https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/26/rice...y-project/

Seems a Rice professor was involved in genetically modifying DNA for a set of twins.

Rice has opened an investigation citing "regardless of where it was conducted, this work as described in press reports violates scientific conduct guidelines and is inconsistent with ethical norms of the scientific community and Rice University.”

Dont know enough on the procedure to give an educated opinion on it, but the concept is fascinating. This could be huge, changing lives to the degree that vaccines did.

Personally, given that Rice turned a completely blind eye to Smisek and his "ethics", it's rather hypocritical of the university to issue such a statement. But Rice is pretty good at selective enforcement of standards, so not surprised.

Curious on what people think, especially those who understand the science.

I'm like you - I probably don't understand all the issues at stake here although it sounds a bit Nazi-like with the possibility of genetically engineering super races in the future. But I will say, there is already a ton of genetic shaping going on in the world today (with companies making huge profits off it) in the world of helping couples conceive who can't (or don't want to try) for one reason or another. I'm not sure of the philosophical differences between something like this and a surrogate mother who carries a baby to full term and then gives up the baby to another (usually for profit but not always). I realize you're not changing genetics in that case but you are picking a babies' genetic make-up in advance.

Yeah he wasn’t running the experiments but he was the PhD advisor (at Rice) for the scientist who went back to China after his postdoc. I was wondering if someone was going to post this but figured it would be in the Quad. Rice is covering their ass here and you’re right about selective enforcement. For example when the associate dean of students sleeps with his married subordinate his pal Hutch found no issues or rules broken.

The scientific community in Europe and the US considers this unethical because you’re altering genes that can be passed on to future generations and we’ve never done that. There’s a forum in HK coming up to discuss implications but no one thought it should be done yet. In this case you’re also altering healthy embryos and the side effects are unknown. Tests with editing embryos have been pretty successful I think but there are questions about what if all the cells don’t get edited or what it could potentially impact in a human later on. People also worry about designer babies where the rich can pick and choose physical attributes or adjust things like IQ.

Regardless of people’s ethical opinion if the science is real (big if for now) it’s a huge breakthrough. The potential of eliminating all genetically inherited diseases can’t really be framed in a bad way. Personally I also don’t see an issue with increasing IQ or physical attributes but I can understand people’s qualms about the separate society of rich that are genetically enhanced to be better.

(11-26-2018 09:46 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  Yeah he wasn’t running the experiments but he was the PhD advisor (at Rice) for the scientist who went back to China after his postdoc. I was wondering if someone was going to post this but figured it would be in the Quad. Rice is covering their ass here and you’re right about selective enforcement. For example when the associate dean of students sleeps with his married subordinate his pal Hutch found no issues or rules broken.

The scientific community in Europe and the US considers this unethical because you’re altering genes that can be passed on to future generations and we’ve never done that. There’s a forum in HK coming up to discuss implications but no one thought it should be done yet. In this case you’re also altering healthy embryos and the side effects are unknown. Tests with editing embryos have been pretty successful I think but there are questions about what if all the cells don’t get edited or what it could potentially impact in a human later on. People also worry about designer babies where the rich can pick and choose physical attributes or adjust things like IQ.

Regardless of people’s ethical opinion if the science is real (big if for now) it’s a huge breakthrough. The potential of eliminating all genetically inherited diseases can’t really be framed in a bad way. Personally I also don’t see an issue with increasing IQ or physical attributes but I can understand people’s qualms about the separate society of rich that are genetically enhanced to be better.

He wasn't running the experiments, but he was involved, making trips to China to at least observe, and he also holds a stake in the scientist's companies. There are definitely ethical issues involved here, although I don't know how Rice views this sort of work. Like has been mentioned, we don't allow this kind of work to be done in the US or in Europe because there's just a lot we don't know. My understanding is that these girls were edited to knock out a gene that allows the HIV virus to enter human cells, although for some reason one of the girls did not have both copies of the gene edited, which would in theory leave her still open to infection (ethical issues there too). Moreover, there's evidence that suggests that knocking out this gene has other effects, such as increasing the likelihood of West Nile and dying from the flu...and those are just the things we know about. I really do believe gene editing will be a huge advance in our medical science, we just have to be responsible, because we really don't understand as much as we need to right now.

Could have used this guy's opinion:

Engelhardt, leading bioethicist and longtime philosophy professor, dies at 77

A Tribute to Professor H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., PhD., MD (1941-2018)

(11-26-2018 09:05 PM)Antarius Wrote:  https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/26/rice...y-project/
Curious on what people think, especially those who understand the science.

I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

So an overview is that CRISPR is generally thought of as a major component of the bacterial immune system. Since bacteria are susceptible to being attacked by viruses (which generally work by inserting their own DNA into the bacteria), the basic idea is that CRISPR is a way to recognize viral (foreign) DNA and to render it ineffective, typically by introducing a mutation into the viral DNA.

So how does it introduce the mutation? Generally, the genetic code is made up of a sequence of four letters - A,T,G,C. Each cell 'reads' that genetic code in order to produce proteins, which may be anything that is necessary for the cell's function - metabolism, growth, signaling to other cells, etc. The key is that each cell 'reads' the genetic code three letters at a time, in non-overlapping function. For example, a sequence such as: ATGCTGACCAAG will be read precisely in that order, without overlapping (ie, ATG CTG ACC AAG), and that generally produces a functional protein. CRISPR works generally by either deleting a random number of letters in that code, or inserting a random number of letters into that code. CRISPR therefore requires that we are able to identify this target sequence within a soup consisting of your whole genetic code. CRISPR is able to do this based on a template called a 'guide RNA (gRNA)'. Suffice to say gRNA is produced by bacteria, but not by human cells. I won't go into further details on this unless you're really interested, because it's not useful for this discusion.

So given this background, what does this mean for this to work in humans? There are two key components here:
1. We need to deliver a 'Cas9' protein. This is the basis for the CRISPR system, and is present in bacteria but not naturally in humans.
2. We need to deliver the gRNA template that as I said is produced by bacteria but not by human cells.
Keep in mind again, we have to know which genes we want to modify. Because this defines component #2 above.

There is a major problem with gene editing in humans, and that is that most traits - height, metabolism rates, susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases or neuropsychiatric disorders - all of these come from an interplay between your biology (your DNA) and the environment. This is where most literature you may read on the biology behind our physical traits is 'multifactorial' and 'polygenic' in biologic jargon. For example, genes Height1, Height2, Weight1, and Weight3 may all contribute to your height, so if you'd like your baby to be tall one day, you may have to modify all four genes. However, modifying Weight1 and Weight3 may contribute to unforeseen effects, such as increasing the possibility of your baby to be overweight one day. Furthermore, editing Height1 and Height2 may not be guaranteed to increase height if the environment is not correct (such as not having an appropriate diet).

Final note on CRISPR: keep in mind this is all predicated upon the idea that the Cas9/gRNA system is highly specific, which it is definitely NOT. Cas9, even with the correct gRNA, has the tendency to be error-prone, leading to introduction of mutations where you did not intend for mutations to be introduced. This is particularly problematic in biology because there is a general tendency for patterns within our genetic code - basically proteins that structurally are very similar to one another, thereby being part of a 'family' of related proteins. However, a difference in maye 10-30% of their sequence was enough to produce a different function.

Hopefully based on this information we can directly tackle the study in question here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46342195
The Chinese group that modified the baby claims to have made a baby more resistant to HIV by modifying a protein called 'CCR5', which is commonly thought to be the human receptor recognized by HIV, leading to viral insertion into CCR5-expressing cells. On my note above about CRISPR being error-prone, the group claimed that they did not see off-target mutations so we may (for the purposes of this discussion, although I am skeptical!) assume that they are right that they only modified CCR5 and nothing else. The problem of this approach is that CCR5 is also necessary for a very important function of the immune system - which is the recruitment of some cells of your immune system into sites of infection or inflammation. In essence, the group may have made babies more resistant to HIV, but impaired the babies' ability to fight off a common cold or flu. Therefore the plan to interfere with CCR5 was shortsighted and has an extremely high chance of impacting the livelihood of two babies.

Anyway - we are still far from the brave new world of 'designer babies'. Chinese labs generally have lower ethical barriers to performing experiments than labs in most other developed countries, so unfortunately, they will likely keep on doing things like this to add to their already amazing human rights track record.

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

So an overview is that CRISPR is generally thought of as a major component of the bacterial immune system. Since bacteria are susceptible to being attacked by viruses (which generally work by inserting their own DNA into the bacteria), the basic idea is that CRISPR is a way to recognize viral (foreign) DNA and to render it ineffective, typically by introducing a mutation into the viral DNA.

So how does it introduce the mutation? Generally, the genetic code is made up of a sequence of four letters - A,T,G,C. Each cell 'reads' that genetic code in order to produce proteins, which may be anything that is necessary for the cell's function - metabolism, growth, signaling to other cells, etc. The key is that each cell 'reads' the genetic code three letters at a time, in non-overlapping function. For example, a sequence such as: ATGCTGACCAAG will be read precisely in that order, without overlapping (ie, ATG CTG ACC AAG), and that generally produces a functional protein. CRISPR works generally by either deleting a random number of letters in that code, or inserting a random number of letters into that code. CRISPR therefore requires that we are able to identify this target sequence within a soup consisting of your whole genetic code. CRISPR is able to do this based on a template called a 'guide RNA (gRNA)'. Suffice to say gRNA is produced by bacteria, but not by human cells. I won't go into further details on this unless you're really interested, because it's not useful for this discusion.

So given this background, what does this mean for this to work in humans? There are two key components here:
1. We need to deliver a 'Cas9' protein. This is the basis for the CRISPR system, and is present in bacteria but not naturally in humans.
2. We need to deliver the gRNA template that as I said is produced by bacteria but not by human cells.
Keep in mind again, we have to know which genes we want to modify. Because this defines component #2 above.

There is a major problem with gene editing in humans, and that is that most traits - height, metabolism rates, susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases or neuropsychiatric disorders - all of these come from an interplay between your biology (your DNA) and the environment. This is where most literature you may read on the biology behind our physical traits is 'multifactorial' and 'polygenic' in biologic jargon. For example, genes Height1, Height2, Weight1, and Weight3 may all contribute to your height, so if you'd like your baby to be tall one day, you may have to modify all four genes. However, modifying Weight1 and Weight3 may contribute to unforeseen effects, such as increasing the possibility of your baby to be overweight one day. Furthermore, editing Height1 and Height2 may not be guaranteed to increase height if the environment is not correct (such as not having an appropriate diet).

Final note on CRISPR: keep in mind this is all predicated upon the idea that the Cas9/gRNA system is highly specific, which it is definitely NOT. Cas9, even with the correct gRNA, has the tendency to be error-prone, leading to introduction of mutations where you did not intend for mutations to be introduced. This is particularly problematic in biology because there is a general tendency for patterns within our genetic code - basically proteins that structurally are very similar to one another, thereby being part of a 'family' of related proteins. However, a difference in maye 10-30% of their sequence was enough to produce a different function.

Hopefully based on this information we can directly tackle the study in question here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46342195
The Chinese group that modified the baby claims to have made a baby more resistant to HIV by modifying a protein called 'CCR5', which is commonly thought to be the human receptor recognized by HIV, leading to viral insertion into CCR5-expressing cells. On my note above about CRISPR being error-prone, the group claimed that they did not see off-target mutations so we may (for the purposes of this discussion, although I am skeptical!) assume that they are right that they only modified CCR5 and nothing else. The problem of this approach is that CCR5 is also necessary for a very important function of the immune system - which is the recruitment of some cells of your immune system into sites of infection or inflammation. In essence, the group may have made babies more resistant to HIV, but impaired the babies' ability to fight off a common cold or flu. Therefore the plan to interfere with CCR5 was shortsighted and has an extremely high chance of impacting the livelihood of two babies.

Anyway - we are still far from the brave new world of 'designer babies'. Chinese labs generally have lower ethical barriers to performing experiments than labs in most other developed countries, so unfortunately, they will likely keep on doing things like this to add to their already amazing human rights track record.

Thanks for this

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 09:05 PM)Antarius Wrote:  https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/26/rice...y-project/
Curious on what people think, especially those who understand the science.

I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

So an overview is that CRISPR is generally thought of as a major component of the bacterial immune system....

....Chinese labs generally have lower ethical barriers to performing experiments than labs in most other developed countries, so unfortunately, they will likely keep on doing things like this to add to their already amazing human rights track record.

I also appreciate your information in this matter.

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 09:05 PM)Antarius Wrote:  https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/26/rice...y-project/
Curious on what people think, especially those who understand the science.

I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

So an overview is that CRISPR is generally thought of as a major component of the bacterial immune system. Since bacteria are susceptible to being attacked by viruses (which generally work by inserting their own DNA into the bacteria), the basic idea is that CRISPR is a way to recognize viral (foreign) DNA and to render it ineffective, typically by introducing a mutation into the viral DNA.

So how does it introduce the mutation? Generally, the genetic code is made up of a sequence of four letters - A,T,G,C. Each cell 'reads' that genetic code in order to produce proteins, which may be anything that is necessary for the cell's function - metabolism, growth, signaling to other cells, etc. The key is that each cell 'reads' the genetic code three letters at a time, in non-overlapping function. For example, a sequence such as: ATGCTGACCAAG will be read precisely in that order, without overlapping (ie, ATG CTG ACC AAG), and that generally produces a functional protein. CRISPR works generally by either deleting a random number of letters in that code, or inserting a random number of letters into that code. CRISPR therefore requires that we are able to identify this target sequence within a soup consisting of your whole genetic code. CRISPR is able to do this based on a template called a 'guide RNA (gRNA)'. Suffice to say gRNA is produced by bacteria, but not by human cells. I won't go into further details on this unless you're really interested, because it's not useful for this discusion.

So given this background, what does this mean for this to work in humans? There are two key components here:
1. We need to deliver a 'Cas9' protein. This is the basis for the CRISPR system, and is present in bacteria but not naturally in humans.
2. We need to deliver the gRNA template that as I said is produced by bacteria but not by human cells.
Keep in mind again, we have to know which genes we want to modify. Because this defines component #2 above.

There is a major problem with gene editing in humans, and that is that most traits - height, metabolism rates, susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases or neuropsychiatric disorders - all of these come from an interplay between your biology (your DNA) and the environment. This is where most literature you may read on the biology behind our physical traits is 'multifactorial' and 'polygenic' in biologic jargon. For example, genes Height1, Height2, Weight1, and Weight3 may all contribute to your height, so if you'd like your baby to be tall one day, you may have to modify all four genes. However, modifying Weight1 and Weight3 may contribute to unforeseen effects, such as increasing the possibility of your baby to be overweight one day. Furthermore, editing Height1 and Height2 may not be guaranteed to increase height if the environment is not correct (such as not having an appropriate diet).

Final note on CRISPR: keep in mind this is all predicated upon the idea that the Cas9/gRNA system is highly specific, which it is definitely NOT. Cas9, even with the correct gRNA, has the tendency to be error-prone, leading to introduction of mutations where you did not intend for mutations to be introduced. This is particularly problematic in biology because there is a general tendency for patterns within our genetic code - basically proteins that structurally are very similar to one another, thereby being part of a 'family' of related proteins. However, a difference in maye 10-30% of their sequence was enough to produce a different function.

Hopefully based on this information we can directly tackle the study in question here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46342195
The Chinese group that modified the baby claims to have made a baby more resistant to HIV by modifying a protein called 'CCR5', which is commonly thought to be the human receptor recognized by HIV, leading to viral insertion into CCR5-expressing cells. On my note above about CRISPR being error-prone, the group claimed that they did not see off-target mutations so we may (for the purposes of this discussion, although I am skeptical!) assume that they are right that they only modified CCR5 and nothing else. The problem of this approach is that CCR5 is also necessary for a very important function of the immune system - which is the recruitment of some cells of your immune system into sites of infection or inflammation. In essence, the group may have made babies more resistant to HIV, but impaired the babies' ability to fight off a common cold or flu. Therefore the plan to interfere with CCR5 was shortsighted and has an extremely high chance of impacting the livelihood of two babies.

Anyway - we are still far from the brave new world of 'designer babies'. Chinese labs generally have lower ethical barriers to performing experiments than labs in most other developed countries, so unfortunately, they will likely keep on doing things like this to add to their already amazing human rights track record.

The error-prone nature of this process is what gives me the greatest pause, regardless of the ethical issues of modifying humans.

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

Thank you for the detailed write up. Learned a lot.

My pleasure. Your taxes help keep our labs running particularly via the NIH and NSF, so we also welcome the responsibility to keep yall informed as to how those taxes are going to work :)

On one final note: while I do stand behind my comments about China's lower sense of ethics and human rights, to be absolutely fair, we do have companies based here in the US that are looking to commercialize therapies based on this same technology. A key difference is that here, it is being used to tackle diseases in cells of adults rather than at the embryonic stem cell (a fertilized egg) level, which makes the bioethics side a lot more defensible. This is possible whenever the target disease may be caused predominantly by a single gene. For example, yall may remember that ice bucket challenge a few years ago that raised money for research on ALS. ALS is complicated, but it also helped raise awareness for a related and similar disease - DMD (Duchenne's muscular dystrophy), which has been linked to a problem in a single gene, appropriately called 'dystrophin'. In this case, correcting or interfering with dystrophin using CRISPR technologies has been thought to be a way to cure the disease. An ex-colleague of mine was able to cure DMD in mice by doing this (https://today.duke.edu/2015/12/crisprmousedmd).

- http://www.crisprtx.com/
- https://beamtx.com/
- https://www.editasmedicine.com/

We should have kept this all in house to return to football prominence...in 2036. About as much of a plan as we've ever had.

(11-27-2018 06:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

Thank you for the detailed write up. Learned a lot.

Yep!!

(11-28-2018 10:38 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  We should have kept this all in house to return to football prominence...in 2036. About as much of a plan as we've ever had.

Okay, I laughed

(11-28-2018 10:38 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  We should have kept this all in house to return to football prominence...in 2036. About as much of a plan as we've ever had.

Went to yahoo.com this morning and there is a picture of Lovett Hall top, front, & center with an article on this. Any publicity is good publicity?

(11-28-2018 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

Thank you for the detailed write up. Learned a lot.

Yep!!

(11-28-2018 10:38 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  We should have kept this all in house to return to football prominence...in 2036. About as much of a plan as we've ever had.

Okay, I laughed

So you need a doctor

(11-27-2018 03:42 PM)grol Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

So an overview is that CRISPR is generally thought of as a major component of the bacterial immune system. Since bacteria are susceptible to being attacked by viruses (which generally work by inserting their own DNA into the bacteria), the basic idea is that CRISPR is a way to recognize viral (foreign) DNA and to render it ineffective, typically by introducing a mutation into the viral DNA.

So how does it introduce the mutation? Generally, the genetic code is made up of a sequence of four letters - A,T,G,C. Each cell 'reads' that genetic code in order to produce proteins, which may be anything that is necessary for the cell's function - metabolism, growth, signaling to other cells, etc. The key is that each cell 'reads' the genetic code three letters at a time, in non-overlapping function. For example, a sequence such as: ATGCTGACCAAG will be read precisely in that order, without overlapping (ie, ATG CTG ACC AAG), and that generally produces a functional protein. CRISPR works generally by either deleting a random number of letters in that code, or inserting a random number of letters into that code. CRISPR therefore requires that we are able to identify this target sequence within a soup consisting of your whole genetic code. CRISPR is able to do this based on a template called a 'guide RNA (gRNA)'. Suffice to say gRNA is produced by bacteria, but not by human cells. I won't go into further details on this unless you're really interested, because it's not useful for this discusion.

So given this background, what does this mean for this to work in humans? There are two key components here:
1. We need to deliver a 'Cas9' protein. This is the basis for the CRISPR system, and is present in bacteria but not naturally in humans.
2. We need to deliver the gRNA template that as I said is produced by bacteria but not by human cells.
Keep in mind again, we have to know which genes we want to modify. Because this defines component #2 above.

There is a major problem with gene editing in humans, and that is that most traits - height, metabolism rates, susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases or neuropsychiatric disorders - all of these come from an interplay between your biology (your DNA) and the environment. This is where most literature you may read on the biology behind our physical traits is 'multifactorial' and 'polygenic' in biologic jargon. For example, genes Height1, Height2, Weight1, and Weight3 may all contribute to your height, so if you'd like your baby to be tall one day, you may have to modify all four genes. However, modifying Weight1 and Weight3 may contribute to unforeseen effects, such as increasing the possibility of your baby to be overweight one day. Furthermore, editing Height1 and Height2 may not be guaranteed to increase height if the environment is not correct (such as not having an appropriate diet).

Final note on CRISPR: keep in mind this is all predicated upon the idea that the Cas9/gRNA system is highly specific, which it is definitely NOT. Cas9, even with the correct gRNA, has the tendency to be error-prone, leading to introduction of mutations where you did not intend for mutations to be introduced. This is particularly problematic in biology because there is a general tendency for patterns within our genetic code - basically proteins that structurally are very similar to one another, thereby being part of a 'family' of related proteins. However, a difference in maye 10-30% of their sequence was enough to produce a different function.

Hopefully based on this information we can directly tackle the study in question here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46342195
The Chinese group that modified the baby claims to have made a baby more resistant to HIV by modifying a protein called 'CCR5', which is commonly thought to be the human receptor recognized by HIV, leading to viral insertion into CCR5-expressing cells. On my note above about CRISPR being error-prone, the group claimed that they did not see off-target mutations so we may (for the purposes of this discussion, although I am skeptical!) assume that they are right that they only modified CCR5 and nothing else. The problem of this approach is that CCR5 is also necessary for a very important function of the immune system - which is the recruitment of some cells of your immune system into sites of infection or inflammation. In essence, the group may have made babies more resistant to HIV, but impaired the babies' ability to fight off a common cold or flu. Therefore the plan to interfere with CCR5 was shortsighted and has an extremely high chance of impacting the livelihood of two babies.

Anyway - we are still far from the brave new world of 'designer babies'. Chinese labs generally have lower ethical barriers to performing experiments than labs in most other developed countries, so unfortunately, they will likely keep on doing things like this to add to their already amazing human rights track record.

Thanks for this

+1

(11-28-2018 11:20 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

Thank you for the detailed write up. Learned a lot.

Yep!!

(11-28-2018 10:38 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  We should have kept this all in house to return to football prominence...in 2036. About as much of a plan as we've ever had.

Okay, I laughed

So you need a doctor

I knew there had to be a way to integrate CRISPR with STRIVR.

(11-28-2018 01:12 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 11:20 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

Thank you for the detailed write up. Learned a lot.

Yep!!

(11-28-2018 10:38 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  We should have kept this all in house to return to football prominence...in 2036. About as much of a plan as we've ever had.

Okay, I laughed

So you need a doctor

I knew there had to be a way to integrate CRISPR with STRIVR.

I love your ingenuity. There is a place on our team for you.

(11-28-2018 01:12 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 11:20 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:19 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I figured I'd weigh in because I do understand the science and have dabbled in the technique myself, although not to create genetically-modified babies!!!

Thank you for the detailed write up. Learned a lot.

Yep!!

(11-28-2018 10:38 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  We should have kept this all in house to return to football prominence...in 2036. About as much of a plan as we've ever had.

Okay, I laughed

So you need a doctor

I knew there had to be a way to integrate CRISPR with STRIVR.

Would that make us a WINNR?