They now have a way to change a person's genes (with CRISPR).
Looks like you guys are gonna be able to fix that small wee wee of yours.
>>24727502
There always was surgery OP
And the Chinese are saying they can clone anything now, even humans.
Clone your own custom gf coming soon?
What's changing my genes going to do at 20 years old other than give me huge defects and probably fill my body with cancer?
can they clone me some fucking teeth cos i'm getting pretty close to requiring a dental crown desu
>>24728028
They've had success curing a birth defect in adult mice's liver. Possibly when the tech is fully developed, not any time soon, they'll be able to truly rebuild and enhance you.
Time to become that white man ive always dreamed of becoming.
>>24727952
>clone self
>coerce my clone to become a tranny
>free boipucci whenever
What a time to be alive
>>24728125
Well really then, by the time it will be affordable for the average person will be long after we're dead.
>>24728157
you won't be dead, unless you're like 50 now
>>24728157
It's not sci-fi shit, there's multiple companies and governments developing this technology. Obviously it's not something you can go in for right now, but it's coming pretty damn fast for how recently it was discovered/invented.
>>24728157
Start saving now
>>24727502
No they don't. There was even a meeting on THIS VERY DAY to issue a moratorium regarding future application of experimenting in CRISPR.
Otherwise, this year has been bretty gud for scientific discoveries.
>>24728535
lol moratorium
I'll just fly to China or wherever and have them give me a third eye or whatever.
>>24728535
>There was even a meeting on THIS VERY DAY to issue a moratorium regarding future application of experimenting in CRISPR.
They voted against a moratorium. The press and some corners of the bioethics set immediately wanted their say with some calling for bans. They even tried to set up a fallback position where germ-line editing would be forbidden if adult editing could proceed. Both failed, all experimentation is going forward, and rightly so.
>>24728618
Good luck with that one considering Chinese researchers who actually published a paper regarding research with CRISPR were possibly the first ones supporting the cease of advanced further research.
>>24728659
But they didn't. Obviously, as stated, they hold no real power but it seems most of the scientists were in agreement.
http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378
>>24728754
They didn't issue a moratorium or ban, they said it would be irresponsible to do this editing now - naturally, as this is still being worked on. But the experimentation is continuing, the door is open to doing it in the future and they'll revisit whether it's ready yet regularly.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gene-editing-ban-20151203-story.html
>With questions of safety, need and ethics still unanswered, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; the United Kingdom's Royal Society; and the Chinese Academy of Science agreed that "it would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing."
>Issuing a statement on the final day of a three-day colloquy, the gathered scientists did not close the door on the eventual clinical use of such "germline editing," in which the DNA of eggs, sperm or embryos are altered in ways that would be carried by all of the cells of a resulting child and passed on to subsequent generations as part of the human gene pool.
>"As scientific knowledge advances and societal views evolve, the clinical use of germline editing should be revisited on a regular basis," the panel concluded.
>California Institute of Technology biologist David Baltimore, who chaired the proceedings, said the Organizing Committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing steered away from using any terms -- including "ban" or "moratorium" -- that would stifle ongoing research on the clinical uses of gene editing short of its use to establish a pregnancy.
>>24727502
Can it fix my brain?
>>24728893
You'd be surprise.
>>24728887
Ah yeah, true. You're right.
It's probably too late for me to be internetting.
>>24727502
>thinking you can precisely modify genomes with CRISPR/Cas.
Off-site binding will make it infeasible.
>have big dick
>rich dicklets going to have a horse cock attached
END MY LIFE FAMILY
>>24727502
>you guys
nice projection
>>24729109
>it hasn't been solved yet so it'll never be solved
>>24729227
>They now have a way to change a person's genes (with CRISPR).
>now
>>24729349
>Off-site binding will make it infeasible.
>will
>>24728157
Take a lone
Reverse and cure ageing
Laugh at how naive of them it was to demand a flat sum.
>Get my genes altered to produce an 8 inch penis
>go back in time to when I was concieved and replace my pre embryo's nucleii with the new recipe
>profit?
I did research on crispr for a paper.
Yes, the Chinese are the first to successfully modify a human embryo, and they have been using crispr to modify dogs to make them more muscular, but here's the problem:
1. Moral fags restricted the study of human embryos so you have to destroy them after 2 weeks, so there haven't been any embryos fully grown into humans yet.
2. In the experiment the Chinese did, they modified about 60 embryos or so, and only like 5 divided cells that had the genetic material they wanted, the rest of the embryos overrode the gene manipulation and divided normally.
3. Even the dogs that were genetically modified was a marginal success. Over 70 dog embryos were modified to be born muscular, but only 27 were actually born, and only 2 displayed the genes that were desired, the rest of the dogs were normal.
Crispr is no doubt a good tool, but it's so new that it's not reliable enough to fix you. By the time it is, we will be dead.
And it's mostly because of moral fags whining about how "it's not ethical" and then the government has to step in and stop the research so they can discuss their feelings. In fact, right now, the national Institute of health, who funds this research, has stopped funding it until an ethical debate is resolved. So the research is being further hindered.
>>24729150
>published may 1945
que?
