Source: TW
Since everyone and their mother are talking about the birth of CRISPR Dong and CRISPR Ding I’m piling on with a couple of long threads.
I’m just saying a little bit about the science in case someone is interested but mostly the politics:
They disrupted the CCR5 gene which codes for a 7-transmembrane receptor protein for at least 5 signaling proteins called chemokines in the immune system. It is expressed on many cells of the immune system called white blood cells in lay language and is used as the receptor by HIV-1 one of the AIDS viruses. It might have been used in someway by the unrelated smallpox virus too.
The genetic manipulation they did is not technically very exciting from whatever we see in their announcements. Such have been used in non-human animals for some time now and is sort of the thing CRISPR tech is best at: disrupting a gene.
I would be v.curious to see how the 2 edited chIna-s fare in life
especially if they get some West Nile like virus infection for which CCR5 would prove useful rather than deleterious for such infections.
More generally, the wisdom of knocking out a chemokine receptor
which does have a positive role in the immunity against certain viruses should be seriously questioned.
But then these chIna-s are not living in the “wild”.
Source: TW
Continuing from that thread: We believe their aims are deeper e.g. see last part of this apolog we wrote last year.
Those who have studied the Han ideology and intentions have known that this was going to happen and there have probably already been many attempts or trials on larger scale in non-human animals and plants.
The most interesting thing is the Chinese announcement of their triumph:
- He (the chIna’s name) is careful in presenting his case in English: clearly he is taking an aim at the Western audience.
- He also mentioned right away that they were chIna babies that he had engineered: no shit of science without borders, science knows no nations and all that.
- He states that he is doing it for AIDS patients who are discriminated against badly and have had no chance to have a family in “developing countries”. This is again a message to touch the white liberal academia.
- The names of the gamete donors and the kids born out of the experiment are all western/generic like Grace, Mark, Nana etc. This is again aimed at the mlechCha-s.
- He then gives a tailpiece statement specifically saying he does not want the technique to be used to improve IQ, skin color etc of kids and makes a token condemnation of it: clearly this is again to assuage the moral compass of the Abrahamistic west.
- Finally, he presents it as a medical advance rather than eugenics without ever going into the wisdom of disrupting CCR5 and whether there could be unintended consequences.
A sales pitch. We heard that He’s PhD adviser in mlechCha land is being investigated by his university to see if he has done something unethical in advising this chIna who has left his lab. Clearly, shows the difference in mindset of the mlechCha-s vs the chIna-s.
chIna-s almost think they own CRISPR. Hence, they wanted to show the mlechCha-s what they could do this is almost like bomb-demo aimed at them.
In the meantime the mlechCha scientists crippled by the Abrahamism in their society are feeling the burn of the chIna PR victory.
We have have seen many fake chIna claims: could this be one? We will have to wait to see of they produce any solid evidence beyond their PR material but technically this is not difficult with the current biotechnology and low-hanging fruit.
I posit that the chIna-s are pursuing the forbidden fruits of the CRISPR Wong and super-Han albeit in secret. My own stance is not colored by Abrahamistic hold ups but I do thinks that this form of eugenics needs more careful consideration: e.g. CCR5 is not there for nothing: do we know all about it before disrupting it.
Dual use
Source: TW
When the chIna-s edited CCR5 to make their “CRISPR” children, they claimed it was for HIV resistance. However, it was more likely concealed dual use in the least: probably to increase cognitive abilities as modulating CCR5 signaling improves learning and memory. It would have been a good way to use the cover of something benign as HIV resistance to test out cognitive boosterism along the general lines championed by chaps like Hsu – he, of course, wants to make 100s of edits.