TAG of the Week: Changing Genes ....
In light of our recent discussion on gene therapy and gene editing using the CRISPR, there are pros and cons to using this technology.
Choose one of the two following for your comment.
1. Discuss one pro and one con for using gene editor CRISPR
2. Discuss one pro and one con for gene doping.
Read the following links:
Gene Editing
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/harvard-mit-make-controversial-crispr-gene-editing-tool-more-powerful-040215#1
Gene Doping
http://nymag.com/next/2015/03/genetic-doping-is-the-next-frontier-of-cheating.html
1. With advancement in technology, the CRISPR gene editing technique can prevent diseases from progressing into fatal ones, an important pro. It allows a mechanism to create therapeutic treatments and bring better quality of life for individuals.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there are still some cons for this method. Although science has started to become more concerned with quality and providing newer and improved technology to solve problems such as diseases, the safety of CRISPR gene editing is a major con. Because it's easier and quicker to use this model, precision is not always accurate. The chance that this technique accidentally cuts a DNA sequence that it did not intend to is possible. With this mistake, people's lives are in serious risk concerning their health. Even the slightest possibility that something can go wrong is not a good thing.
2.Gene doping allows people with muscular disorders repair their muscles and be able to finally perform everyday functions well again, a very important pro. It also speeds up the healing process for muscular recovery. A con for gene doping is the potential for athletes to use this in an unfair way, giving them an edge to their performance. Just by using this once, the research shows that it stays in their body for a long period of time, such as 10 years. This means that athletes can cheat for a longer period of time.
Hi Aniqa,
DeleteDo you think that gene doping is a way to cheat? Or could it also be seen as a way to treat one's body to ensure he or she stays in good shape? If not every athlete goes through gene doping, I could see the disadvantage, but athletes put their bodies through rigorous training and might be able to benefit from gene doping in order to recover and not experience long-term negative health effects from their athleticism.
I think gene doping should never be used in sport. It is a very expensive procedure and thus would only be averrable to the wealthiest sportsmen and women. Thereby creating a completely unfair system that would result in stratification of the rich athletes performing well and the poor athletes not being able to perform at such a level. Sport should be about the athlete natural talent and skills alone, no enhancement should be permitted.
DeleteAniqa,
DeleteI agree with your con on gene doping. This would definitely be unethical because some athletes would be at a disadvantage. If people could alter their muscles, then someone would definitely abuse this, especially since it would be so readily available and it wouldn't ever harm your genetic makeup. There would probably be people too who can't even get access to gene doping, so they would be at a disadvantage. I think if gene doping were to occur, there would need to be strict regulations on it or make it so that everyone is required or banned from getting it when competing.
Aniqua;
DeleteYour point about athletes is something I've never considered! You say this might lead to inequality among players but what is colleges, leagues or team managers start pushing for their players to take part? How would we track this within professional sports? Its not as simple as steroids that are detectable with urine/blood tests. This is very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing up this point of view!
The most cited con for steroid doping is the detrimental effect to the users’ long term health. However, a pro of genetic doping is the effects could last for years and would make the user more responsive to exercise and training as well as injury repair without known health risks. It can also have positive health impacts in areas like treating muscular diseases. With most new developments, there’s a potential for them to be misused. A con of genetic doping is it would give an unfair advantage in physical activities to those with the money to afford to do it. This could make it so only the wealthy could compete competitively in sports.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about being able to afford genetic doping in the athletic world. Like many other medical treatments, doping comes with a price. If doping were to be allowed in the athletic world (although I don't think it would be in cases like the Olympics, maybe just at the professional sports level) only those who would be able to afford it would reap the benefits of the technology.
DeleteNumber 2: Discuss one pro and one con for gene doping
ReplyDeletePros:
Genetic doping has a number of positive effects on one’s body. For athletes, genetic doping could be safely applied for professional performances instead of unsafely and illegally injecting themselves. Because athletes already often suffer from injuries, gene doping could be a great way they could recover quicker and return to their sport. This is not only beneficial for athletes. This offers those with muscular disorders a new way to repair their muscles and recover to live a normal, healthy life.
Cons:
I think that if legalized for use in athletes, it would become abused. All athletes would be using gene doping to enhance their abilities. I don’t see the difference in allowing this but not steroids. The world of sports would pretty much be corrupt. Athletes may also lose respect for using this method because it can be looked at as a form of cheating. I was originally thought of to help people who are sick and I think it might become somewhat immoral if people just start using it for their personal gains. I think it just perpetuates a never-ending overindulgence of drug use in society. Another large factor that is a con is that there has been minimal testing regarding how the body can be affected by this genetic manipulation. So people can be putting themselves in danger.
Selam, I like how you tied genetic doping with steroid use because they are more or less similar in regards to abuse towards athletic performance. Gene doping could open a Pandora's box of corruption in the athlete community, but what's even worse than steroids is the fact that there is not an efficient way to test for it (just yet). And although I agree with Jordan on limiting gene doping to just treatment or therapy, it would be hard to differentiate those athletes from regular athletes due to the long term side effects.
DeleteI too agree with your con. By letting this become legalized it could open the pathway for other drugs to become legalized in terms of athletics. Even with the use of gene doping, it could easily become abused just as you pointed out. Also I too agree that there has not been enough testing for this drug so it could be very harmful to the athletes that are using it.
DeleteI agree with the fact that there is minimal testing done on doping. I think there needs to be a lot more testing done before people just start injecting themselves with it to become this sort of super human. I think that it's a good idea but there are too many cons associated with it and that it would only cause chaos especially in the sports industry.
ReplyDelete1.CRISPR Gene
ReplyDeletePro: CRISPR has the potential to become a great tool in the future involving treating diseases at the genetic level. Some diseases are not caused by our environment and instead are caused by specific genes. CRISPR can be used to disable or alter specific genes by cutting the old sequence out and putting in a new one that either corrects or changes the outcome. For example, if you had a gene that coded for liver disease, then CRISPR can be used to cut those genes and replace them or alter them so that the person does not end up getting liver disease. This is a very powerful tool that can bring forth an era devoted to genomics in finding the answers to prevent and treat diseases.
Con: One big problem with CRISPR is that it can be used in ways that are not helpful in the field of medicine and can be used to enhance personal qualities of a person such as intelligence or physical appearance. This can cause ethical issues and goes against the whole idea that children are born naturally and are born the way God made them. Altering these genes can also cause discrimination. The purpose of CRISPR is to treat diseases not make people look more beautiful or smarter.
2. Genetic Doping
Pro: Genetic Doping was created to serve a purpose to help those with muscular disorders. Scientists create a synthetic gene that secretes a specific protein, one that promotes muscle growth and repair. This can be brought into the muscle using a virus and once it reaches the designated muscle it turns on and since the muscle is getting access to more of the protein, the damaged muscle regains back some function and growth. This can be really help improve the lives of people with muscular disorders who spend a lot of their life in pain and struggle to walk and do basic activities everyday.
Con: Even though this is beneficial to those with muscular damage, this technique can be used to enhance muscles in normal people, thus allowing normal people to be able to train and exercise more often and have a quicker recovery time after an injury, which could leading to cheating in the field of sports. People already use other ways to cheat to enhance their athletic ability but this way the effect would be long term and can’t be detected with a blood test once the virus leaves the bloodstream after a few months. This is not the reason the Genetic Doping was creating and sports are about competitions that should be fair, no one should be cheating in order to win.
Samantha;
DeleteI like your point regarding improving intelligence beyond what children are naturally born with. You would probably agree that improving the intelligence of children to normal threshold would be a good application of this gene. But what about raising the intelligence level of humans in general? What if one generation were to all improve their intelligence and pass this to their kids who pass this to their kids. Wouldn't this allow us to progress as a race at a faster rate? What are peoples thoughts? Too 1984?
I really like your example about how BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be altered so that people with those diseases can potentially be prevented from ever getting breast cancer that could potentially kill them or cause that person a lot of pain. I also really like how you talk about how this gene editing can benefit children by altering the gene in the critical period of early intervention, which can significantly improve the quality of life for those children, which I never thought about. I also really like your example about how gene doping can be used to help soldiers who had severe wounds from war. Don't forget though that gene doping can also be used to help people with muscular disorders such as MD. I completely agree with you the gene doping can be dangerous for people without muscular damage and could negatively impact their health since gene doping is very new.
ReplyDelete1. A pro of gene editing using CRISPR is that it is already being studied now and has proven effects in animals at reducing cholesterol levels, and eventually limiting heart disease. While the process is very far from human clinical trials, current research is showing how effective it can be in animals. One con of gene editing using CRISPR is that it may detect similar RNA segments, but not ones exactly the same as the guide RNA. This process could have serious health effects and can even be deadly.
ReplyDelete2. Gene doping is beneficial for treating muscular disorders through the introduction of a gene by a virus that repairs a specific damaged gene. This process doesn’t alter the person’s genome and can be extremely effective. However, a con of gene doping is a misuse or overuse of the process which is most likely to be done by athletes, similar to using steroids, to enhance their performance.
As both gene editing and gene doping have amazing benefits but also cons that are important to take into consideration, do you think it would be possible to regulate their use? So if an athlete who doesn't really need gene doping tries to have it done to give them an advantage over others, there could be some sort of test or just someone to say that they don't really need it? And the same with CRISPR, no allowing people to use the technique for "designer babies" and only for genetic and chronic diseases? I feel that this would be the best way to put these techniques to use, so that the people that truly need them can have them, while those who would abuse their powers can't. But then, who would determine whether or not an individual needs gene doping or gene editing?
DeleteHi Ali,
ReplyDeleteDo you think it would be possible to regulate gene doping and ensure that a prescription for an actual disorder is necessary in order to have this treatment? Also, could athletes potentially argue that their muscles have so much damage from overuse that the treatment is necessary for them to heal?
Pros of Gene Doping: I think one of the pros of gene doping is that it can be used to treat varying genetic conditions and disorders. Muscle dystrophy for example, is a genetic mutation that causes the weakening of the musculoskeletal system and reduces locomotion. Through gene doping we will be able to replace the mutated gene with a healthy one and thus greatly improve the lives of its sufferers.
ReplyDeleteCons of Gene Doping: One of the cons of gene doping is that it greatly devalues the professional sport experience. I think athletes should and are supposed to compete using their natural skills and talent. They should not be any sorts of enhancement allowed. And because these gene doping procedures are very expensive, it would only be available to the wealthy and thus creating an unfair system whereby only the rich will succeed.
After reading “Genetic Doping is the Next Frontier of Cheating in Sports”, there are definitely pros and cons that are associated with gene doping. A ‘pro’ is the origin of gene doping where it was a means to address and potentially treat muscular disorders. The method is the following: “A synthetic gene is engineered to secrete a specific protein, one that's normally involved in muscle growth and repair. That gene is delivered by an otherwise harmless virus, and when it reaches the cell it's designed to work with, it "turns on." With access to more of the protein than would normally be produced, the damaged muscle is enhanced.” Furthermore, the technique would not alter a person’s genetic makeup, and research has found that its effects are long term and last for years. This science could revolutionize treatment for certain muscular disorders, treatment for post-injury care, and the basic healing process itself. However, with these ‘pros’ come the ‘cons’ that can be seen if people were to abuse the science of gene doping and use it for personal gain in sports performance. It would skew the lines of what your ‘natural’ genetic abilities are compared with ‘enhanced performance’, especially if athletes were to use it to help treat their injuries (remember the long term affects of the gene). Athletes’ mentality behind training could change as well and could have the potential to depend too much on gene doping rather than good ole ‘practice makes perfect’. The ‘cons’ behind genetic doping is a prime example of abusing the power behind science and knowledge, even though the initial intention was for good.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. With such amazing athletes in the world, it is scary to think that everyone is only concerned about getting better and better. I fear that one day humans will literally destroy themselves.This technology can be used for great things, so why do people need to find ways to abuse it and use it on unnecessary things like cutting a second off of their mile time. I think if this were to be legalized it would have to be highly regulated to prevent it from being misused.
DeleteGene-doping pro and con
ReplyDeletePro: If the process of turning on the synthetic gene when it comes in contact with a virus could help those with muscle disorders, I strongly agree that this technology should be developed. Muscular disorders are devastating and cause great distress and impairment in those they affect. Muscular dystrophy, for example, is a genetic disorder that causes a defect in muscle proteins, causing weakness, fatigue, and tissue death. With the help of gene-doping, the specific protein secreted by a synthetic gene would enhance the weakened muscle’s ability.I believe that gene-doping could alleviate the pain of those who suffer from such disorders without altering their genetic makeup.
Con: In addition to providing athletes with a way to cheat in a competition, gene-doping would not prevent offspring of those with MD from inheriting the disorder. It does not alter genetic makeup, which is beneficial to people who do not have a genetic muscular disorder. However, gene-doping provides relief with those who already have MD but does not prevent the onset in later generations.
Sarah, your point about gene-doping and how it can aid an athlete’s recovery in interesting to me. I focused on the negative aspect of gene-doping in terms of athlete’s abusing it’s ability to strengthen muscles, but I did not think of the moral positive effects an athlete could receive from using this therapy when injured.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the unknown long term effects of these modifications is very concerning. There is no way to know what sort of repercussions these modifications have. And these repercussions could continue for generations and cause problems for all future family members.
ReplyDelete2. Discuss one Pro and one Con for Gene Doping
ReplyDeleteA Pro for gene doping is that it is suppose to help people with actual disorders. For people with muscular disorders it can help repair muscles. It requires a harmless virus, and can greatly improve muscle growth and function. This would be very helpful for people with muscular dystrophy. A lot of people could potentially be helped with gene doping. The process also does not alter the person’s original genome!
A Con for gene doping is the misuse of it for advancing in athletics. Enhancing muscles in athletes will undoubtedly become popular with gene doping even though it really isn’t ethical. It gives people an unfair advantage and quicker recovery times. Sports would no longer be fair for those who do not use gene doping. People will not only misuse gene doping, but they will also overuse it for the wrong reasons.
Ann,
DeleteI totally agree with your point about gene doping being beneficial for people with serious disease- should we limit the benefits that these people can gain just because some people are misusing treatment? I think that the benefits that can be gained in beating disease outweigh the problems the sports industry will suffer due to athletes misusing gene doping.
i agree with you and your cons for gene doping! I didn't think of it that way, but yes athletes would definitely feel pressured to gene doping if their competitors! I also think that it would be cheating since those who didnt gene dope would be so disadvantaged! And it is also true that we don't know about how it might affect the body - they only tested on animals so far. I didnt realize that this could mean that it might have detrimental for us.
ReplyDeleteDiscuss one pro and one con for using gene editor CRISPR:
ReplyDeleteOne advantage of the CRISPR gene editor is its potential to help fight many diseases. If the gene editor is successful, it can be used to increase outcomes for any disease that has a genetic influence, such as cancers. Another advantage is that gene editing gets right at the source of the problem with some diseases instead of treating the proteins made and resulting phenotype or condition. By treating the DNA, researchers are fixing the problem gene or mutation at its core, not trying to fix RNA, protein, cells, or tissue farther down the road of development.
One problem with CRISPR is the fact that while it can cut DNA in advantageous ways to shut off problem genes or mutations, it also has the potential to backfire and turn off healthy genes as well, or create problems. Are the benefits of CRISPR worth the potential risks of creating new genetic problems? Also there is the ethical problem of the potential to create designer babies through mechanisms such as CRISPR, and that restrictions need to be made on technology of this nature to ensure it is only used for safe, beneficial purposes.
You provided solid and strong points about the potential cons of utilizing the CRISPR gene editor. Although the results have been fairly successful in laboratory animals, the possibility exists that it may backfire and shut off our healthy genes and create problems never experienced before. I think that there are potential and life-saving benefits of the CRISPR gene editor; however, it will be a while before it is effective and safe to be used on the human population.
Delete2: Discuss one pro and one con for gene doping.
ReplyDeleteOne pro of gene doping is that a damaged muscle of any sort for an athlete may be enhanced with the help of the gene that gives more access to proteins, without ever changing the person's genetic makeup. Any muscle would be able to undergo gene doping essentially since they would all be responsive. The effects last a long time as well, which could lead to permanent enhancement of the muscles in athletes, especially if they get injured.
A con of gene doping is that the immune system would need to be put to an end, which is dangerous because that is what fights off disease and infections in a person's body. Especially since this hasn't even been tested in humans, there could a potential threat if this were to take place. Ethical issues would also take place because with these enhancements, athletes could potentially abuse gene doping to their advantage. Other athletes may not even have access to gene doping, which would have them at a loss in the long run.
I agree with the point you made that though gene doping would help enhance an athlete’s muscle, it would not change his or her genetic makeup, which I believe is very important to consider when it comes to using alternative technologies within the human body. I also believe that your point about ethical issues that would arise is valid, because often times when information and resources are made accessible to the public, they are easily misused.
DeleteI agree with the point that gene doping allows muscles to repair, but what if the doping makes it quick, but not very safe. As in once it heals, it could be more prone to spraining again? I actually really like your point about the con because I didn't think about how people would be affected in the long run with a weakened immune system. An immune system that weak can lead to more diseases and that's a huge public health crisis.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gene editing has great potential, but I would be scared that it would be overused and detrimental. If someone has the BRCA1 mutation, for example, I would understand why they might try gene editing since their likelihood of developing breast cancer is so high. But, if someone had a less serious gene like early graying of hair (kind of a ridiculous example I know) then I don't think it would be right to alter their genes for superficial reasons like these. I fear that designer babies and designer people will become reality with this technology and control over nature.
ReplyDeleteDiscuss one pro and one con for gene doping:
ReplyDeleteOne pro of genetic doping is that the process could help benefit “normal muscle,” by making them more responsive to exercise and being able to repair themselves after being injured. A new type of technique that scientists hope to develop allows genes to be delivered to the body intravenously, which could cause a beneficial change in muscle performance for many athletes, enhancing the effect on their muscles and their rebound time to recover from injuries that they may be prone to.
One con of genetic doping, on the other hand, is that this new type of technique would require the athlete’s immune system to be suppressed. This means that the process could potentially be dangerous to one’s body, as the body would not be able to fight off what it recognizes as a virus, so it will definitely take time to perfect this technique and consider the pros and cons of further developing it.
Neha,
DeleteI agree that a benefit of genetic doping would be to help “normal muscle” repair itself faster and respond better to exercise. This sounds exactly what it is – giving a disadvantage to those who don’t use genetic doping compared to those who do, all based on unnatural responses of human muscle. In a sense, this is the same thing as using illegal drugs in the athletic world, such as steroids. To me, “normal muscle” is indicative of muscle within a healthy, typical individual or athlete. Therefore, I don’t think genetic doping should be used for an increased performance of a typical person, but rather for those who may have diseases or disorders that affect the musculoskeletal system. I personally believe that genetic doping is simply a fancy term for cheating if in context of the athletic world.
One pro of gene doping is what it was actually invented for- repairing muscles that need to be repaired. This could be helpful for patients with muscular dystrophy or for people with very serious muscle damage or tears. The gene inserted would produce a protein that makes the muscle much more responsive to rehabilitation training. I think this technology could be used by athletes following a serious injury, but once they are back to where they started, they should no longer be allowed to enhance their bodies like this.
ReplyDeleteOne con of gene doping is if this happens. If athletes continuously try to enhance their performance this way, they will begin to rely on this too much and not the old natural way. It is also unfair that certain athletes will have access to this (depending on their wealth and location) so comparing professional athletes with different backgrounds in gene doping would be extremely unfair and impossible. Another concern is that athletes are constantly looking for ways to get better and better, but why? There are already amazing athletes in the world, why does everyone need to be better and better at everything? People are going to become so strong, fast, and competitive, that I fear there will be negative consequences.
I never considered using gene doping on athletes with serious injuries. I like how this could be used to get the athletes back to their original condition. I think you make a good point in saying that this can go too far if athletes continue to use gene doping once their injuries have been resolved. I also believe that gene doping will create an unattainable standard in professional athletes who already exceed normal standards of athletic capability.
DeleteOne pro of gene doping is that it help to screen for and treat muscular disorders such as MS. The synthetic gene that gene doping produces is engineered to secrete a specific protein, does no harm to the body, and instead improves damaged muscle tissue. Gene doping speeds up muscle's healing time, allowing for faster recovery times from injuries, something that could greatly benefit injured soldiers or athletes.
ReplyDeleteOne major con of gene doping is the ethical principle behind it. Athletes may feel pressured to gene dope in order to increase their athletic abilities, or to give them a competitive edge against their competitors. This may cause them to resort to illegal, unnecessary gene doping, which would be considered cheating in the professional sports world. Another major con of gene doping is the fact that we are currently unaware of its long term effects, which may include the modification of certain genes that could potentially be very dangerous to our health and wellbeing.
Alex,
DeleteYou brought up a really good point about athletes feeling pressured to dope. While some athletes may seek out genetic doping to get a competitive edge over other athletes, many others may feel like they will be forced to. Similar to steroids, it is difficult to compete if most athletes around you are illegally enhancing their performance, and resorting to the same techniques is the only way to keep you in the game. Hopefully scientists will develop effective testing for gene doping before it becomes mainstream.
1. Discuss one pro and one con for using gene editor CRISPR
ReplyDeleteThe CRISPR gene editor has already been shown to be effective in making accurate changes in DNA in the tested lab animals. The main pro for the CRISPR is that is may potentially be able to alter or disable the genes in our cells to prevent genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis. According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation: 1 in 29 Caucasian Americans, 1 in 46 Hispanic-Americans, 1 in 65 African Americans, and 1 in 90 Asian Americans are carriers for CF. If we are able to identify these individuals who carry the mutated CF gene or babies diagnosed with CF, then we are able to alter the gene and have our future children live longer. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation goes on to state that the average age of living for patients with CF is mid-forty's. There are various other genetic disorders such as Tay-sachs, Parkinson's, SCIDs, etc... that geneticists could target the mutated genes and offer therapeutic interventions to provide a normal life for these individuals. However, the main con demonstrated in World War II is that individuals, such as Hitler, may seek to create the "Master" race or human. Hitler believed the "Master" Aryan race had blonde hair, blue eyes, fair white skin, and was tall. The article mentioned how the CRISPR gene editor could enhance intelligence and physical appearance by targeting the sperm, eggs, and embryos of individuals. Although the inventor and group of scientists who created this technology has banned the use of the CRISPR gene editor to make any modifications to human potential, there is always the possibility of terrorists or criminals taking the gene editor for selfish benefits. I do believe that the CRISPR gene editor will be able to cure genetic diseases and that it will enhance society as a whole, I do think that it must be heavily regulated.
Genetic editing could change the face of science and treatment in the future. It can be used to cure diseases or mitigate their effects. CRISPR, a genetic editing tool, is currently being used in clinical trials to determine its success and other effects. An advantage of CRISPR is that it is faster and easier than past genome editing processes. Scientists have found a small enough enzyme to deliver the edited genes to specific cells. One con that is not mentioned in the articles is the effects of genetic editing on lifestyle. If, in fact, genetic editing does become available for public use to treat diseases such as heart disease and high cholesterol, will it affect our lifestyle? It may be that if people know they can simply edit their genes if they develop a disease, they may not work as hard to prevent it. We may be more inclined to partake in unhealthy eating and physical inactivity when we can easily reverse the effects of our actions if necessary.
ReplyDeleteI did not consider the effects genetic editing would have on lifestyle but that is a very logical point. If there is an easy way to alter chronic disease then what would be the motivation to exercise. I also think that if this were to lead to a lack/reduction of exercise in the population other aspects of human health might be affected such as the effects of lack of exercise on immune system function or brain functioning. This is a very interesting observation.
DeleteThe CRISPR gene has both its advantages and disadvantages when it comes to its furthered research by Harvard. The pros related to the continued research of this gene are the benefits that come from it. The positive health effects it could have on disease treatment is the main reason to continue the research. The disease treatment that comes with this gene editing could potentially have adverse effects. Gene editing can be ethically questionable when it comes to editing genes beyond the ones that are affected by a disease. This type of editing promotes the negative aspect of the research Harvard is conducting. Genetic doping is also a controversial topic in gene research that could go too far in its reach. Genetic doping when not in the form of athletic enhancement is beneficial especially to people with disorders that affect the muscles. Making life easier for people with muscular disorders is one of the pros associated with genetic doping. This becomes a problem when genetic doping is used to enhance athletes performance. This form of genetic doping creates an unfair advantage is athletic competitions and creates an unattainable standard for athletes who don't participate in this doping. While genetic research is beneficial to many adverse health effects, it becomes an issue when the research is taken too far and is used in a negative way.
ReplyDeletei also agree that there are a lot of ethical issues that come up with research in genetics. Misuse is always a concern and can produce too many negative impacts for something that was originally suppose to be so beneficial for those who would use it properly - to enhance health. CRISPR can help so many if used as a disease treatment
DeleteWhen first considering the new technology of gene doping, it sheds light on many alarming possibilities. Some downsides to this technique would include the cheating aspect that would be incorporated into athletics. It has been noted that the only way to test if an individual has undergone gene doping is to take a muscle biopsy. Although this type of testing is possible, it is not ideal. For sports that participate in the NCAA or even as high as the Olympics, they rely on drug tests that involve urine or hair samples. Gene doping can be detected in a urine sample, however the effects are not long lasting so the individual would have to be tested within a few months of receiving the technology. Another problem with this advancement is the way it is administered. DeLessio mentions that in order to inject the new gene into an individual they would need to use a harmless virus. This type of technique has been used for many therapies; however it is difficult to find these types of viruses, therefore limiting the use of this technology.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are many negative aspects and stigmas attached to gene doping, it also has the potential to change the lives of many individuals who are suffering from muscular diseases. Since this therapy allows for scientists to turn on specific genes that create more muscle, individuals who have muscular dystrophy, ALS or even Parkinson’s disease may have the chance to hinder or reduce their symptoms by the use of this enhancement. Not only can this be used to treat many diseases, but it can significantly aid in the recovery from injuries. Although it is not ideal to use this in the athletic setting, if an individual is severely injured, this type of treatment could help them to regain their ability to play months before they normally would. Overall I do think this type of technology should be explored and tested further for the use in the medical field; however I do not think it should be allowed in athletics.
I think it is very interesting that you bring up the idea that this would interfere with ones athletic abilities. If this technology were allowed within athletic performance, there would be no baseline to measure one's true talent without the use of enhancements. The only way to make this enhancement fair would be to ensure all athletes competing received gene doping. I do think either way that gene doping would take away from the skill and determination athletes must have in order to compete. Instead of focusing on who has more talent, it would be about who has had more gene doping treatments.
ReplyDeletePro of Gene Doping:
ReplyDeleteThough doping in general is not generally associated with having a "pro" or positive benefit, gene doping does have several beneficial outcomes. The first is that gene doping helps muscles repair at a rate faster and longer than the normal repairing process. Additionally gene doping has a long lasting effect on the individual treated so a patient whose muscles are doped would not require long term care to maintain their muscle repair.
Con of Gene Doping:
The con of gene doping, especially in the case of athletes is that there is an unfair playing field. Even if all athletes were to partake in the gene doping some would end up responding better to the modification than others. As a result of this some athletes would perform at better rates, which in some ways strips the prestige out of what sportsmanship is all about. Rather than winning on pure talent, the doping would be accredited. Additionally, though gene doping has not currently been linked to changes in the genome it is possible that mutations might cause such changes later on in the future. If so, multiple generation could be affected by this gene doping.
Hi Danielle,
DeleteInteresting point you make about disadvantages of gene doping in a competitive athletic setting even if all were to partake in the act. Each individual's body does react differently to substances. In terms of athleticism, there is the fine line of enhancement as a branch of ability that was already there, and newly created ability. I am also in agreement that its dispute in competitive sports should not be a determinate to the availability of this technology to the public.
There are many potential advantages to being able to alter the cells in our bodies, and one of them is of course the potential to eradicate diseases. However an even greater accomplishment that could be right around the corner is the possibility of extending our life spans through genetical modifications. Once the genetics of aging are more widely understood, it may be possible to slow down or even halt that process. This type of genetic engineering could be revolutionary, however the consequences of having these genetic solutions available could also be very serious.
ReplyDeleteNot only can these procedures be fairly risky to an individual's health, social repercussions would be inevitable. The ethics of human genetic engineering have been highly debated since this technology was first proved possible, and the issue lies in a slippery slope towards a eugenic future. With this technology, engineering babies with genes for "desirable traits" could become a norm someday, even if not in our own lifetimes.
I personally visualize gene doping as a much less invasive form of genetic modification and it is extremely exciting to think of the ways we could improve our bodies to advance our physical achievements (increase muscle mass in athletes) or medical treatments (faster muscle repair for people with muscle disorders). The main issue with gene doping is that even though it is in fact illegal (and a major health hazard), it is currently undetectable through blood tests. So although it has been banned by the International Olympic Committee since 2003, cheating in competitive settings will be a major issue if doping becomes available to the general public. Although these advancements can be a valuable use of genetic engineering to promote health, society would have to decide how it uses this technology and that is a scary thought. Governments can try to ensure genetic engineering does not lead to the abuse of human rights, whether it be in laboratories or private clinics, but the world of sports for instance would still be undeniably corrupted.
I think you are definitely right about the abuse of genetic doping by athletes hindering advancements in a more clinical settings (such as for patients with muscular disorders). Unfortunately, it might be inevitable for financial incentives to play into this issue and which group of individuals do you think will have the resources to access this technology first, especially considering the role sports play today in both the entertainment business and our lives in general. And within the competitive sports industry as you mentioned, there will also be a huge disparity on an international level by creating an unfair advantage for athletes representing developed countries. As for your question on the comparison to Lypo and Botox, I am sure these two procedures were also debated when they were first introduced to the general public. So who knows what stance people will take on genetic doping or even genetic editing one day?
ReplyDeleteA pro of gene doping is its promise in the field of physical therapy, where it could help remedy any disability an individual might have due to muscle damage. This is important for people with jobs that require them to be physically fit and could really benefit patients with muscle injuries. Furthermore, Athletes who injure themselves could be brought back into the game much quicker and more efficiently.
ReplyDeleteA con is that the power of gene doping could easily be abused, especially in athletics. If gene doping becomes a norm in athletics, this could corrupt the whole system, as all athletes would either be cheating with the illegal drugs or would fall behind. Gene doping in sports can be abused similarly to the way steroids is abused in sports, and it adds to the culture of drug use in today’s society
You make a really good point that while gene doping could be beneficial in treating muscle damage, but could also be abused like steroids currently are. Gene doping could create a whole new set of problems in athletics, and could be even more difficult to detect than steroids.
DeleteSamantha, I agree with you that there are definitely more benefits to genetic doping than there are negative consequences. As long as it is carefully regulated and athletes are carefully tested, much as they are with the use of steroids, then the fear of cheating with this method in athletics should not stop its use in the medical field.
ReplyDeleteHaving the capability to edit genes is something that would be extremely beneficial in the treatment of certain diseases. This can prevent diseases that are often extremely debilitating from progressing, and improve the overall quality of life, and prevent these diseases from becoming fatal. This would be especially helpful in treating diseases of genetic origin, such as Cystic Fibrosis. Having the ability to edit or disable these genes would allow the patient to lead a normal life instead of one defined by their disease.
ReplyDeleteWhile gene editing could be very effective in treating certain diseases, this type of treatment is still very new. If CRISPR is not capable of targeting only specific genes, it could potentially disable genes that are healthy and not causing the disease. This could result in serious negative health effects, causing more problems for the patient instead of treating existing issues.
Pro of the gene editor CRISPR: As scientists look for innovative new approaches for treating complicated diseases, making small alterations to patients' genetic makeup seems to be an effective and likely avenue. The gene editor CRISPR could potentially allow scientists to change precise segments of DNA in all of a patient's cells so that he or she no longer expresses the disease symptoms. The CRISPR gene editor theoretically provides a solution to the question of how scientists are to access the genetic material of all of a patient's cells that are responsible for expressing the disease of interest. Using CRISPR, scientists can simply extract a patient's stem cells, conduct some alterations to the genotype, then reinsert those stem cells in such a way that their genetic material is propagated and expressed in all cells and the disease is no longer expressed. Alternative mechanisms involve administering the altered DNA to a patient's genome using disabled viruses. Whatever the mechanism, CRISPR could potentially be used to change peoples' genetic makeup in such a way that they no longer suffer from hard to treat diseases like cardiovascular disease.
ReplyDeleteCon of gene editor CRISPR: CRISPR gene editing is still being developed and is nowhere near ready to be used on humans. This of course implies that there may be numerous issues with the process that need to be further researched and worked out. While surely the gene editor and the process in which it is used will be improved, simply improving the process will not leave us without problems. One major problem is that changing a specific DNA sequence to correct for a certain pheotypic issue may cause unintended consequences. We tend to think in terms of effects arising directly from our actions in a very linear relationship. Yet the body and the genome works as a system with many intricate parts and we cannot always see how things fit together. In changing one gene to prevent a disease, we may inadvertently compromise immunity to another disorder or compromise some other beneficial function that the altered gene coded for initially without our knowing.
Hey Brian,
ReplyDeleteI like your insight into the potential benefits of CRISPR for our healthcare system. I agree that we could save tons of money and eliminate tons of treatments through altering patients' genotypes so that they no longer express chronic, debilitating diseases like diabetes or heart disease. It reminds me of that Ted Talk we watched awhile back where the speaker remarked that current cancer treatments will look like bloodletting in 10 years at the rate genetic research is moving. That said, if or when new treatments will be developed to change our genes remains uncertain. They sounds great in their potential to make us immune to diseases, but I'd imagine treatments to change DNA will be extremely costly, at least at first, and maybe out of reach for most people. Also, given the ethical issues you bring up, I would expect a great deal of opposition to any sort of gene altering therapy. If they were to allow some but not all therapies, one has to wonder where the legal lines would be drawn. Maybe only certain medical conditions would warrant changing DNA. Maybe people would have to be a certain age to have their genome changed. Of course many rights issues would come up and one can imagine the ensuing legal battles. I also have to wonder how patient doctor relationships will change if instead of long term medication regimens doctors prescribe one-time genetic alteration therapies. It will be interesting to see how this all progresses in the future.
Gene doping requires using a virus in order to introduce synthetic DNA for secretion of a protein that is involved in muscle growth and repair. I think that the main pro for the use of genetic doping is to help repair damaged muscles in individuals who have muscular diseases. This would allow these affected individuals to have the opportunity to repair their muscles more quickly. In addition to this, as mentioned in the article, the monkeys haven’t seen the induced changes decline in the past 15 years which would indicate that these results could be beneficial for an extended period of time. While there are benefits to gene doping, there are negative side effects as well. This would include access to genetic doping especially its use in sports and how fair it would be. If genetic doping became acceptable in sports, then it would raise the question of the accessibility of genetic doping resources and how this would change the fairness of competition, especially in comparison of different countries (developed vs. developing). In addition to this, if the resources used for genetic doping were used primarily for athletes’ benefits, then there’s the possibility that it would limit the resource access to those individuals that need it (such as those with muscular disorders).
ReplyDeleteHi Jen,
DeleteI see your point about being sure to think about who will have access to gene doping in regards to developed vs non-developed countries. The developed countries would be more likely to take advantage of it which would lead to unfair results. It is also true that the most important purpose for using this method could be overlooked; helping those that have a muscle disorder. There should be careful regulation placed in order to avoid the misuse of gene doping.
Hi Jen,
DeleteI agree with Claribel in that you bring up a very important point about the issue of access to gene doping in terms of developed vs. under-developed countries. If developed countries had better access to this performance enhancing method, it would create an un-even playing field when it came time to compete in world events, like the Olympics or World Cup. Therefore, I think it would be particularly important to screen/test for certain gene doping markers before athletes from all over the globe compete on a world stage. If athletes are not put under close scrutiny for all forms of doping, especially genetic, it takes the integrity out of these sporting events.
One pro of the CRISPR gene editing tool is that it has great potential to make specific changes in a persons DNA to help avoid or treat a range of different diseases. This tool could potentially target things from gene related disorders to genes that interact with the environment to cause the emergence of chronic diseases. In cases like chronic disease it could help battle the high rates of chronic disease we have in the US and help make our country's population healthier. One con of the CRISPR gene editing tool is that it isn't 100% accurate 100% of the time. The article provided by Professor Chan states that the RNA guiding molecule used in the CRISPR tool can lead to tool to the target areas in the DNA, but also to areas that are similar to the target area (areas that have a similar identity to the RNA matching strand but not identical to the RNA matching strand). In cases where the DNA is cut or altered in the wrong place there could be serious known or unknown consequences on the person's health. Unintentional changes in one part of the genome could also possibly affect other parts of the genome in unknown ways.
ReplyDeleteHi Natalia,
DeleteI believe that the cons outweighs the pros in this case. It is scary to think about how this tool could end up making the person using it feel worse or sicker. It could even create new mutations that have a lot more severe consequences. Maybe this tool should only be used in very serious diseases where there are no others options. It would be good to know what percentage of the time it is and isn't accurate to get a better sense of the consequences.
Hi Claribel,
DeleteI definitely see where you’re coming from in saying that this method should only be used for very serious diseases. I tend to agree with this approach, at least until the technology is better understood (and cheaper!). For example, I don’t think you should necessarily use this method to lower cholesterol levels in the blood when simply changing a person’s diet and exercise levels is a far cheaper and less labor-intensive approach, even if it does decrease one’s likelihood of developing heart disease. However, in the case of, say, cancer, I’d likely champion it in conjunction with chemotherapy and/or radiation. I’m also interested in knowing what you think an appropriate percentage of accurateness would be in order to use the CRISPR technology. Anything at or under 50% would be essentially as good as flipping a coin, but it is still a 50-50 chance of improvement. Maybe 60% accurateness would be worth the risk? Though I suppose it depends on how important that “similar” base sequence is, and how severe the effects of altering it would be.
I think that your thoughts about allowing athletes to make come backs is nice. Using gene doping could allow people to have second chances whether that's in a career or a second chance to experience a life they never could because of a disorder or disease. On the other hand, I don't think that the possible abuse by athletes would make it harder for people who actually need the therapy to get it. I think that if medical professionals see that there is a clear need for it that could enhance a person's quality of life from worse to better (not from healthy to even better) that they wouldn't restrict it from those people.
ReplyDeleteOne pro of the CRISPR method is that it is faster and easier to use than other gene-editing techniques. One con of the CRISPR method is that it can be inaccurate and cut DNA that was not the intended target if it has a similar sequence. There is no way to know the consequences of these inaccuracies until they have occurred and too late to alter. The results can be deadly.
ReplyDeleteOne pro to gene doping is that it can help damaged muscle recovery without altering a person’s genetic makeup. One con of gene doping is that the individual’s immune system would have to be suppressed for the injection so that the body does not identify it as a virus.
One pro of CRISPR: With gene editing, we are a step closer to being able to treat a wider range of diseases. With CRISPR, it is possible that eventually we will be able to edit a person's genes as a cure or a method of prevention--so not only would it treat genetic diseases, but also chronic diseases. If this tool were to be made available to the public (as in, the general public would be given the opportunity to have their genes edited if they were at risk for developing a disease or already had one), it would raise the overall health of our country and could be used to help those in need in less privileged countries.
ReplyDeleteOne con of CRISPR: The largest con of CRISPR is questionable ethics. The speed and ease of this technique does not automatically mean that it is safer and a small "mistake" while cutting DNA could lead to dangerous consequences to an individual's health. People may also take advantage of the wide range of possibilities that CRISPR offers, which calls into question "designer babies" and how people may use CRISPR to make changes that they think they want (while they don't actually know how this may affect their health or their offspring's).
Gene Doping
ReplyDeletePro: Enhancing a person’s DNA will allow for improved performance in sports and it will help people that need their muscled repaired. I can see how this technique can be used to better the lives of people that might have had an injury and would benefit from receiving this virus. Gene doping could end up opening the door to new methods of helping a person with heal faster. It will also allow for athletes to have their muscles repair quicker and much more responsive to training. Since people will respond better to training this could have some positive implications for people receiving physical therapy depending on the type of injury they are recovering from.
Con: Genetic doping will cause more athletes to cheat since they could believe that no one will find out about it since they aren’t taking a drug. Though they may think no one will find out it is possible to know soon after since the virus stays for a brief period and in the long term it can be figured out by actually looking at the muscle. Cheating is a big concern and could lead to unrealistic expectations for Olympic athletes. A record could be set that will never be broken because someone achieved it by cheating. Someone could be using gene doping already even though trials are still happening. They would potentially have gotten it from a rouge scientist which is crazy to think about.
One pro to genetic doping is that it can repair muscles in individuals with muscular disorders. Genetic doping will allow muscular injuries to heal faster and get stronger faster with training. This is very beneficial for people with muscular disorders because symptoms include weakness, pain, or paralysis. If we are able to reverse these affects of the disorder, the quality of life for those with muscular disorders will greatly improve.
ReplyDeleteOne con is that gene doping may be abused by athletes. Elite athletes are always looking for ways to be the best at their sport. Many supplements and drugs have been banned from athletic competition because not only does is it unfair for the athletes who are not using, but it is also harmful to their health. There may not be many people taking part in gene doping for sport. However, if more athletes are made aware of this then there will be risk of a huge problem in athletics.
Katherine,
DeleteLike most of us who chose to write on genetic doping, we chose similar reasons as pros and cons. Since so many of us found that the article stressed the possible effects that genetic doping can have on the athletic community, do you think it's more important to stress the negative or positive effects of genetic doping? If it has the potential to really better the quality of life for those who have muscular disorders, should there be so much attention on the impact it could have on a community of the already physically elite? The problem here is that people will use genetic doping for reasons that was not created for. In an ideal world, athletes would not take advantage over genetic doping so the focus could be towards the benefit of those who need genetic doping.
I agree that a benefit is that athletes will get stronger and improve their overall performance. However, I do not believe that athletes should be using this to improve. If athletes start using this it would put them at an unfair advantage over other athletes (or teams) who do not. Therefore, unless there was a way to regulate it, I do not think that it would be a "level" playing field when there are athletes gene doping.
ReplyDeleteA great advantage to “gene doping” is the ability to increase muscle mass, body strength, and the muscular repair system. Strength, muscle mass, and repair system allow body to perform functions efficiently and with minimal wear to the body. Additional health benefits of increase muscle mass are increase bone density, which acts as a protective measure against osteoporosis. These benefits, lasting around several months per injection, will apply to all individuals, especially those with a muscular deficiency, such as muscular dystrophy, or those that have experiences traumatic muscular injury.
ReplyDeleteOne of the adverse consequences of “gene doping” is the necessity of suppressing one’s immune system as a precursor for injection. It is done so the body does not attack the injected genes. But as a result, the body becomes more susceptible to becoming diseased when acquiring infections, and with more detrimental reactions than a non-suppressed body.
Like most of us who chose to write on genetic doping, we chose similar reasons as pros and cons. Since so many of us found that the article stressed the possible effects that genetic doping can have on the athletic community, do you think it's more important to stress the negative or positive effects of genetic doping? If it has the potential to really better the quality of life for those who have muscular disorders, should there be so much attention on the impact it could have on a community of the already physically elite? The problem here is that people will use genetic doping for reasons that was not created for. In an ideal world, athletes would not take advantage over genetic doping so the focus could be towards the benefit of those who need genetic doping.
Delete1)As with any scientific or technological advancement, or indeed most things in life, there can be both positive and negative aspects. In the case of the CRISPR method, one of the positives is its ability to cut into targeted genetic sequences and essentially “disable” it from doing its job and creating undesirable proteins. This has countless applications for the future of heart disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and cancer. Perhaps these genetic interventions will make these currently debilitating, devastating diseases far less so in the future.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a negative to these developments is the long-term plausibility. As is stated in the article, they researchers used the CRISPR system on laboratory mice, and while the intervention appeared to reduce their cholesterol levels a week after the intervention, a month later the cholesterol levels raised again. This raises questions as to whether such genetic interventions, if they only last for a short while, are economically or temporally feasible. Just how frequently would one need their genes “maintained” to keep the positive effects? Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine the lifespan of these interventions, as well as a cost-benefit analysis considering economic, ethical, and social factors surrounding the issue.
1) A pro for the gene editor is eventually being able to cure diseases that were originally not really curable like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cystic fibrosis. A major con is that the procedure is very risky because the gene editor may cut the DNA in places that could cause negative health impacts, including death.
ReplyDelete2) A pro for genetic doping is that the human race could eventually become much more physically fit far in the future when it is available to the average person. The physical feats that people can achieve will become much more varied. If this becomes the future, a major con would be that it would create a large disparity between the average people who can afford this type of body enhancements, and people who are not able to afford it.
That's really interesting that you were able to get a procedure like that at BU. I had no idea that there were procedures like that already being implemented. I just read up on the procedure it it seems like it's a pretty common occurrence to use PRP in sports medicine. I don't know much about PRP, but I am curious about whether people see this procedure as a physical enhancement, similar to genetic doping but at a lesser degree, and an unfair advantage for those who get it done.
ReplyDeleteGenetic Doping
ReplyDeletePro: As the article stated, an important pro to genetic doping is the possibility of helping those with muscular disorders. With genetic doping, people with muscular disorders will be able to live more active lifestyles. Genetic doping can help muscles through: increasing muscle muscle mass, quickening muscle recovery, and increasing strength at a faster pace. Fortunately, testing done so far has shown no signs of harm during the treatment process and after treatment. In a sense genetic doping could apply to all, not just those with muscular diseases, which is also a positive and negative aspect of this innovation.
Con: From the article, one of the important cons to genetic doping is it’s use in athletes, especially in professional athletes. Genetic doping can have the same if not better results than steroids, with less harmful side effects. This most likely appeals to athletes who are looking for a greater edge amongst their competition. The issue here is the use of genetic doping to cheat. Although there are efforts being made to create a test that detects signs of genetic doping, a reliable and easily distributed one has yet to be found. Therefore, if a test that easily detects genetic doping is not created by the time genetic doping is tested and open to the public, there may be some issues in the athletic community.
It's definitely a PRO that this shows promise for treating muscular disorders. I also think I would extend the benefit of enhancing muscle growth for people who are healthy. While it may allow athletes to cheat undetected, for people who are trying to reach performance or fitness goals in a noncompetitive environment, I see this as a potentially beneficial training supplement, similar to testosterone boosters, nitrate complexes, or creatine.
Delete1. CRISPR is an example of the strides genetics is making in improving health and diseases. It is very clear that the pro for using CRISPR is its ability to target genes to cure diseases. However, when we talk about curing diseases, we’re talking about improving the health of people, so they can live healthier, longer lives. We already have concerns about global warming, overcrowding, scarcity of resources, poverty, the health care system, inequality, etc. CRISPR will further add to these societal issues, as the ratio of people living to dying will eventually be disproportionate. It could also lead to ethical issues, as CRISPR could also be used for quality enhancement, such as physical appearance, intelligence, etc. In addition, CRISPR could have potential health consequences, as errors such as, off target cuts to DNA have been identified. As Dr. David Baltimore states, “We worry about people making changes without the knowledge of what those changes mean in terms of the overall genome.” With these major genetic breakthroughs comes major responsibility, as they will have a strong impact on humankind, and sequentially, our environment. It is important to ensure that the impact is strong, but not dangerous and consequential.
ReplyDelete2. Gene doping is a pro, as it is beneficial for people with muscular injuries and fast recovery. However, it is very unnecessary and unfair for athletes to use this. Athleticism and competition should always be based on talent, discipline, hard work, and training, and using these four things to challenge the body beyond physical capabilities. This is why we admire athletes. Replacing these values with gene doping changes the meaning of athleticism and competition, and they will no longer be based on true merit and accomplishment, but an unfair advantage and lack of integrity. In addition, as Sweeney states, in order for gene doping to work, the athlete's immune system would need to be suppressed, so the body doesn't try to fight off what it identifies as a virus. This is a mere example of using genetics in a careless, irresponsible way.
Pro: A pro to gene doping it that it could greatly impact the speed and ultimate recovery of muscles in athletes and non-athlete alike. As a student interested in studying physical therapy I can see how this would reduce the tissue healing and strengthening time a muscle normally needs. This can cut down on the time needed for physical therapy and improve overall outcomes in patients. It could be used in a variety of settings such as in trauma wards after an accident, after an athlete is injured or even in a physical therapy clinic once the tests are proven to be effective and non-harmful in human trials.It could be a great development in understanding hoe the body can heal muscles.
ReplyDeleteCon: It seems that the obvious con is the use of gene doping in athletes. If some athletes are using this, its not a one time only advantage. As the article said the effects could last for years. I think that this proves to be an unfair advantage to those athletes who have been training just as hard but without the genetic enhancement. It makes the competition unfair and changes the way the athlete is viewed. I do not think that sports leagues will allow this type of gene doping to enhance the athletes due to its long last effects even jus to repair an injury because if they allowed it for one person they would have to allow it for everyone.
I agree with your doping comment. Doping is a serious issue in the world of competitive sports and I think this would not be accepted and would be viewed upon in the same way as any other doping mechanism. It would be a way for some athletes to get an advantage over other athletes who don't have access to it.
Delete"Gene doping is an unintentional spin-off of gene therapy in which, doctors add or modify genes to prevent or treat illness. Gene doping would apply the same techniques to enhancing someone who is healthy. The line is fuzzy, but if the cells or body functions being modified are normal to start with, it's doping" (Nasr, 2015).
ReplyDeletePro: Gene doping looks like it would allow athletes to perform at a higher level and reach greater physical performance goals and feats. This could be exciting and beneficial for the world of sports and competition, obviously barring the view of this as cheating. Thinking about body building as an example, people who are trying to build muscle would have a potentially harmless method of enhancing muscle growth and be able to increase the weight they can lift.
Con: Gene doping, especially in early stages, opens the door to a potential black market and possibly unsafe situations for obtaining and administering the injections required to deliver the genes. The article mentions finding a "rogue scientist" (DeLessio, 2015) to deliver the injections, which suggests that there may be concern for unsafe practices around gene doping.
DeLessio, J. (2015). Genetic Doping Is the Next Frontier of Cheating. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://nymag.com/next/2015/03/genetic-doping-is-the-next-frontier-of-cheating.html
Nasr, S. L. (2015). How Gene Doping Works. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/gene-doping.htm
Great point about the potential for a black market! I agree that that could be extremely dangerous and cause a lot of harm
DeleteStephanie,
ReplyDeleteI like your statement that "it is becoming increasingly difficult with new technologies like CRISPR to determine what the normal baseline for a healthy human really is". That is a very interesting line of thought that speaks to the complexities of using modern technology to tackle issues. Its revolutionary, but changes and challenges our traditional practices, views, ethics, etc. Using genetics to solve health issues is going to have a very strong impact on the world we live in, and its very important to think about if that impact is beneficial or negative. For example, when we ask what is a normal baseline for a healthy human, it is important that the question is being answered with the benefit of the human being in mind. As this is an example of one question out of the variety of questions that are being asked regarding genetic's impact on our environment, I hope that the question is always answered with the benefit of the human being in mind. This way we know that genetics is having a strong impact, but also a beneficial one, as it changes and challenges our traditional practices, views, ethics, etc.
The article about the recent developments with the CRISPR system and Cas9 enzymes provide a lot of interesting information about the potential benefits of this new gene editing system. One pro of this system and to gene editing is the increased ability to treat genetic diseases and to target very specific gene sequences in the patient's DNA. With the vectors and smaller enzymes, there is clearly a lot of potential for treating and curing diseases which were previously untreatable, in addition to building a greater understanding of some genetic disorders and the human genome in general.
ReplyDeleteOne of the possible cons of this treatment system is the potential for errors in the treatment process. If the small sequence inserted into the patient binds to the wrong part, it could create serious, and possibly even fatal problems for the patient if that new area codes for something important in the patient. Another potential con is the fact that this is a new treatment, and we aren't entirely sure what the long term effects of treatment like this are, and how they may affect future generations of people whose genes were edited.
I like your point about the long term. When looking at genetics, people often look at it for immediate effects, when in reality it could have effects for generations and generations, so I think this was a good point to make!
DeleteGenetic doping has a lot of potential to help the population as a whole. It has the potential to allow athletes to recover from injuries faster, which is beneficial for the athlete, team, and industry. But, this can expand beyond athletes. It would allow a regular person, who may not be in great shape, to recover faster from injury and return to the workplace and their life.
ReplyDeleteBut, the obvious con to this scenario is distribution. This means that wealthy athletes may be able to afford genetic doping over a common citizen, which is clearly unethical. And within this athlete community, there may be unfair distribution allowing some athletes to have an unfair advantage over those who choose not to partake in genetic doping or cannot afford it.
One positive for using the gene editor CRISPR is that it can stop diseases from developing into fatal one. However the overall safety of this method must still be debated, as a consequence of its practicality and speed the precision is variable. The gene editor may slice a piece of DNA sequence that it wasn’t supposed to, and this in turn could be life threatening.
ReplyDeleteOne pro for gene doping is that it allows individuals with muscular disorders to regain normal muscle function. By quickening the healing process during exercise people can recover faster. Obviously a negative is that athletes may use gene doping to give them an unfair advantage during competition, therefore making international competition unjust and potentially meaningless.
Vassilis,
DeleteI agree with you that the the level of safety of this method is still to be debated and researched further. In addition to this, the effectiveness of this method must be looked at in more depth. Further research needs to be performed in order to determine how long the changes will last (in the article it was mentioned that the effects lasted up to a month). I agree with you that the gene editor CRISPR could potentially be life threatening and that this is a consequence that needs to be considered further before using this and implementing it in medical procedures.
Hi Clarissa,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you said that gene doping can cause future health risks, and that this could in turn affect one's immune system. I agree that there needs to be strict regulation in order to protect the health of all athletes.
The article on gene doping was interesting because typically gene doping has a negative connotation because users use it to improve their athletic performance by giving their muscles more proteins that they otherwise would not have made naturally. This can give them an unfair advantage if their opponent is not doping causing people to associate this with cheating. However, one pro about doping that I never considered before was the fact that this could be used to treat people with muscle disorders or other diseases. This also is exciting for medicine because it could potentially cut back on time needed for therapy and rehab.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about the effects being long lasting. If we use it for muscle therapy, the athlete could still be using the doping effects unintentionally giving them and unfair advantage.
ReplyDelete1.PRO: One pro of the gene editor CRISPR is being able to manipulate and change genes within humans that we've identifies and know can make an improvement in their lives (such as Alzheimers and diabetes). It can make changes to lengthen the lifespan of individuals suffering from fatal diseases. It can also improve life quality by combating several chronic diseases
ReplyDeleteCON: One con of this editor gene would be changing things that would give an individual an advantage that has nothing to do with their overall health. These include things like intelligence, height, and skin color. Safety of this gene altering is also a huge con.
2.PRO: One advantage of gene doping is helping individuals after injury. This is a huge step for the rehabilitation aspect of injury. Reducing healing time for serious muscular injuries would trickle down and have huge impacts in the medical world.
CON: One con of gene doping is the abuse of the method. It would definitely make itself into the sports world (as we’ve seen with the article) and irreversibly change the world of athletics. We don’t know what this change would mean or how it will be handled yet. But I’d be curious to see what other classmates (especially aspiring athletic trainers think about this.
I agree that a major con for gene editing is its potential to create "designer babies" and alter physical aspect of humans. There is a very slippery slope between treatment and enhancement. As long as the science stays far away from enhancement I think that gene editing can be beneficial in the future but only if the success rates for treatment as as close to 100% as possible because any mistakes are catastrophic.
DeleteSorys;
ReplyDeleteI like the point you brought up about health equity with these kind of treatments. Most people who suffer from chronic diseases are people of lower SES. How would these resources and amazing new advances be distributed to those who would benefit from it the most? The article talks a lot about the science behind the treatment but it doesn't address any kind of social implications regarding equal disbursement among the population. What are peoples thoughts?
After learning about gene editing, I think the biggest benefit from CRISPR would be the ability to reduce human disease if the editing is successful. In cases of human disease as a result of changes in genetic sequences (such as CF), it is no surprise that research involving the manipulation of genetic DNA could be a highly popular and beneficial technique to improve human life. For example, if a non-pathological vector was deemed to be completely effective in its ability to “package all of the pieces,” (Radcliffe, 2015) and a highly efficient enzyme minimized the amount of error, the benefit of the attempt for genetic editing may outweigh the risks of the disease.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are obvious disadvantages to CRISPR as well. I believe the greatest downfall of gene editing would be the potential for error. Although science is amazing and so many advancements have been made, genetic editing is still a very new field, and bluntly stated, it involves altering/manipulating the naturally occurring genetic components of humans. If a vector were to carry all the necessary materials for an edit, it is not guaranteed that the editing will be successful and no harm will be done. If anything, there is a risk of inserting DNA edits into the wrong areas of the genome, therefore creating a possibility of more harm than good. However, although this is a major risk, as I mentioned earlier, there needs to be an evaluation of risk vs. benefit. My personal opinion is that if one were to be diagnosed with a chronic and fatal cancer at a young age, it may be worth the risk to try genetic editing, because there is nothing to lose. However, although I can only speak for myself and not on the behalf of others, overall I believe genetic editing has great potential in the future of science and medicine.
Shawn Radcliffe’s article from HealthlineNews explains the recent advancements in the cutting edge genome-editing system known as CRISPR. This gene could have the potential to treat a wide range of human diseases, from diabetes to heart disease, by disabling or altering genes in human cells. Scientists want to use CRISPR as a therapeutic platform – it can be used to help develop new and better treatments for some of the deadliest diseases. However, with all of its pros, this genome editing tool has some drawbacks. One of the biggest cons includes its safety concerns – in its current stage, CRISPR is not completely accurate. Off target cuts to our DNA/genome can occur, causing health problems, and potentially death to the patient. Also, another huge issue involves its ethics – if we can alter our genome to treat disease, its possible we could alter it in a way that changes our physical appearance or enhances our intelligence. Most scientists and ethicists agree that this should not be a use of genome editing tools, and should be avoided in all capacities.
ReplyDeleteJoe DeLessio’s article in the New York Times discusses a new form of “doping” – genetic. This type of doping includes the introduction of synthetic DNA into a person’s body with the aim of enhancing their performance. This is possible when a synthetic gene is engineered to secrete a protein that is involved in muscle growth and repair. The gene is delivered into the body by a harmless virus, and when it reaches cells it’s designed to work with, it “turns on” – those damaged cells are then repaired and enhanced. This new method of repairing muscle cells could be used to help those who experience muscular disorders; aiding them in regaining some of the muscle they may have lost or cannot form. An added bonus to this type of method is that it does not alter the person’s genetic makeup – there is no fear that the person’s DNA could be changed in a way that is ultimately detrimental to them (as with CRISPR). Some of the cons associated with genetic doping involves its use with athletes looking to improve their performance. An athlete’s use of genetic doping could give them an unfair advantage in competition, and this would remove the even playing ground that is sports. Also, it can be dangerous for the athlete to undergo genetic doping – their immune system must be suppressed for a certain length of time while they are undergoing this type of treatment. Also, genetic doping is still in its early stages, so it has not been adequately tested on humans.
Gene editing using CRISPR has many benefits and can help to cure many diseases in the future. As long as the editing is successful, the damaged DNA can be fixed and a person can be completely healed from their disease. This is especially promising for diseases involving mutations in genetic sequences, such as cystic fibrosis. By learning exactly how to change the genetic sequence to fix the disease, many diseases that previously had no cure can have lasting treatment, and eventually the disease may become one of the past.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are disadvantages to CRISPR. There is always a risk of error when editing genetic sequences. If the cut is even slightly wrong, it can cause catastrophic consequences to the person and could even result in death. As accurate as CRISPR may be there is no way to guarantee a 100% success rate. The mistakes that could result are not small and there is no way to correct the mistake. It’s not like giving someone the wrong dose of medication and changing a prescription. By editing the DNA, the person’s entire genetic sequence is forever changed, and the chances of being able to target the correct sequence are slim.
Genetic editing, I believe should only be considered for cases where the person is terminal and there is no chance of recovery without the treatment. I also think that it should be used as a last resort because the results are so permanent, and mistakes are so dangerous.
I agree that the use of gene doping to cheat in sports should not be an important factor when deciding whether to continue developing it or not. Since it has so many potential health benefits, such as treating serious muscular disorders and, as you interestingly brought up, potentially helping to alleviate obesity, any arguments against it should also consider the health of the patient as the most important priority. I think the issue of potential dependence on doping would be more of an issue to healthy people who are abusing it, since those who are not healthy are already somewhat dependent since their muscles already do not work properly. This could lead to serious consequences if it is overused by people who do not really need it.
ReplyDeleteA major positive aspect of genomic editing is that it could potentially alleviate or complete cure diseases that are related to genes. Genome editing systems such as CRISPR could be used to successfully treat genetic diseases or diseases that have strong genetic associations once they are developed further. One of the diseases that could be treated using CRISPR is cystic fibrosis, which is a serious condition that usually results in a shortened lifespan and currently does not have any form of effective long-term cure. Its potential impact on wider spread chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes could also greatly reduce overall mortality, even if those diseases have environmental components as well as genetic ones.
ReplyDeleteWhile the ethical issues surrounding gene editing are important to discuss, I think that a more compelling argument against the use of CRISPR is that it has not yet been proven to be completely safe. It is not as precise as older gene-editing techniques, which could cause harm to the patient and could even kill them if the error is serious enough. Faster gene-editing methods such as CRISPR should continue to be researched and developed so that they can be used safely before we begin to use them to treat human diseases.
I agree with the issues you've mentioned but I think another important ethical issue that should be mentioned is the possibility to edit the human germline which can be passed down from generation to generation. We need to study the long term effects of gene editing including whether it is safe for the future generation. We cannot simply focus at the short term benefits but to also think about the potential long term issues.
DeleteThe effect that gene doping has on the muscles is certainly positive. The intended use of gene doping is to increase recovery time in muscle injuries. This is very helpful for people with muscle dystrophy or any injuries involving muscles.
ReplyDeleteA negative aspect of gene doping is when athletes use it for the purpose of getting ahead of the competition. Gene doping increases an athletes muscle mass and their abilities to perform in sport. The long-term effects of gene doping is not yet known, but if we used on healthy individuals it may not be safe.
I certainly agree that the lack of knowledge behind gene doping is a negative element. We don't know much behind the process or the long term effects and this is definitely an issue since it seems to be helpful in muscle recovery. The decrease in the responses of the immune system is definitely a risk when using it, but some people may value a quicker recovery time than worrying about getting sick or an infection.
ReplyDeleteI decided to write about both CRISPR and gene doping because they are both really interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteI think it is obvious that the potential to target diseases is a pro of the CRISPR system. There are so many diseases that would be targetable on the level of the genome and it would seem inviting for one to consider using the system, especially when thinking about your baby's health. A pro of gene doping is that athletes would have a higher performance because of how it would affect their muscles and even improve the ability for healing injuries to muscles more quickly.
A con of CRISPR, however, is that you cannot guarantee that the cuts will be in the correct places every time. What happens when a cut is accidentally made? As the article mentions, this could lead to hazardous health effects that may even be deadly. A con of gene doping is that it is just another form of cheating in athletes and there is no way of knowing the long-term effects on the muscle unless a biopsy is done. What if it has negative long-term effects and we won't be able to know until it may possibly be too late.
The development of the gene editor CRISPR is revolutionary because it gives hope for a cure to all genetic diseases. The CRISPR gene editor can eliminate diseases from the origin and can greatly reduce the cost of treatment for these diseases. With enough research and testing, this new technology can help eradicate genetic diseases at once. This is part of a long standing goal to better the people of human beings. However, this ability to edit genes can have serious and even deadly consequences. The human genome is constructed in a way where everything works in conjunction with one another. Although we can identify the mutations that cause the genetic diseases and defects, we don’t have a deep enough understanding of the genes to simply cut and remove a part of it. We may find that by editing the genes, we are also making the individual more vulnerable to certain diseases or we find out that despite the mutation, other organs in the human body is still reliant of the presence of the gene.
ReplyDelete2.
ReplyDeleteOne pro of genetic doping that it can enable muscles to better repair themselves when damaged. The article tells us that synthetic DNA can be injected into a subject and secretes a specific protein, that is usually involved in muscle repair and growth. This can could definitely benefit the health care industry and decrease rehabilitation time for injured patients. Genetic doping is also benefitting people who are suffering from muscular disorders. This is a great medical advancement to see in development.
The con of this technique is that it can be taken advantage of by the sports industry. Athletes can misuse genetic doping and use the synthetic DNA to improve performance much like steroids. However, unlike steroids, this technique can not be detected as easily, considering that it doesn't change one's genetic make up. This can be used as an alternative to steroids which can cause a lot of controversy in the sports field. It also worries to me that the article suggests that eventually this synthetic DNA can be applied intravenously, targeting all muscles instead of one in particular. Athletes who take advantage of this method would definitely be cheating, but how easy will it be to prove?
I agree that it would be very hard to detect and prevent. Since it ould be extremely hard to prevent, the alternative would be to allow all athletes to practice genetic doping. This would surely have its consequences as we would begin to see unnaturally strong, fast athletes. Limiting gene doping would be the next issue because if there's any competitive edge to be taken, athletes will continue to push it and will abuse the practice leading to dangerous outcomes
DeleteI agree that the technique is unethical in specific scenarios. Athletes may have easy access to genetic doping and as history has proven, not everyone is against cheating. The abuse of this technique could change the whole sports industry, and it would be unfair to those athletes that actually work hard to improve their performance through training. I wonder how it can be ensured that athletes can not use this type of treatment. How can they ban the technique is my biggest question.
ReplyDelete1. The CRISPR technology is undeniably a major advancement in the world of health and genomics. If perfected, CRISPR would ave the potential to eradicate certain diseases and mutations from an individuals genetic coding. This would mean that we may be saving lives before they deteriorate into a life of illness.
ReplyDeleteA con of sing this technology is that there are ethical complications surrounding its use. here comes a time where we mus ask just how much improvement in health we can justify bringing about for a person. Like using ergogenic aids or supplements, it is the medical professionals responsibility and goal to rehabilitate any conditions to return the patient to "normal health". It is not their job t enhance a persons ability beyond where it would be in a "normal", disease free setting. By using CRISPR, people are skeptical about the technology being used to create "designer babies" or to muddle with the human genome in an unnatural way.
Using the gene editor CRISPR, one pro would be that by being able to use this method is that scientist may be able to to treat diseases ranging from cystic fibrosis, heart disease and diabetes. And its faster and easier to use than any other gene-editing technique. One con would be that it is not very accurate. Off-target cuts to DNA can occur when the sequence is similar to the guide RNA. This could have unintended and deadly health consequences.
ReplyDeleteFor gene doping, one pro would allow the athlete to amplify the effect of training on every single muscle they work out. This would also help the athlete bounce back from an injury quicker which would permanently enhance their muscles. A con would be that currently for it to work, the person's immune system would have to be completely suppressed which can be dangerous. Also many trials still need to take place so it will take a long time to perfect.
Hello superb blog! Does running a blog such as this require a great deal of work? I've very little understanding of coding however I was hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyway, should you have any ideas or techniques for new blog owners please share. I know this is off subject nevertheless I simply wanted to ask. Many thanks!
ReplyDeleteHello! I've been reading your blog for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from New Caney Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent job!
ReplyDelete