Holy crap. The obvious use for this would be in vitro. However, I cannot wait to see how this affects those already born. Could it be used on someone who is a 7 year old to rid them of this? What if they're 50? So cool. Can't wait to see where this goes.
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
686 points (100.0% liked)
Uplifting News
15577 readers
1628 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The article mentions the technique worked on most (differentiated) skin cells they tested on, in addition to working on (undifferentiated) stem cells.
But, there's a lot of steps between this article and any sort of treatment, if I understand correctly.
It might be easier to just edit the gametes before they form a zygote at all. That would also make consent for treatment much clearer.
Until someone who knows more tells me otherwise, no. It would have to be applied to a human at the stage of a single cell
You are right (at the 8 cell stage you can still separate them and treat them one at a time, giving you multiple shots at IVF)
Two of the main issues regarding gene editing when not talking single cells are the transfer into the nucleus, and then accessing the DNA you want.
In bacteria, the DNA kinda just swims around in the cell, which makes editing easy if you can get the CRISPR/Cas9 complex in the cell. But animal cells have another membrane surrounding the DNA, making the transfer less than straightforward.
Regarding access: our DNA isn't lying around like mom's spaghetti, but rather pretty tightly packed around histones - a protein octamer.
This means that your target might not be reachable (the cell itself has 3 options iirc: slide the DNA over the surface of the histone, replace a part of the histone with an alternative, or remove the histone altogether) Since the way the DNA is wound around the histones affects gene activity (something tightly packed is not active, something in a loose area is getting transcribed into mRNA and therefore possibly active), you cannot just unwind all of it.
The only time this is not the case is during cell division, where the nucleus is getting dismantled so the DNA can be duplicated and both new cells can get their own copy. But many cells do not divide in an adult (except for a reservoir of stem cells which are there to replace lost cells)
So, it's all very complicated.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Humanity, one step closer to get rid of all of the genetic defects that we have accumulated because of our own reproductive stupidity.
I wish for a future in which genetic diseases do not exist. 👐
I wish for a future in which genetic diseases do not exist. 👐
That's nice, but unambitious. Be bolder, think where we'll be able to take this after that.
Me, I'm thinking catgirls.
Can it remove my depression and make me love myself?
This seems good initially.
I just really really hope they won't try to "cure autism" with this next.
Autism is an important and fundamental part of me. The fact that it's often classified as a disease is understandable, but nevertheless sickens me.
They don't even know what autism is. Genetics play a role, but most likely they simply affect the chances of developing autism. And really autism is a spectrum, so think like a clock. If the minute hand is between 10 and 2, it is autism, the rest isn't. So it is less a thing you "have" and more about being in a range from thing that ends up causing a snowball effect. My kid is autistic. It is like there is a missing feedback channel that would cause a typical kid to modify there behavior. All that really translates to is a lower sensitivity to a specific feedback. Typical people will have a range, he is just very low on that range.
Please straight up cure my ADHD. I do NOT want it!
load more comments
(2 replies)
While this is fabulous news I do worry that there could be similar done for other genetic conditions that are far more contentious as to whether they're a disability not.
Neurodivergence is the one that springs to mind right away. The majority of people on the autism spectrum are at level 1. While it has negatives there are positives into thinking and seeing the world differently.
How many of those would have been 'curered' in the womb by scared parents who've just been told that their child will be born autistic? Scared parents who's fear will mean when hearing that they think of someone at the far end of level 3.
Then what about for ADHD and dyslexia.
What about other physical conditions like dwarfism etc.
I don't know if you personally have any disabilities, but generally, when I see this take, the person doesn't.
I'd take a crispr treatment without hesitation. And everyone I know would do the same. My partner and I are doing IVF not for fertility reasons but to ensure certain genes don't get passed down to our kids.
That whole disability-is-a-positive view is a very privileged thing to say.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Pretty sure Autism is a lot more complex genetically and we don't even know just how complex.
load more comments
(2 replies)
So...Remember the X-Men series of movies? I forget which of the films it was, I stopped giving a shit about superhero movies a decade before it was cool, but one of them involved a "mutant cure." Most of Professor X's mutants saw it as an existential threat, but Rogue--whose 'powers' utterly sucked--saw it as something she wanted to do.
Ultimately I think the key here is individual consent. Yes and No need to be equally valid answers otherwise it gets pretty fucked up.
Some folks make a pretty good living for themselves looking at the world slightly differently than everyone else, other folks would like to do something with their life other than drool. Surely we the civilization that can split the atom and splice the genome can help both of these people live their best lives? Otherwise what the fuck are we even doing here?
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I did not realize CRISPR was so powerful as to remove chromosomes entirely. Can CRISPR be used to change someone's genetic sex? Republicans would freak out.
CRISPR on our gonads to produce estrogen instead of testosterone?
🤔 It's pretty tempting, and as long as it's not hereditary, I'm all up for it. 🏳️⚧️
Or testosterone instead of estrogen. Though I'm doubtful that exchanging X and Y chromosomes will change the physiological function of your existing organs that much.
I honestly just meant to do this for no other reasons than to flip the bird to conservatives who arbitrarily define sex chromosomally.
RED ALERT! WOKE LIBERAL COMMUNISTS ARE USING CRISPR BEAMS FROM LOW IRBITING SATTELITES TO FORCIBLY CHANGE OUR GENDERS! BUY MY ANTI-WOKE SUPPLIMENTS TO PROTECT YOUR MANLINESS.
load more comments
(6 replies)
This is from the future I always dreamed about, amazing
Jesus freaks will always complain about playing god when any type of genetic modification is used.
You're not wrong, but why are you bringing that up in response to that?
Not that'd it'd convince them, but that argument only makes sense if God is real, and you shouldn't be making laws based on your religion.
To actually convince them, I'd say that, if God is real, he created us with the capacity to understand this, and his creation has the capability to be modified by us. If he didn't want us modifying it he would have made it not modifyable, which he can do because he's omnipotent. Clearly this is a desired outcome if he's real.
It's my argument for drugs and stuff too. People use religion to say it's bad, but in my opinion it only proves that it can't be. He created it and us. Obviously it's intended to have these results and he wanted us to have access to it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The lab did specify that there's a looooong road between here and putting this in the clinic, but it's a good to see.
load more comments
(7 replies)