about dna and interactions that happen outside the genes, like TADs and other localised effects makes things so much more complicated. What if you change a gene, that then happened to turned out to also have an effect on another promotor or such. There are so much possible unknown effects
Guys don't seem to understand that channels like this one are NOT science channel. These are communication mediums to promote certain industries or companies. The stuff they promote are ALWAYS "safe", "accurate" and "precise", "game changers"!
They never present errors and diseases that can result from unforeseen effects of genes editing.
best intentions is a massive "if". Why would you believe that the best intentions will
be in the minds of these scientists?
I think it's important to mention that even though CRISPR is much more precise than any other form of gene editing, depending on the type of therapy, you can have off-target edits in even higher than 50% of "patients" ("patients" is in quotation marks because human trials haven't been approved for the edits that result in such a high off-target rate, so we're talking about mice, rats, etc.). However, there have been CRISPR success stories where treatment results in a less than 5% chance of off-target edits. So while there's still a long way to go, there's a lot of hope.
The off-target edits aren't as much of a problem when it comes to things like agriculture, because if you use CRISPR on 100 plants, even if 98 of them have off-target edits, you can take the 2 plants that were edited perfectly and clone them or breed them.
I know this video was about identifying potential positive uses of CRISPR, and I appreciate the discussion of regulation and GMO foods, but I hope SciShow will have just a robust video on the concerns/issues with gene editing. After years of using CRISPR, there are still no binding ethics rules on it's use, and there are concerns about the risks of 'speeding up' the process of selection and unintended consequences. He Jiankui's poorly overseen experiments gene-editing children should have been a wakeup call, and I hope that SciShow covers these concerns as well as they covered the potential positive outcomes from CRISPR.
Also, great video @NotesbyNiba! Wonderful presentation, I'll be hunting down more of your content, and hope to see more of you here!
plese ease on fearmongering about things you don't understand.
Ethics doesn't exist in the natural world
Making heat-tolerant bacteria seems like a dangerous idea. Even for bacteria that are neutral or even beneficial to humans, it only takes a mutation or two to turn it into a pathogen. And if they're heat-resistant, they're that much harder to kill/cure.
How exactly do you imagine we treat bacterial infections? By putting the patient in the oven? What you're saying doesn't really make that much sense, also because thermophillic bacteria are not pathogenic. There are so many bacteria in the world that cannot live inside a human, because they live at temperatures over 60°C. Those can't become pathogenic.
@@cicianamumu We might not kill them in the body with heat but outside of the body we kill the majority of dangerous pathogens with heat, if cooking didn't kill salmonella or e. coli you would not be able to eat most meats, and milk would only last for a day or two since pasteurization would become useless.
@@cicianamumu Do you know how most bacterial infections are handled? Letting the body take care of it itself. Do you know what one of its major mechanisms for doing that is? Fever. Raising the body temp a few degrees. Do you know what that would be worthless against? Heat tolerant bacteria. Do you know how doctors sterilize their instruments? Heat/steam. Do you know how water is made safe from bacteria? Boiling. Do you know how food is made safe From bacteria? Heat. Cooking, boiling, pasteurization. You know what becomes a problem? F***ing heat tolerant bacteria.
@@cicianamumu RUclips deleted my first long reply. So I'll just ask you a few questions. What is the point of a fever? How do doctors sterilize their instruments? Why do we cook food? What is pasteurization? Why do we boil untreated water for drinking?
@@wavion2 A fever helps the immune system be more active against a disease. The sterilization process kills off all bacteria that can live at the temperature of the human body. We actually use a type of thermophillic bacteria to check whether the sterilization process actually reached the necessary temperature. We cook food for the same reason mentioned above. Pasteurization tricks bacteria spores (yes, some bacteria have a state called a spore, where it is much more resistant to everything) that live at the temp of the human body to turn back into normal bacteria, so that the high temperature may kill all the bacteria and spores. We boil water for the same reason mentioned at cooking food. None of these questions prove that thermophillic bacteria, which live at temperatures between 50-122°C, could somehow tick one or two mutations and suddenly infect humans.
heard crispr from radiolab years ago back in 2017... and now its already everywhere :0
Nifty, I guess. However, I continue to hear "adapt to climate change", and not enough "prevent, or reverse, climate change, in the first place"
Wow!! You must seriously be an absolute genius coz no one else on the planet has a time machine. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t heard anything about anyone preventing climate change. And you never will! Seriously, WTF??🤪😂
@@aaronperelmuter8433the implicit word you perhaps missed, is “further”, after the word “prevent”?
I wonder if the dinosaurs could have prevented climate change....or the hundreds of times it has changed since then
The prevention ship sailed in the 80's.
I have not seen Niba in a SciShow video before. Fantastic job! Hopefully you can get Niba to continue hosting more
Acapella science's "crispr cas-9" was running through my head for most of this video
The targeted ending of myostatin and folistatin specifically have very serious negative effects on the animal's quality of life which I am somewhat ethically hesitant about.
And it does so in a way that isn't directly comparable to selective breeding. And selective breeding you might be looking to enhance certain muscle groups specifically or muscles overall, but you're also considering the overall quality and health of the animal.
And at minimum I have not yet seen any studies that show how extreme examples of selective breeding for reductions in inhibition of muscle growth achieve acceptable animal well-being.
Mechanistically, my understanding is that it's a very significant challenge as The more down-regulated myostatin is the more inhibited tendon and ligament growth becomes.
If anyone has more information on this topic in genetically modified animals, I would genuinely love to hear about it. I'm not fundamentally opposed to them. I just have serious questions about the animal husbandry of genetically modified creatures
Great explaination. Loved the way this was topic was presented. Clear and concise .
It's good to be clear & concise about absolute shite.
@@brianallen8588”shite” attempt at trolling lol
Wasn't there a Red Dwarf episode that had this? The altered bacteria evolved and ended up eating anything and everything it came into contact with.
That luck virus is just around corner 😅
Why can't they get on fixing my scoliosis. Half my days are spent on the floor. I am reading the papers. I am offering myself for study. Someone put a cure in me!!!
Feel like I watch a video like this every single year. For 20 years.
really expected a mention of lifespan extension but given the complexity of that and how unbelievable it sounds I understand why it wasn't brought up
That's going to take more than just gene editing.
Wish they’d come up with a cure for depression.
AND anxiety! 🙋🏾♀️
4:25 People are reluctant to accept that GMOs are sometimes a better solution though.
Yeah like in 6:00
Really enjoying Niba's narration
All the gesturing is quite distracting...
Niba, you just became my favorite SciShow host!
Nice video. Will there be a take on the potential negatives of Crispr?
Cancer comes to mind.
1) off target effects.
But we always try to optimize both gRNA and Cas protein to lower off-target effects without sacrificing efficiency. Also, normally, target sites are chosen to not have any similar sites in other importent genes that you don't want to effect
2) CRISPR itself is pretty useless. You need HDR to happen after you cut DNA. And efficiency of this step is pretty low. Anyway, if you cut DNA it is a huge stress for you reparation system. It normally can handle it, but when it doesn't it may lead to cell death or cancer
Just go to any Organic blog and you will have plenty of posts about negative effects for CRISPR.
This starts like one of those looping advertisements you see on a billboard during the mutant zombie apocalypse to set the context for a video game.
Another major area where CRISPR can help is making the cattle industry curb their CO2 emissions, either by supplying cattle feed that reduces cattle burps or by engineering cattle that burps less. IIRC there's already a seaweed additive that reduces CO2 emissions but it's not widely implemented yet.
The cattle industry has no problem with CO2 emissions, they burp methane! Which incidentally, is about 4x worse for the environment, compared to an equal amount of CO2.
Or we just stop eating meat? 😅
@@1702951 No thanks. I quite enjoy animal protein.
@@1702951thatll only happen since crispr can give the mutation to digest cellulose so we can get proteins from plants, but still animal meat is tasty, so maybe we just need lab made meat
@@mjt1517 Booooo!
Mankind overestimate things that can be achieved in short term and underestimate things that can be achieved in long term.
My concern is unintended consequences. I hope there is a known built-in vulnerability in case an altered organism starts to be a runaway.
Airborne rabies. The unintended consequences is weaponization. Luckily Gene editing also provides the means to provide cures to such diseases. What should easily be available is editing technology. What should not be is sequencing technology nor corresponding sequences to known pathogens.
Niba has such a great voice to listen to!
I didn't think we'd hit Biopunk before Cyberpunk until 10 years ago when I first heard of Crispr.
Now the two at the same time seems pretty likely.
So informative! These were all the bits and pieces I wanted to know but couldn't even formulate the questions for. Thanks, fellow Don!
Bout to make me a fishman and I'm headed to Atlantis
Can it turn me into a bird-woman? I wanna be an Owlady.
i think it could make your daughter a birdgirl but probably not you
@@shinypaintf588 actually it is possible to modify the genetics of a living organism with a modified virus to spread a certain gene, but that's risky, wouldn't affect every gene, and the results are uncertain, it's preferable for minor changes, for now
yes, but only if you let it help you live longer first, and it would probably be extremely unpleasant
Yes it can. It's a powerful tool to enact genetic changes.
However the 'owl program' doesn't exist yet.
There’s a reason humans can’t fly we are too heavy very heavy modifications would be needed don’t think you would want that
Unfortunately, CRISPR therapy wasn't able to help my husband with a blood disorder. They use a vector virus which you can catch and get an allergy to with no knowledge of, this will prevent the use of the therapy :(
Perfection isn’t about perfect functionality, but rather the ratio of amazing functions to horrible dysfunctions, which creates beauty. That being said, striving for better functionality is amazing, for the dysfunctions of life will always be inevitable. Also, our individual ideas of what is “better” will always be incomplete without taking into account everyone’s view of better ❤🙏🏼
I love how we are thinking of geneticly modifying everything because we can not control our destruction of the environment.
Exactly, do what we can.
I'm so excited for the future of science! I love microbio and biochem. Im hiping this can really push medical science in a better direction for all
Wish I had $1 for every time something was going to "change everything" according to a YT title - 7 videos (not counting shorts) within an hour of my comment!
$7 an hour…sounds like you’d be better off with a job at McDonalds.
CRISPR probably *will* change everything... just not in the next twenty minutes.
@@General12thCRISPR, and next-generation gene editing tools derived from it, will almost certainly be as revolutionary as the invention of the steam engine or the discovery of antibiotics. I give it 60 years until every single person on earth is using products that were manufactured using CRISPR at some stage of production, or themselves has been treated using a CRISPR-derived therapy.
@@General12th Exactly
Yo momma changed everything last night.
I was like damn girl, how you move like that?
SciShow never disappoints
I definitely came from the thumbnail thinking "we already have more than enough plastic" but other than that bit, this is all really cool.
Good presentation, thanks Niba!
Neat I'll wonder if I'll ever be able to access this as an average person in the US
not without the right insurance plan
Golly gee, I sure can't wait until we have something akin to the Star Trek Eugenics Wars. With how our society is solely focused on personal gain and profit at the expense of everyone's wellbeing, that outcome seems like more of an inevitability than a simple possibility.
And with this, we beat cancer, but, we make vampires and we’ll need Dr. Robert Neville to save us.
If it can change everything, can it fix my sleep cycle or my bank balance.😂
Sleep schedule: Maybe, very low priority/long term though
Bank balance: Wellllll if you're American, using it to fix anything will actually do the opposite
I was actively binging scishow just now yippee
My dwarven brain though that R&D made my flamethrower better :(
Rock and stone brother
Drinks on me lads
If you don’t Rock and Stone, you ain’t coming home!
STONE AND ROCK! ohh, wait
Did I hear a rock and stone?
I don't get it. My fridge has had this since the 1990s!
Awesome Kurta, Niba!
This is awesome! I love science.
I like her voice
My only problem with this is HOW do you keep companies like Monsanto from screwing around and monopolizing the seed or creating damage to other seeds and plants due to their unmitigated greed? They're already doing it!
I love love love that it can help disabled people!! (I could've possibly lived w much less pain with this treatment so it's personal) but with this amount of power, it needs to be said that big companies with eugenics in mind are dangerous here. It's about helping, not hurting. ♡
Yes! They distract us with how they help. When all that knowledge and power, who knows what goes on behind closed doors.
Thanks once again, UC Berkeley!
I took a vacation to London 25 years ago. It seemed like every time I put on the news, there was a story about protests over "Frankenfoods." There were also headlines in several tabloid newspapers about Frankenfoods. Those stories left me with the impression that there was a bit of resistance to genetically modified foods in England. More recently (though still some time ago), I read an article that talked about genetically modified seeds that should have been a boon to African farmers but that those farmers were unable to plant because if they planted any of the modified crops, they would not be able to sell any of their crops to Europe. They wouldn't even be able to sell crops that weren't modified because European regulators would worry some modified crops might be accidentally mixed in with their "natural" crops. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence that GMO crops are safe, there will be people who refuse to consider that evidence because they'd rather protest. I am guessing that the Venn diagram of people who refer to GMOs as Frankenfood has a lot of overlap with the diagram of people who refuse to consider building nuclear power plants as a source of emission-free electricity.
I'm curious why they wouldn't feed their own people with the crops, seeing as they're starving?? We're over here collecting money to help them survive.. Also I'm one of the people who think Crispr is awesome and also do not want fission in my house. "Emission free electricity" I guess you could put it that way, but you're obviously being dishonest.
@@98Zai " also do not want fission in my house." Darn, I thought your living room would be an excellent location for a new nuclear power plant.
I promise I wasn't being intentionally dishonest. By emission-free, I was referring to the fact that nuclear power plants do not create any greenhouse gasses. Until we are at the point where we can put solar panels in orbit and then transmit that electricity back to Earth, solar power will not be as consistently reliable as nuclear power. Windmills only produce electricity when the wind blows, but when the blades are turning, they have a distressing tendency to kill birds.
Why was calling nuclear power emission-free dishonest? Do you mean because of radioactive releases during accidents like 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl? As I understand it, modern plant designs are much safer than the 3 Mile Island plant. Even 3M Island was a much much safer design than Chernobyl. Or are there emissions from nuclear power plants that I am not aware of?
@@michaelmcchesney6645 It's definitely emission-free, but instead of emissions it's producing something a lot more directly dangerous.
The simple solution to intermittent power production is power storage, while it's a problem we need to solve- it's not really a big enough problem to have to resort to building multi billion dollar plants that need to operate for 70 years and stifling innovation for that entire time. And then I'm not even addressing the huge issue of basically forever poison as a byproduct OR putting a very dangerous WEAPON in a dynamic world that threatens to collapse once a decade. Fission is great for space travel- and colonization though.
A GMO food is no different than the ones changed through selective breeding, the changes are just much faster. I don't understand why people hate them so much.
@@98Zai "..why they wouldn't feed their own people with the crops, seeing as they're starving??"
Weird assumption, but whatever.
Love CRISPR, and also love opening a video and seeing Niba as the host!
CRISPR reminds me of how in Unix, we would use the SED stream editor and global regular expressions to insert patches into code that could be a few versions off from the code that your patch was developed for. However, just as with SED, how selective CRISPR really is is dependent on how specific and unique the palindrome markers specified actually were. There is a significant chance of editing sequences that you don't want changed in both the genome and epigenome is still there, while having the false confidence that you're not doing so. CRISPR may be more precise than previous techniques but really that's not saying much and could lead to the false assumption that it is only making the change that you wanted. In the Unix community, it was wise to use grep and wc to count the number of times the patch was applied in the code to see if something other than the intended target was modified and though many people didn't bother doing this, with biology, I think such precautions are more warranted for.
I'm reasonably certain that they can't approve a medication without it going through real-world testing first to ensure safety on a group basis.
Since a human genome is capable of being stored in a laptop computer's memory, I'd think it should be possible to actually do the regex match and see what it changes before using anything on a patient.
@@goodfortunetoyou Except that the Bush administration passed a law that exempted GMO foods from testing on the basis of the genetically modified product consisting of the same components as the natural products. The lease from Monsanto for the use of the GMO seed also specifically prohibits the use of the produce for testing. There's an awful lot of loopholes for safety testing of genetically modified products...
@@johnwang9914 You're suggesting that modifying a tomato might make it poisonous, and no regulations exist which the government could use to regulate this.
I'm confident the FDA is going to do it's job well, and will prevent a company from selling poisonous GMOs.
I use arch btw
@@goodfortunetoyou Except that Tomatoes like all plants in the Nightshade family, does contain the Genes to produce alkaline toxins and those genes are active for poisoning the leaves and other parts of the plants. It wouldn't take much of a genetic change to trigger those toxins to be in the fruit in deadly concentration but by the laws from the Bush administration they would still be considered safe as they would have the same constituent components as a natural tomato.
Tomatoes and potatoes was the worst possible choices for your denial of GMO risks.
Love her voice!!
I’m so excited to see, once this technology is perfected, how expensive and inaccessible all these CRISPR based functions are to the mass of people dying daily.
I’m glad researchers are finding new treatments for disease and new uses of CRISPR to help humankind, but what’s the point of these technologies will only ever be accessible to the supremely wealthy? It can’t cure cancer if the people with cancer can’t afford it. It can’t improve crops if farmers can’t afford it. It’s so far out of reach, and it’s devastating to think about.
It's likely to become cheaper once it's well-established technology, especially once there's competition.
On the technology side, look at the price of DNA sequencing over time.
On the competition side: when a new medication is introduced, the company that introduced it has a temporary monopoly until the patent expires, and they can charge very high prices. Eventually (often after 20 years), the patent expires and other companies can sell generic versions at a much lower price. We don't have "generic" gene therapy yet, but maybe it will come, especially if we also find simpler methods for the gene therapy itself.
there are already people in their homes using CRISPR to jerry-rig gene therapies for things like lactose intolerance. i dont think accessibility will be a major drawback.
Why does *any* technological advancement spread throughout the whole population? If the elites were the only ones who could hoard the fancy toys, we'd all be subsistence serfs serving a tiny ultratech god class.
Imagine how much money the first person to bring cancer-fighting CRISPR to the masses will be. Is there a reason to think it's technologically impossible, or that literally every single rich person in the world will conspire to suppress it for the rest of time?
The cost for the first CRISPR based therapy is currently 2.2 million dollars. Though that will probably go down considerably with time and and further research.
@@dane1382 Do they work? The few FDA-approved gene therapies are more involved than just injecting yourself with some CRISPR. For instance, Casgevy, a gene therapy for sickle cell disease, involves extracting stem cells, modifying them with CRISPR, then killing off the patient's remaining red blood cells with chemotherapy (because they still have the gene for sickle cell disease) and infusing back the modified cells. If you just injected CRISPR, the patient would still have abnormal cells and would not be cured.
If she didnt authorize the lot of tale the car, they shouldnt be allowed to charge for "storage", especially since it was left out in the elements, where it deteriorated in the sun and rain
can some scientist out there just CRISPR the flavanoid genetic components of lettuce so it can taste like a doughnut?
Brussel sprouts
Why not just eat a donut and not exceed the recommended serving size?
Here's a better solution...rejuvenate the pancreas and other organs. Then, you can eat whatever nonsense you want without fear of excess fat gain, insulin resistance, or other damage.
I would ask for wings.
And maybe bones on the outside.
Adapting crops to climate change is good, but it leaves out pretty much all of the other plants and animals on the planet. Also let me know when CRISPR can cure male pattern baldness. Whoever masters that function will be printing money.
That's what I'm waiting for but it will probably come as an enhancement it hair plugs first. They could take out a few follicles, CRISPR them to stop them from turning off and causing baldness, clone then, then implant them as hair plugs. Most people will still just get hair moved from other parts of their head but it could work well for people with too much thinning for that to work well.
Oh, I want fluffy rice….as long as it’s safe of course.
"Forget curing disease, think bigger, like.....pie in the sky: plastic and ethanol!"
The fact that bio-plastic and bio-ethanol is above human health...that doesn't sound right to me...
There's a word for when a society places property above people, starts with f ends with m.
Thank you Niba
Well, it probably won't "change everything", but it can be useful in many ways. We're just... Still working on it. Science takes time.
And even more time when it's being inhibited by capitalism!
It will change everything though. Especially if we are talking like, humanities future. The ability for parents to “design” their kids seems very possible from what I’ve seen(not right now but in the future possibly far future), and this will be something you could classify as “change everything”.
@@lionelmessisburner7393 Ehhhh... I hope it doesn't come to that. There's some very major ethical issues with the idea. You ever heard of eugenics?
Fortunately we are not at that stage yet, and by the time we are, I hope it will be regulated.
@@cawareyoudoin7379 well that tech definitely seems to be possible. And yes I have heard of eugenics. At first it will have a lot of regulations, but eventually I think it will be freed to society. It’s a dangerous technology though I agree.
She's a very good presenter.
For organ transplants growing new organs with the patients' own DNA using stem cells seems like the holy grail. I imagine crispr will be a part of that. Curious how they edit the entire pig organ. I think it's time for a deep dive.
I’m curious about this too. Maybe editing the gametes or embryos?
Hi Niba!
CRISPR is like fusion energy at this point.
This video gives me hope for the future.
The Gene Generation was a nice dystopia.
The looping on this episode is very noticeable.
The biggest threat is social and economic. Yeah, we could make better crops. Spoiler alert: They'll be COPYRIGHTED and TRADEMARKED.
Trademarked??
Do you mean patented?
Honesty is key when talking about things like this. 🙂↕️ Thanks, Scishow, for being honest with us.
Omfg crisper!? Im so excited for this to effect me in my current lifetime that im living right this very second! Ill put it next to my fusion reactor!
One. Can crispr be used to copy the genetic sequence entirely on to another genetic object? In other words, when doing an organ transplant, can they scan the genetics of the person that needs the organ and make the organ genetically the same?
2. Using crispr, can they replace the byproduct of the bacterial? So instead of pha, can they make the bacteria produce something else that's more beneficial? Such as, can they make the bacteria produce gold or helium or hydrogen or any compounds that would be more beneficial to us
she is really pretty
I hope so. I have heard about CRISPR for years and I'm still waiting.
Won’t cure baldness 😢
Being bald is sexy AF dude embrace it don’t keep beating that dead horse mate.
Rock that sexy bald and beard look. 🥳❤️
@@TheReal_ist I can assure you nobody wants to see my patchy blonde neck beard. 😔
@@NateBro dang well I tried lol
Umm there’s something else I bet u have going for ya man don’t feel down just gotta be proud of what u got even if ain’t much. :)
@@TheReal_ist thanks dude. I really do appreciate your positivity. Losing my hair has been the first sign that I’m aging and it’s hard to see happen. Hopefully they do actually develop more treatments in the future ✌️
@@NateBro no problem man :))
Life can always get pretty depressing but just being alive in this moment in history is IMO good enough to combat the constant depression the world spits out.
While u may not grow your hair back now in the coming decades we definently will cure it. It’s a trivial problem really just about getting the costs down due to genetic engineering being a requirement.
I'm really curious how they modified the millions, if not billions, of cells in pig kidneys for those test transplants
I heared something similar for a long time, without real results. If taken seriously, however, it sounds like a multitude of disasters waiting to happen.
what about the nutriants from the modified plants? would them normaly needing rich soil now able to grow in poor soil effect and change the nutrient content of the plants?
I'll take the GMO foods other people is against! Imagine being able to GMO your food to fit your macros exactly! Heaven.
I like the idea of gmo, I just don't trust the companies pushing it. They have done some horrible things to the farmers who used their seeds. I wouldn't trust them to not screw it up big time and them wash their hands of the problems they caused.
Not just selective breeding... we also irradiated wheat and corn to force much higher rates of mutation (orders of magnitude!) / generation.
First?
Looks like it
Name checks out