A CRISPR Future New Form of Eugenics?

By Dr. Mercola

Gene editing was once a very imprecise and expensive process, but today, thanks to the development of CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, scientists can go into your DNA and essentially cut and paste it at specified places. Progress is being made in tackling genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and certain forms of blindness and muscular dystrophy.

A CRISPR clinical trial in people with cancer is already underway in China, and the technology has been used to edit human embryos made from sperm from men carrying inherited disease mutations. The researchers successfully altered the DNA in a way that would eliminate or correct the genes causing the inherited disease.¹

If the embryos were implanted into a womb and allowed to grow, the process, which is known as germline engineering, would result in the first genetically modified children — and any engineered changes would be passed on to their own children. The technology is moving so fast that innovations like this are occurring before their full implications are known or fully understood.

“Some critics say germline experiments could open the floodgates to a brave new world of ‘designer babies’ engineered with genetic enhancements,” Technology Review reported, bringing up questions of ethics and eugenics.²

Does the Elimination of Down Syndrome in Iceland Point to a Dark Future for CRISPR?

It’s recently been reported that, in Iceland, Down syndrome births are becoming increasingly rare, with just one or two children born with the condition each year. In essence, Down syndrome is disappearing, but not by nature or happenstance. In Iceland, up to 85 percent of pregnant women receive prenatal screening tests to detect chromosome abnormalities, including Down syndrome. Close to 100 percent of women who receive a positive result end up terminating their pregnancy, CBS News reported.³

Other countries also have high termination rates for fetuses with Down syndrome: 67 percent in the U.S.; 77 percent in France; and 98 percent in Denmark, for instance. As for why so many women terminate their Down syndrome pregnancies in Iceland, geneticist Kari Stefansson told CBS News, “It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling. And I don’t think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable … You’re having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way.”⁴

Writing in The Nation, journalist and historian — and father to a young son with Down syndrome — David Perry noted that “we’re failing our test run for the age of CRISPR.”⁵ He points out that today children with Down syndrome can lead long, happy and productive lives, but many expectant parents aren’t informed of this reality.

Prenatal testing companies market heavily to physicians but provide little information on the conditions being tested for. As a result, some parents are receiving wrong information about their would-be child’s prognosis. Perry writes:⁶

“What does all this have to do with CRISPR? Right now, we’re still in a liminal state when it comes to predicting genetic outcomes for fetuses. Our tools, from amniocentesis (developed in the 1950s and ’60s) to contemporary screenings that locate fetal blood cells in the mother’s bloodstream, are reactive and postconception.

Soon, they’ll shift to preconception and proactive. What will the tens of thousands of clinicians tell would-be parents as they get flooded with messaging from companies eager to sell their high-tech CRISPR product lines?”

As it stands, access to information, or lack thereof, may result in physicians providing outdated or biased genetic counseling to patients. As CRISPR moves ahead, access to accurate and neutral data will be essential. Difficult questions — such as, “When does abortion become eugenics?” as posed by The Atlantic⁷ — must be asked, and answered. The time has come when parents can choose to abort a fetus based on a disability, but soon this may extend into sex, race or even, one day, sexual orientation.

Even now, Miami-based radiologist Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie pointed out that “eugenics and equality can’t mix,” explaining in U.S. News & World Report, “When we do everything in our power to detect the existence of a baby with a special need with the sole purpose of terminating him or her, we create a discriminatory culture, where only perfect humans may apply for entrance.

This is a powerful obstacle against equality and acceptance of the disabled, which a just society must set as its first goal.”⁸ Perry also notes that access to unbiased, up-to-date information is crucial in an age of genetic testing and CRISPR:⁹

“Preventing this potentially dystopian future where altered genes separate the haves from the have-nots starts by shifting discourse. A pro-information approach demands that everyone involved in genetic counseling have access to the best data and presents it in a value-neutral way. We must build systems now that grow as our tools evolve. If we do not, genetic diversity will gradually become code for poverty, and new stigmas will run all the way to the DNA.”

Many Countries Have Already Banned Genetic Engineering of Human Embryos, Germ-Line Modification

Whether or not the creation of “designer babies” with a certain eye color or increased intelligence is inevitable remains to be seen, but some regions are not willing to take a wait-and-see approach. About 40 countries have already banned the genetic engineering of human embryos and 15 of 22 European countries prohibit germ line modification.¹⁰ Time reported:¹¹

“Using CRISPR on humans is still hugely controversial, in part because it’s so easy. The fact that it allows scientists to efficiently edit any gene — for some cancers, but also potentially for a predisposition for red hair, for being overweight, for being good at math — worries ethicists because of what could happen if it gets into the wrong hands.

… As CRISPR goes mainstream in medicine and agriculture, profound moral and ethical questions will arise. Few would argue against using CRISPR to treat terminal cancer patients, but what about treating chronic diseases? Or disabilities? If sickle-cell anemia can be corrected with CRISPR, should obesity, which drives so many life-threatening illnesses? Who decides where that line ought to be drawn?”

Correcting embryonic DNA to eliminate genetic defects associated with inheritable diseases currently has the greatest support, but some scientists argue that using germ-line gene editing to eliminate genetic disease is unnecessary, since the technology to test and choose embryos free of genetic disease already exists and is regularly used in IVF clinics.

The alteration of genes to protect a person against future disease or diseases is another area of ongoing research, while genetic enhancement, in which genes are installed or modified to change a person’s appearance, or physical or mental potential is most controversial. A top U.S. intelligence official even added gene-editing to a list of potential weapons of mass destruction that pose a threat to national safety.¹²

As complex and futuristic as it seems, gene editing is inexpensive and easy to do. Killer mosquitoes, agricultural plagues and DNA-targeting viruses have all been suggested as potential bioweapons should CRISPR or other gene-editing tools fall into the wrong hands.¹³

Gene editing has become so mainstream there are classes on the topic available at community colleges and DIY kits you can order online. Even middle school students may learn the basics of gene editing in science class, with some comparing the new technology to computer coding a few decades ago.

CRISPR May Cause Unexpected Mutations

Gene-editing technology has gotten much more precise over the years, particularly with the invention of CRISPR-Cas9.¹⁴ By modifying an enzyme called Cas9, the gene-editing capabilities are significantly improved, in some cases reducing the error rate to “undetectable levels.” It’s not perfect, however, and may accidently hit other parts of the genome.

A recent study searched for unintended mutations, based on a separate study that used CRISPR-Cas9 to restore sight in blind mice by correcting a genetic mutation. The researchers sequenced the entire genome of the CRISPR-edited mice to search for mutations. In addition to the intended genetic edit, they found more than 100 additional deletions and insertions along with more than 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations. Study co-author Dr. Stephen Tsang, of Columbia University Medical Center, told Scienmag:¹⁵

“We feel it’s critical that the scientific community consider the potential hazards of all off-target mutations caused by CRISPR, including single nucleotide mutations and mutations in non-coding regions of the genome … Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations. Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.”

It’s too soon to say whether the mutations are a cause for alarm. However, in the recent study in which researchers used CRISPR to edit human embryos, altering the DNA to prevent inherited disease, they claim to have developed a better technique that avoids off-target effects, as well as mosaicism, in which the DNA changes are taken up by some of the embryo’s cells instead of all of them.¹⁶

Meanwhile, a February 2017 report issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences (NAS) basically set the stage for allowing research on germline modification and CRISPR, but only for the purpose of eliminating serious diseases — not for “enhancing traits or abilities beyond ordinary health.” The latter would raise concerns “about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people,” NAS noted.¹⁷

According to Technology Review, however, “Despite such barriers, the creation of a gene-edited person could be attempted at any moment, including by IVF clinics operating facilities in countries where there are no such legal restrictions.”¹⁸

With the technology becoming increasingly accessible to anyone with an interest, it’s probably going to be a matter of when, not if, this boundary is crossed, with unknown consequences. While gene-editing technology has the potential to be great, it could also be easily, and seriously, misused and abused.

– Sources and References

A CRISPR Future New Form of Eugenics?

By Dr. Mercola

Gene editing was once a very imprecise and expensive process, but today, thanks to the development of CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, scientists can go into your DNA and essentially cut and paste it at specified places. Progress is being made in tackling genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and certain forms of blindness and muscular dystrophy.

A CRISPR clinical trial in people with cancer is already underway in China, and the technology has been used to edit human embryos made from sperm from men carrying inherited disease mutations. The researchers successfully altered the DNA in a way that would eliminate or correct the genes causing the inherited disease.¹

If the embryos were implanted into a womb and allowed to grow, the process, which is known as germline engineering, would result in the first genetically modified children — and any engineered changes would be passed on to their own children. The technology is moving so fast that innovations like this are occurring before their full implications are known or fully understood.

“Some critics say germline experiments could open the floodgates to a brave new world of ‘designer babies’ engineered with genetic enhancements,” Technology Review reported, bringing up questions of ethics and eugenics.²

Does the Elimination of Down Syndrome in Iceland Point to a Dark Future for CRISPR?

It’s recently been reported that, in Iceland, Down syndrome births are becoming increasingly rare, with just one or two children born with the condition each year. In essence, Down syndrome is disappearing, but not by nature or happenstance. In Iceland, up to 85 percent of pregnant women receive prenatal screening tests to detect chromosome abnormalities, including Down syndrome. Close to 100 percent of women who receive a positive result end up terminating their pregnancy, CBS News reported.³

Other countries also have high termination rates for fetuses with Down syndrome: 67 percent in the U.S.; 77 percent in France; and 98 percent in Denmark, for instance. As for why so many women terminate their Down syndrome pregnancies in Iceland, geneticist Kari Stefansson told CBS News, “It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling. And I don’t think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable … You’re having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way.”⁴

Writing in The Nation, journalist and historian — and father to a young son with Down syndrome — David Perry noted that “we’re failing our test run for the age of CRISPR.”⁵ He points out that today children with Down syndrome can lead long, happy and productive lives, but many expectant parents aren’t informed of this reality.

Prenatal testing companies market heavily to physicians but provide little information on the conditions being tested for. As a result, some parents are receiving wrong information about their would-be child’s prognosis. Perry writes:⁶

“What does all this have to do with CRISPR? Right now, we’re still in a liminal state when it comes to predicting genetic outcomes for fetuses. Our tools, from amniocentesis (developed in the 1950s and ’60s) to contemporary screenings that locate fetal blood cells in the mother’s bloodstream, are reactive and postconception.

Soon, they’ll shift to preconception and proactive. What will the tens of thousands of clinicians tell would-be parents as they get flooded with messaging from companies eager to sell their high-tech CRISPR product lines?”

As it stands, access to information, or lack thereof, may result in physicians providing outdated or biased genetic counseling to patients. As CRISPR moves ahead, access to accurate and neutral data will be essential. Difficult questions — such as, “When does abortion become eugenics?” as posed by The Atlantic⁷ — must be asked, and answered. The time has come when parents can choose to abort a fetus based on a disability, but soon this may extend into sex, race or even, one day, sexual orientation.

Even now, Miami-based radiologist Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie pointed out that “eugenics and equality can’t mix,” explaining in U.S. News & World Report, “When we do everything in our power to detect the existence of a baby with a special need with the sole purpose of terminating him or her, we create a discriminatory culture, where only perfect humans may apply for entrance.

This is a powerful obstacle against equality and acceptance of the disabled, which a just society must set as its first goal.”⁸ Perry also notes that access to unbiased, up-to-date information is crucial in an age of genetic testing and CRISPR:⁹

“Preventing this potentially dystopian future where altered genes separate the haves from the have-nots starts by shifting discourse. A pro-information approach demands that everyone involved in genetic counseling have access to the best data and presents it in a value-neutral way. We must build systems now that grow as our tools evolve. If we do not, genetic diversity will gradually become code for poverty, and new stigmas will run all the way to the DNA.”

Many Countries Have Already Banned Genetic Engineering of Human Embryos, Germ-Line Modification

Whether or not the creation of “designer babies” with a certain eye color or increased intelligence is inevitable remains to be seen, but some regions are not willing to take a wait-and-see approach. About 40 countries have already banned the genetic engineering of human embryos and 15 of 22 European countries prohibit germ line modification.¹⁰ Time reported:¹¹

“Using CRISPR on humans is still hugely controversial, in part because it’s so easy. The fact that it allows scientists to efficiently edit any gene — for some cancers, but also potentially for a predisposition for red hair, for being overweight, for being good at math — worries ethicists because of what could happen if it gets into the wrong hands.

… As CRISPR goes mainstream in medicine and agriculture, profound moral and ethical questions will arise. Few would argue against using CRISPR to treat terminal cancer patients, but what about treating chronic diseases? Or disabilities? If sickle-cell anemia can be corrected with CRISPR, should obesity, which drives so many life-threatening illnesses? Who decides where that line ought to be drawn?”

Correcting embryonic DNA to eliminate genetic defects associated with inheritable diseases currently has the greatest support, but some scientists argue that using germ-line gene editing to eliminate genetic disease is unnecessary, since the technology to test and choose embryos free of genetic disease already exists and is regularly used in IVF clinics.

The alteration of genes to protect a person against future disease or diseases is another area of ongoing research, while genetic enhancement, in which genes are installed or modified to change a person’s appearance, or physical or mental potential is most controversial. A top U.S. intelligence official even added gene-editing to a list of potential weapons of mass destruction that pose a threat to national safety.¹²

As complex and futuristic as it seems, gene editing is inexpensive and easy to do. Killer mosquitoes, agricultural plagues and DNA-targeting viruses have all been suggested as potential bioweapons should CRISPR or other gene-editing tools fall into the wrong hands.¹³

Gene editing has become so mainstream there are classes on the topic available at community colleges and DIY kits you can order online. Even middle school students may learn the basics of gene editing in science class, with some comparing the new technology to computer coding a few decades ago.

CRISPR May Cause Unexpected Mutations

Gene-editing technology has gotten much more precise over the years, particularly with the invention of CRISPR-Cas9.¹⁴ By modifying an enzyme called Cas9, the gene-editing capabilities are significantly improved, in some cases reducing the error rate to “undetectable levels.” It’s not perfect, however, and may accidently hit other parts of the genome.

A recent study searched for unintended mutations, based on a separate study that used CRISPR-Cas9 to restore sight in blind mice by correcting a genetic mutation. The researchers sequenced the entire genome of the CRISPR-edited mice to search for mutations. In addition to the intended genetic edit, they found more than 100 additional deletions and insertions along with more than 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations. Study co-author Dr. Stephen Tsang, of Columbia University Medical Center, told Scienmag:¹⁵

“We feel it’s critical that the scientific community consider the potential hazards of all off-target mutations caused by CRISPR, including single nucleotide mutations and mutations in non-coding regions of the genome … Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations. Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.”

It’s too soon to say whether the mutations are a cause for alarm. However, in the recent study in which researchers used CRISPR to edit human embryos, altering the DNA to prevent inherited disease, they claim to have developed a better technique that avoids off-target effects, as well as mosaicism, in which the DNA changes are taken up by some of the embryo’s cells instead of all of them.¹⁶

Meanwhile, a February 2017 report issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences (NAS) basically set the stage for allowing research on germline modification and CRISPR, but only for the purpose of eliminating serious diseases — not for “enhancing traits or abilities beyond ordinary health.” The latter would raise concerns “about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people,” NAS noted.¹⁷

According to Technology Review, however, “Despite such barriers, the creation of a gene-edited person could be attempted at any moment, including by IVF clinics operating facilities in countries where there are no such legal restrictions.”¹⁸

With the technology becoming increasingly accessible to anyone with an interest, it’s probably going to be a matter of when, not if, this boundary is crossed, with unknown consequences. While gene-editing technology has the potential to be great, it could also be easily, and seriously, misused and abused.

– Sources and References

Dashcam Catches Cops Pull Over Mom, Mock Her Child with Down Syndrome

Toronto, CA — Nothing says ‘unfit for public service’ quite like bashing society’s most vulnerable, those with disabilities. However, that is just what two ‘public servants’ in December were caught doing as they mocked a young woman with Down Syndrome, while writing her mother a ticket.

Last December, two Toronto cops pulled over Pamela Munoz for allegedly running a red light. Munoz had her two daughters in the car, one of whom is Francie Munoz, who has Down Syndrome.

Pamela insisted that she did not run the light and that it was yellow when she went through it. The officer wrote her a ticket anyway and then told her she could fight the ticket in court as he had the alleged proof of the infraction on his dashcam.

Munoz did fight the ticket and she was subsequently given the dashcam video of it. When police gave her the video, it was marked as having no audio — but they forgot to erase it.

The dashcam video did have audio and when Pamela Munoz heard what was on it, she was appalled. The cops recorded themselves making fun of Pamela’s daughter Francie. Their actions were nothing short of disgusting — especially considering the fact that they are public servants and on duty.

As CBC reports, one officer can be heard saying there are “two-and-a-half women” in the car instead of three and then goes on to describe Francie as “disfigured …or different,” with the other officer laughing and agreeing.

“Artistic.…That’s going to be my new code word for … different,” says the officer.

READ MORE:  Baltimore Police Assault and Tase Daughter of an Officer- On Video- Attempt to Delete Evidence

Pamela told CBC that she thinks the cops were unaware that their comments were being recorded.

The officers then went on to further degrade the family, who had pizza with them in the car, saying, “They’re [probably] nibbling on it right as we speak.”

Pamela explained that she was initially upset about the ticket but after hearing the audio, she became furious.

“I was enraged,” said the mother after hearing the police officers degrade her daughter because of down syndrome.

“Obviously I was extremely upset. My blood was boiling. I’m still very upset, but at that moment I was enraged,” she said. “These are the people we’ve told Francie to trust, to go to when she needs help.”

After hearing these cops act in such an unprofessional manner, Pamela explained that Francie asked them to apologize and undergo training to make sure they don’t publicly lambast those with special needs for the mere act of being different.

“I can’t believe two officers would conduct themselves in this manner … that they’d be this inhumane in their comments,” said Pamela. “They don’t respect, obviously, people with disabilities or people that are different than them.”

As for the police department and the Toronto Police Association, they say they spoke with the officers who said they know their comments were inappropriate.

“They say their comments were totally inappropriate and [they] will do everything they need to do, including an apology and sensitivity training … to make it right,” said Mike McCormack, president of the police association.

According to CBC, Francie would like to see police officers receive better training for dealing with people with disabilities, something she advocates for herself through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

READ MORE:  DOJ Says They"ll Stop Investigating Police Misconduct — Promises More Drug War Instead

She appears in several campaign videos for CAMH, helping to educate people on what it’s like living with Down syndrome, reports the news outlet.

“It’s a teachable moment. Here is something we can all learn from … how it feels for a person to be spoken about in a certain way,” said Yona Lunsky, a clinician-scientist at CAMH. “When we’re thinking about diversity, we think about certain types of diversity. Disability is another kind of diversity that we all need to be better sensitized to.”

Sadly, police officers showing callous disregard to those with down syndrome is not isolated. As the Free Thought Project has reported on multiple occasions, police have been caught beating and even killing those with down syndrome.

A man with down syndrome was killed by police, his death ruled a homicide, and no charges were brought against the officers involved.

The victim, Robert Saylor, was at a movie theater with a health aide in Frederick on the night of the incident. He had just watched Zero Dark Thirty and refused to leave the theater after the film ended.

Three off-duty deputies who were moonlighting as security at the theater were called to handle the situation. The situation turned violent and Saylor ended up face down on the ground.

The cause of death, according to the autopsy, was asphyxiation. The autopsy also said Saylor’s larynx had been damaged. A witness said an officer had put his knee on Saylor’s lower back while Saylor was on his stomach being handcuffed, according to The Associated Press.

San Diego Sheriff’s Deputy, Jeffrey Guy rose to brutality infamy after he beat and pepper sprayed 22-year-old Antonio Martinez, a man with down syndrome and the mental capacity of a 7-year-old.  Despite admitting under oath that he had no reasonable suspicion to believe Martinez was ever involved in a crime, he still says he would do it all over again today.