Chinese Scientists genetically modified embryos

[Erik Tiber]

Originally read about this onthis thread.

Chinese scientists just admitted to tweaking the genes of human embryos for the first time in history

 

A group of Chinese scientists just reported that they modified the genome of human embryos, something that has never been done in the history of the world, according to a report in Nature News.

A recent biotech discovery — one that has been called the biggest biotech discovery of the century — showed how scientists might be able to modify a human genome when that genome was still just in an embryo.

This could change not only the genetic material of a person, but could also change the DNA they pass on, removing "bad" genetic codes (and potentially adding "good" ones) and taking an active hand in evolution.

Concerned scientists published an argument that no one should edit the human genome in this way until we better understood the consequences after a report uncovered rumors that Chinese scientists were already working on using this technology.

But this new paper, published April 18 in the journal Protein and Cell by a Chinese group led by gene-function researcher Junjiu Huang of Sun Yat-sen University, shows that work has already been done, and Nature News spoke to a Chinese source that said at least four different groups are "pursuing gene editing in human embryos."

Specifically, the team tried to modify a gene in a non-viable embryo that would have been responsible for a deadly blood disorder. But they noted in the study that they encountered serious challenges, suggesting there are still significant hurdles before clinical use becomes a reality.

CRISPR, the technology that makes all this possible, can find bad sections of DNA and cut them and even replace them with DNA that doesn't code for deadly diseases, but it can also make unwanted substitutions. Its level of accuracy is still very low.

Huang's group successfully introduced the DNA they wanted in only "a fraction" of the 28 embryos that had been "successfully spliced" (they tried 86 embryos at the start and tested 54 of the 71 that survived the procedure). They also found a "surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations," according to Nature News.

Huang told Nature News that they stopped then because they knew that if they were do this work medically, that success rate would need to be closer to 100%.

Our understanding of CRISPR needs to significantly develop before we get there, but this is a new technology that's changing rapidly.

Even though the Chinese team worked with non-viable embryos, embryos that cannot result in a live birth, some say that editing the human genome and changing the DNA of an embryo is ethically questionable, because it could lead to more uses of this technology in humans. Changing the DNA of viable embryos could have unpredictable results for future generations, and some researchers want us to understand this better before putting it into practice.

Still, many researchers think this technology (most don't think it's ready to be used yet) could be invaluable. It could eliminate genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia, Huntington's disease, and cystic fibrosis, all devastating illnesses caused by genes that could theoretically be removed.

Others fear that once we can do this accurately, it will inevitably be used to create designer humans with specific desired traits. After all, even though this research is considered questionable now, it is still actively being experimented with.

Huang told Nature News that both Nature and Science journals rejected his paper on embryo editing, "in part because of ethical objections." Neither journal commented to Nature News on that statement.

Huang plans on trying to improve the accuracy of CRISPR in animal models for now.

But CRISPR is reportedly quite easy to use, according to scientists who previously argued against doing this research in embryos now, meaning that it's incredibly likely these experiments will continue.

Business Insider

Read more

The future is now! Woooooo!

[Gollee]

I am more concerned about the EMdrive that NASA accidently turned into a Warp Drive a few days ago.

[Tainavaa]

My thoughts exactly, Gollee. They made light go sanic speed. Just let that sink in. It's got me all giddy.

[Guest]

I am more concerned about the EMdrive that NASA accidently turned into a Warp Drive a few days ago.

 

Source?

[Gollee]

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1860

Http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/nasa-may-have-accidentally-developed-a-warp-drive/

[Erik Tiber]

Eh, from what I've heard there's some super fishy things with their methodology, and the original experiment which showed the drive getting pushed by nothing was really just the engine being pushed by environmental forces which they failed to isolate the drive from.

[Gollee]

Nope, they ran additional tests, proving it wasn't atmospheric heating, leaving a warp field as the most likely candidatate, as the distortion perceived was 40x that which would have been perceived due to atmospheric heating.

[Chaznoodles]

We are the future.

[Tainavaa]

You are all missing a very important point. It might not be a warp bubble, it might be. However you should be focusing on the most fundamental aspect of this accident. If what they think happened is true then

They made light go faster than the speed of light.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO CARES ABOUT THIS? GET OUT OF SCI FI AND LOOK AT THE PHYSICS YOU NERDS. THIS IS AMAZING.

[Gollee]

To be a boring physicist:

We can only tell if light has travelled faster than lightspeed by measuring the time it takes to arrive, due to light being seperate from relativistic effects such as length contraction or relativistic mass; so, we can't prove whether the light was accelerated or was simply in a warp bubble, allowing it to experience length contraction. We can only tell by looking for warped space-time.

[Tainavaa]

Right, so what you're saying is,

Light went faster than the speed of light.

You can make particles slow down and speed up. Scientists have made photons slow down before. But now they made photons go sanic speed.

WHY IS NO ONE EXCITED ABOUT THAT?

[Guest]

Probably because we won't be able to see the finalization of the technology ourselves in our lifetime.

Still. Kind of begs the thought, doesn't it.

 

[Tainavaa]

YET PEOPLE ARE FREAKIBG OUT OVER WARP DRIVES AND THAT WONT BE FINALIZED. YOU'RE ALL NERDS.

[Guest]

I said within our lifetime. Meaning it's most definitely possible. But probably not in the next 50 years.

[Tainavaa]

EVERYWHERE I LOOK IM SURROUNDED.

BY NERDS.

[Gollee]

Right, so what you're saying is,

Light went faster than the speed of light.

You can make particles slow down and speed up. Scientists have made photons slow down before. But now they made photons go sanic speed.

WHY IS NO ONE EXCITED ABOUT THAT?

 

Technically, if it was in a warp bubble, it didn't violate the speed of light or casualty, locally, it just appears to have gone faster because the space around it has moved faster than light.

Also, one of the posts on that thread has the speed detected; I won't stick the numbers in, but, it was enough to get us from Sol to Alpha Centauri in two days.

[Tainavaa]

Once upon a time my friend told me that suction doesn't actually exist. It exists in concept only. In response I told him that pushing doesn't exist. It exists in concept only. I then pushed him. I told him that it wasn't my hand pushing him it was just force being applied to displace him.

If a subset of space is warped and forces light to go to another place in a shorter amount of time, what does that tell me? I'll fucking tell you what it tells me.

 

IT HAPPENED.

 

It might only HAPPEN in that environment but in a space like that its a function composited in another function that makes the output higher. Because as far as I see it, v = d/t

Now answer this. True or false. The denominator got smaller for any d outside of that environment. If true,

 

IT HAPPENED.

 

Edited for emphasis and dramatic effect.

[Gollee]

False, it didn't break the speed of light, it simply covered a shorter distance due to the space-time ripple in front of it.

[eragong]

The method behind a warp drive is that the object within remain stationary, but the drive compresses space-time in front of the object and expands it behind it; this causes an effect similar to a wave in space-time, upon which the object rides but remains stationary in relation to space surrounding it.

This is akin to a surfer on a wave, because whilst they are in the water they have a maximum speed, but when they are atop it and riding on the uppermost water molecules as far as the water is concerned they are stationary, but from an observer they are travelling faster than it would be possible swimming.

[Tainavaa]

That's a contradiction. I asked if the time it took to cover a distance was shortened. Unless you LITERALLY meant it covered a shorter distance with the same time which is ridiculous because the observers of the accident are saying it appeared to go faster not slower.

It doesn't matter HOW it happened. You are currently telling me it only happened because of that rippling space-time. That is entirely irrelevant because if it covered more distance per time, NO MATTER HOW, IT HAPPENED.

This is of course, assuming you're mistaken on your phrasing.

tl;dr

 

False. The time it took to get to a certain distance per unit of time is not shorter than when it isn't that anomalous environment. It just looks like it because it traveled that distance in a shorter amount of time.

 

Also the water is causing a velocity. It doesn't matter what the medium is, they are translating from one point in space to another. Just because it's not conventional doesn't mean they are at that same point in space.

[Gollee]

I meant that they are covering a smaller distance to cover a larger one, due to length contraction at relativistic speeds.

From Eragong- The medium is space itself, in relation to space, an object in a warp bubble is immobile; similar to how a car travelling at 60mph considers the inhabitants to be immobile.

Also, Eragong's wave analogy, the water isn't exerting a velocity, in the water's reference frame, the surfer is immobile.

An object in a warp bubble doesn't break the speed of light, light inside the bubble always travels faster than everything else inside it; a warp bubble reduces the space in front of to a very small value, then expands the space behind it once the bubble has moved forwards.

[Tainavaa]

In both instances of a car and water, what happens to the surfer or the driver if the water or car were to suddenly stop? Chances are, they're going to keep moving. That's my bet anyway. I understand that the surfer is at the same point in relation to the water. However in the universal system he is translating.

But what you are telling me now is that light is indeed translating to a location quicker. There is a reason I use terms like "in that environment" and my composition of functions phrasing.

I understand that inside "warp bubble", light is moving at it's normal speed. In the system, it is moving faster because once again, it is translating to another location in space in a shorter amount of time.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS OCCURRED BEFORE.

[Gollee]

If the car/water were to suddenly stop, the persons would keep moving, an object in a warp field would not.

And yes,

SOMETHING AWESOME HAS OCCURED.

[VoltageHero]

While this is cool and all, I hope people are still taking into account how space travel is for the average human, right now.

In the end, none of it will really affect us, at our current situation.

Unless we are highly trained astronauts, or skilled researchers, we won't have anything to do with warp bubbles, faster-than-light, or even just plain old space travel in our life times.

It's cool, yeah. Is it going to change our (our personal) lives? No.

You'd probably be able to more easily get, and be in a "sci-fi" world, the newly released real hover-boards, or Google Glass, than be involved with either FTL or warp bubbles.

[Tainavaa]

We're excited for science and progress, not delusional. Thanks though, mom.